Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
Of course I enjoy reading historical fiction, too, but I never make the mistake of thinking that historical fiction is "history".
|
I honestly can't understand how any one
would make that mistake. Fiction is fiction. There has always been fiction that utilized real places, people and events to help tell stories. Why, suddenly, are those that are set in specific historical periods being graded by a different standard (I don't mean by you personally, Harry)?
Is it only contemporary authors who write fiction surrounding events in the past who are doing "harm?" What about authors who write fiction which contains inaccurate representations of
current events/people? Will that become "dangerous" when enough time has passed that the events portrayed have become "history?"
It's impossible to single out historical fiction as being more "dangerous" than fiction in general. Which of course is the real problem: some people are simply pedantically opposed the use of the word "historical" in such close proximity to the word "fiction."