Offtopic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katsunami
LOL, yeah. D/T problems. I love this one:
Verkeert (To be in a certain state)
Verkeerd (To be wrong, but also one of the past tenses of 'verkeert')
|
verassen vs verrassen (to become ashes vs to surprise) is a much better one
Quote:
Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks
I do enjoy history--I just like it better when it's fictionalized or told from a POV that is personalized!
|
It depends on the subject for me. Sometimes I like it better if it's fictionalized, sometimes it's better to simply read the bare facts. For me, it depends on size. It gives a completely different feeling if you read "1 thousand people were killed" or "I saw the streets littered with bodies, wherever I looked. I heard later that 1 thousand people were killed". The first I can't make a visual representation of in my head, the latter I can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid
To me, there's something offputting about trying to fictionalize historical events. It can only be enjoyed if you do not care about seperating the actual events from the fiction. And I do not want to be in that state of mind. I do not want to read something without caring whether it is factual or made up.
Journalism is always trying to find an 'angle' and fitting people into neat categories of heroes, villians or victims. Isn't that pre-chewed enough? Do we really need more?
|
Actually, I'd have it turned around. Journalism should never categorize, it should be completely neutral (which is impossible, I know, but theoretically, I think it should). Let me decide based on the bare facts which side was right or wrong.
Historical facts that are fictionalized will generally become better readable and if done right, readers will look further than the book and see where the writer took some artistic freedom with the facts.