Possible "lightbulb moment"

It has finally struck me why I find the "revisionist" label so
objectionable. It's backwards - a white is black, black is white sort of
deal.

We are not revising history, we are attempting to determine what that
history actually was, & Richard's story as told by the Tudor writers should
just be labelled for what it is - fiction.

Which is not to say that - like Schliemann & the discovery of Troy - there
are not seeds of truth buried within that fiction.

A J

A J Hibbard wrote:
>
> It has finally struck me why I find the "revisionist" label so objectionable. It's backwards - a white is black, black is white sort of
> deal.
>
> We are not revising history, we are attempting to determine what that history actually was, & Richard's story as told by the Tudor writers should just be labelled for what it is - fiction.

Carol responds:

Actually, that's what "revise" (literally, re-see) ought to mean and does mean if used correctly. Merriam-Webster defines it as: " to look over again in order to correct or improve" (exactly what I do when I edit a manuscript. But "revisionist" has acquired connotations of altering and whitewashing--we're cleaning up Richard's soiled reputation not because it needs to be cleaned up but because we want to hide his "crimes" as "revealed" by traditional history.

So we *are* revising (or trying to revise) history to correct and improve it. But because, as you say, the word has become tainted and now suggests "rewriting" rather than correcting, it probably needs to be changed. How about "correctionist"?

As an editor and former English teacher, I find it sad that revision should be viewed as a bad thing!

Carol