Should History Be Told In A Linear Or Nonlinear Narrative?

            History should be told in a nonlinear rather than a linear narrative. The difference between an analysis of history and history itself must be identified. Similar to how people listen to the scientists, not the actual science, the general public listens to the historians not the actual history. When history is told through a historian’s analysis, there is going to be bias as the historian seeks to prove a point through telling the narrative. This leads to the misrepresentation and ignorance of facts but is acceptable as already established the historian’s intent was an analysis rather than a full account of history. Thus, linear narratives make sense in this case.

            However, in the case which history is supposed to be told in its entirety, nonlinear narratives are appropriate. Man always attempts to establish a cause-and-effect relationship to understand the world. History does not always make direct sense as seen through the existence of isolated and sporadic events. In order to comprehend why events transpired, facts must be ignored to allow some moral or big picture to be told. Ultimately, history gets told as a long, linear narrative which in simple words, is unfaithful to reality. In the Postcards from the Trenches by Allyson Booth, the author tells us how even a soldier “’could not understand the war madness that ran about everywhere’” when returning from war. Even those who played an integral role in history cannot understand it, thus, reality should not be falsified to suite humans’ eager for knowledge.