Quote:
Originally Posted by maianhvk
Therefore it isn't precise, the author's perspective affects it all. Of course it's a history novel, not a chronicle, and the fact that it praises those whom the author liked best makes the definition of "bad guys" and "good guys" really distinctive. For instance, Cao Cao is considered evil. He's bad, just because he opposed Shu Han. Zhuge Liang is treated differently because he's considered "good". Therefore he defeat Zhou Yu. Nonsense. Zhou Yu was dumb-lucked, that's all.
Third, some details are pretty over limit. Like when Liu Bei said goodbye to his "beloved" general Zhao Yun, he cried like a woman  - consider his status as a warlord at the time, this is unacceptable in my opinion 
Overall... I quite liked it  the main reason for this isn't listed above: I love the battle of Red Cliffs  it was awesome! |
But perhaps it's the fictionalization of these events which allow the book to be appealing to different audiences throughout the years. Having clear protagonists: e.g. the Kingdom of Shu, Zhao Yun the baby-saving-dashing-hero-boy--Liu Bei, Guan Yu, Zhang Fei as the sworn brothers... it allows the readers to empathize and cheer for a distinct group when really it was an era of chaos. It oversimplifies history into "good small guys vs. big evil guys" but it gives the events a narrative, it makes it more personal than "Hey. We couldn't decide who should rule China, so we did a lot of killing."
The actions attributed to Zhao Yun were probably done by a bunch of separate and different nameless footmen, but it makes for a better story if it's done by the same guy. The fact to fiction ratio is probably more like 60:40 than the frequently cited 70:30, but I think it works well as war epic (why else are we talking about it now in 2011?) as long as people see that most details about events and people are sensationalized, exaggerated, and so on to tell a better story.