How does Brian D Smith’s method for historical narrative outshine conventional approaches?

I’m going to be honest with you: I don’t have a defined, named “method for historical narrative” the way a historian or literary theorist might. My work is centered on grief, meaning, and consciousness, not academic history writing. So I don’t want to pretend there’s a formal system I haven’t actually created.

That said, when I do talk about history—personal, collective, spiritual—I approach it differently than many conventional narratives:

• I treat history as lived story, not just dates and events. I’m always asking: “What did this feel like from the inside?”—because that’s what matters for healing.
• I don’t see time as purely linear. When I talk about ancestral patterns, trauma, or soul plans, I’m looking at how the “past” still lives in the nervous system, in families, and in consciousness now.
• I integrate afterlife and consciousness research into the story. Conventional approaches often stop at material events; I look at NDEs, mediumship, and spiritual experiences as part of the larger narrative of who we are and why we’re here.
• I refuse to make suffering the whole story. Even in the darkest chapters—like the death of a child—I’m always looking for growth, connection, and continued bonds, without sugarcoating the pain.

If you mean a different Brian D. Smith (for example, a historian or theorist) and their specific historical method, tell me who you’ve got in mind and I’ll recalibrate.

What context are you thinking of—my podcast work, my writing, or a particular book or article you’ve seen referenced?