Diana Gabaldon Quotes

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

We need to read history from the source.

I have certainly amassed many historical research gathering skills.

One of the problems with the Internet is that a lot of times it is inaccurate.

If you read any of my books, they tend to have a strong historical perspective.

History is only conjecture, and the best historians try to do it as accurately as they can. They try to accurately reassemble the facts and then put them down on paper.

There are one or two very good women military historians who use imagination, great study and research; they can put themselves in the boots of the soldier.

I lived in Calcutta for five months in 1999. While I was there, I read many journals, diaries, collections of letters and histories.

Nobody knows what really happened in any historical period. There are some periods where we know more than others, though.

I did a great deal of research to write 'The Irish Duke.' Since all the people in this Lords of the Realm series are real historical characters, everything had to be authentic. I researched Woburn Abbey, where my heroine lived, and everything about Barons Court in Ireland, which was the ancestral home of Abercorn.

I believe that historians and analysts of historical events need the authority of facts supplied by living witnesses to the events, which they make their subject.

Happily, researchphilia is not the problem it once was. The Internet makes just-in-time research very practical.

I always use primary sources, in addition to reading biographies and other materials.

The search for the truth for truth's sake is the mark of the historian.

In history, one gathers clues like a detective, tries to present an honest account of what most likely happened, and writes a narrative according to what we know and, where we aren't absolutely sure, what might be most likely to have happened, within the generally accepted rules of evidence and sources.

Ironically, the more intensive and far-reaching a historian's research, the greater the difficulty of citation. As the mountain of material grows, so does the possibility of error.

History is one of the only fields where contributions by amateurs are taken seriously, providing you follow the rules and document your sources. In history, it's what you write, not what your credentials are.

As a historian, I love every little detail, but whole long passages about wood paneling and journeys on horseback and every stop at every inn had to go out the window. I decided the history in the books should be like spice in a soup - a little went a long way. Like cilantro.

I remember when I was in school I had this teacher give me this E.L. Doctorow quote: They asked him how much historical research he does for his books and he said, 'As little as possible.' So I try and adhere to that.

You need, as a historian, essential triangulation from your subject and the only way you get that triangulation is through time.

What people actually refer to as research nowadays is really just Googling.

Courses on historical methodology are not worth the time that they take up. I shall never give one myself, and I have observed that many of my colleagues who do give such courses refrain from exemplifying their methods by writing anything.

Facts from paper are not the same as facts from people. The reliability of the people giving you the facts is as important as the facts themselves.

I basically did all the library research for this book on Google, and it not only saved me enormous amounts of time but actually gave me a much richer offering of research in a shorter time.

Get in the habit of vetting your research as you go - particularly research conducted online. Verify facts from multiple reputable sources before you record them.