Quote:
Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8
ACK!!
The only acceptable mashup is the banana-and-peanut-butter kind. Mash the banana and stir in peanut butter. Slather on one side of a piece of loaf bread. Place the other side of the slice of bread on top of it. Oh, if you have some table syrup or honey, a little bit of that is good to add to the banana and peanut butter.
|
Ewwwww.... That sounds even more horrible than drama's!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMB
But when it comes down to it, historical non-fiction can't be treated as absolute truth. It's always based on limited information and the author always has an individual point of view. At least historical fiction doesn't usually make claims of objectivity.
|
As history is always written by the victors, I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
I think you missed the joke  Personally, I love historical novels (they're actually my favorite books, beside fantasy), so I think the start post is hysterical  |
I love fantastic science historical fiction best (think: Voyager, by Diana Gabaldon or the Many Coloured Land by Julian May). Or alternate history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
Sorry, but it has to be based on a real event or it cannot be historical fiction.
|
No, it can be based on a real event (but slightly altered to make it more interesting), or even placed in a historical background.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
This thread is bad as it will make new members think we are all daft.
|
Aren't we? To some people, people that read are daft...
But, if historical novels shouldn't exist, how can you tell the story about that workman in some big town who never had a major impact on the world (and thus was never recorded) but was very important to his family and his neighbours?