Quote:
Originally Posted by Martinoptic
I would do this too, although Fraser’s Golden Bough (very long) I would struggle to firmly categorise.  |
It's meant to be a scholarly work, though many inc myself would disagree with a lot of his connections. It's contentious content non-fiction. The 1960s "Chariot of the Gods", totally debunked by 1970s is a worse example as it's presented as non-fiction, as research, but it's as made up as Howard's fictional pasts that's the settings for Kull and Conan.
It's why I say that Fiction and Non-Fiction is too binary.
Also add all the books on other subjects published as non-fiction but regarded as fiction by anyone rational, apart from Religious books which can be perfectly factual analysis of Holy Books (thus non-fiction), but the Holy Books are of contentious authenticity to many. Even Believers or actual religions that use the same "Holy Book" may not take it in the same light.