Erik Larson Quotes

I conduct very few interviews with veterans. The contemporaneous, or near-contemporaneous, record for WWII is so spectacularly deep that latter-day recollections are largely unnecessary for a historian. Of course, in considering any account, I'm looking for additional sources that can confirm or enlarge that version of events.

I am a historian. I do a lot of research, and I try to get it right.

History consists of facts attested to by evidence.

History, to be above evasion or dispute, must stand on documents, not on opinions.

With the Truman book, I wrote the entire account of his experiences in World War I before going over to Europe to follow his tracks in the war. When I got there, there was a certain satisfaction in finding I had it right - it does look like that.

I applied for funding to embark on an overseas field trip in Iceland, and spent six weeks there happily holed up in the national archives, museums and libraries, sifting through ministerial and parish records, censuses, maps, microfilm, logs, and local histories.

The Sunday School teacher talked too much in the way our grade school teacher used to when she told us about George Washington. Pleasant, pretty stories, but not true.

To be a good researcher is to be a good detective, and I enjoy ferreting out tidbits of information. For a diary book like 'A Coal Miner's Bride,' newspapers come in handy for small everyday details such as weather reports.

My books are based 98 percent on documentary evidence.

History is a facsimile of events held together by finally biographical information.

I am not someone who believes I am going to find a historical scoop.

One of the questions I face when working on a book about a historical event is whether I should visit the actual place that I'm writing about. No matter how scrupulously maintained a historic house or battlefield may be, it is nothing like it was in the long-ago past.

I deal with first-hand sources. And give the people, even John Sununu, the opportunity to respond to what I've been told by first-hand sources.

Nonfiction means that our stories are as true and accurate as possible. Readers expect - demand - diligence.

To reconstruct stories and scenes, nonfiction writers must conduct vigorous and responsible research. In fact, narrative requires more research than traditional reportage, for writers cannot simply tell what they learn and know; rather, they must show it.

History written today is much more accurate than history written in the 18th century.

It is impossible to write ancient history because we do not have enough sources, and impossible to write modern history because we have far too many.

As a historian, you can only go as far as the evidence will take you.

Most biographers are apt to be discouraged by the sheer volume of papers left behind by their subject.

Just because something is typed-whether it is typed on a business card or typed in a newspaper or book-this does not mean that it is true.

But then history does not only consist of documents.

On the subject of the history of the American Revolution, you ask who shall write it? Who can write it? And who will ever be able to write it? Nobody, except merely its external facts... all its councils, designs and discussions having been conducted by Congress [behind] closed doors - and no members, as far as I know, having even made notes of them. These, which are the life and soul of history, must forever be unknown.

I always tell my fans that are closest to me, if it's not coming from my mouth, my website, or my appointed person, then it's generally not true. Or it's an exaggeration.

Without archives many stories of real people would be lost, and along with those stories, vital clues that allow us to reflect and interpret our lives today.

In the course of writing one historical book or another, it has happened that I could hardly restrain myself from simply copying entire documents. Indeed, I sometimes sank down among the documents and said to myself, I can't improve on these.