Anyone who doesn't accept Quinn's credentials as a bona fide historian is up in the night. Criticizing his 'niche' as being too small is not a valid charge. There are some pretty ridiculously specific historians out there. Plus, Quinn's work has been instrumental in the wider context of studying 19th century millenarian movements in the US, of which Mormonism was one of several. It's not like his work inhabits a vacuum.
In addition to uncovering and adapting innovative primary source materials (whether he was filching them from the COB or going through library manifestos in upstate NY), he is the de facto founder of the New Mormon History movement. Although we might trace the origins back to Brooks or Brodie (or, maybe Arrington, although haltingly), it was Quinn's voluminous writings, backed with mammoth footnotes that really brought Mormon Studies into its own in an academic format. So, not only is he a competent historian, he has fundamentally altered the course of Mormon historiography, and its attendant relationships to US history, Western history, and Religious Studies. To some degree, the contemporary successes of Bushman and Givens are because of Quinn's heavy-lifting.
I have first-hand knowledge of how Quinn was considered for and ultimately denied the position in Utah history at the U of U after the untimely death of Dean May. Some of the department, like SU, criticized the choice of publisher for his books. Others worried about how long he had been out of a university. I do not wish to suggest that these are illegitimate objections.
But the biggest problem was the fear he would be a lightning rod for controversy, and there was pressure brought be certain high-profile LDS donors. Plus, the U was raising money for that Tanner Humanities building at the time . . .
So, it's not like he was the unanimous choice and then this choice was overridden by a donor. Obviously, the department was free to make its own decision. There were a lot of factors at play. But none of the criticisms ever suggested he was less than a first-rate historian.
Tangentially, I think Quinn's work on same-sex dynamics, which is often overlooked, will become more relevant in light of current social trends. Plus, it's a U. of Illinois press, so that should get it some street cred. around here.
In addition to uncovering and adapting innovative primary source materials (whether he was filching them from the COB or going through library manifestos in upstate NY), he is the de facto founder of the New Mormon History movement. Although we might trace the origins back to Brooks or Brodie (or, maybe Arrington, although haltingly), it was Quinn's voluminous writings, backed with mammoth footnotes that really brought Mormon Studies into its own in an academic format. So, not only is he a competent historian, he has fundamentally altered the course of Mormon historiography, and its attendant relationships to US history, Western history, and Religious Studies. To some degree, the contemporary successes of Bushman and Givens are because of Quinn's heavy-lifting.
I have first-hand knowledge of how Quinn was considered for and ultimately denied the position in Utah history at the U of U after the untimely death of Dean May. Some of the department, like SU, criticized the choice of publisher for his books. Others worried about how long he had been out of a university. I do not wish to suggest that these are illegitimate objections.
But the biggest problem was the fear he would be a lightning rod for controversy, and there was pressure brought be certain high-profile LDS donors. Plus, the U was raising money for that Tanner Humanities building at the time . . .
So, it's not like he was the unanimous choice and then this choice was overridden by a donor. Obviously, the department was free to make its own decision. There were a lot of factors at play. But none of the criticisms ever suggested he was less than a first-rate historian.
Tangentially, I think Quinn's work on same-sex dynamics, which is often overlooked, will become more relevant in light of current social trends. Plus, it's a U. of Illinois press, so that should get it some street cred. around here.
Comment