Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Er, that's why it's called "fiction" - because it didn't really happen. If it is an accurate depiction of events that really happened, we call it "non fiction".
|
But it's also called "historical."
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
There is room for both fictional and factual depictions within the literary genre.
|
Of course, I agree. I have "no problem" with fiction except when people call a certain type of fiction "historical." It seems to me almost an oxymoron. I acknowledge that it is just a quirk that I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
The article doesn't agree with you. To the contrary, it specifically says that drama should not be judged primarily on the basis of historical accuracy.
|
I knew that the article didn't agree with me, but I thought that it was an excellent one; that's why I posted it.
Looking back on what I wrote, I think that I confused people when I said, "and it's not because it agrees with me!" I did not mean to convey that it did agree with me. The point that I was intending to make is that I think that it is an excellent article, and I don't think that way because it agrees with me. Whether or not it agrees with my thinking, I think that it is a great article.
BTW--I hope that everyone knows that I was joking when I said, "historical novels, period dramas, etc. shouldn't exist!" There's "nothing" that I hate worse than censorship--whether it is by government or by self-appointed speech police.