|
I think we're looking at different aspects here. You say salad is healthy and tastes good, while I say that the cook never washes his hands.
One caveat, though - I have no problem with pure fiction taking place in historical setting. What irks me is fictionalizing of historical events, like when someone write Cleopatras biography. Sure, 'it's a novel, not a textbook' but on some level, it do functions as a textbook. As a reader, you're aware that what Cleopatra existed, and that what you read is what actually happened, kinda, except when it's made up. This limbo between what actually happened and make-believe rubs me the wrong way.
There were recently published a authentic novel about girl who was sexually abused by an older cousin. Only, the male author changed the victim to a boy and told "his" story in first person.
This novel irks me the same way. What exactly am I reading here? it's not fiction, but it's not authentic either. Am I supposed to emphatize with the true story of the boy, while I'm aware that it wasn't a boy at all?
|