I've been reading a bit of historical fiction in recent weeks, and watch a lot of warfilms of one persuasion or another, but I find myself, for the most part, rather dissatisfied with a lot of it. Perhaps because I demand too great a degree of (perceived) historical fidelity that, to a lot of people, might detract from the drama of a presentation (e.g. Tora! Tora! Tora!, based entirely on acknowledged historical fact yet panned when it was released because of a lack of personability, even though now it's widely praised as the best graphic representation of Dec7-41 ever done). And s'why I find Gladiator, Enemy at the Gates, Pearl Harbor, U-571 and a whole host of other films to be complete drivel.
So, question: to what extent should filmmakers, authors, playwrights, comic-artists/writers etc etc justify the deviations from 'acknowledged historical personalities/events' in their work (aside from those people/events that are impossible to definitively verify whether or not they existed/interacted/occurred)? (Secondary question - to what extent should filmmakers, authors, playwrights, comic-artists/writers etc etc be allowed to deviate from 'acknowledged historical personalities/events' in their work (same conditions apply)?)
I'm going to say it's a good thing generally, after-all a book / film / video game is primarily there to entertain and it doesn't really matter as long as it doesn't pretend to be 100% accurate. If someone's really interested in an event or time period they can always look for more serious literature afterwards.
I think they should be able to do what they want and not have to justify anything. Why not? It's fiction, it's just entertainment, so why restrict yourself to the truth?
I think they should be able to do what they want and not have to justify anything. Why not? It's fiction, it's just entertainment, so why restrict yourself to the truth?
But it's more about those pieces of media that are purported to be 'true' yet sometimes blatantly aren't.
Moreover there is, really, nothing stopping a representation of history from being both truthful and entertaining... is there? If it was boring in the first place, why dramatise it?
I think they should be able to do what they want and not have to justify anything. Why not? It's fiction, it's just entertainment, so why restrict yourself to the truth?
But it's more about those pieces of media that are purported to be 'true' yet sometimes blatantly aren't.
Moreover there is, really, nothing stopping a representation of history from being both truthful and entertaining... is there? If it was boring in the first place, why dramatise it?
See, now here's where you can get interesting with this. Who is to say what's true and what isn't? In its broadest form, it's generally accepted that history is written by the winners, so where you read it in a textbook or saw it on the television, there's always going to be an element of fiction or bias to anything.
I think it's human nature to want to dramatise history, there seems to be a draw on putting a human face on history, from Gilgamesh, to King Arthur, right up to James Bond - by James Bond I'm just meaning spying in general. If you were to ask someone who the world most famous spy is, the answer is James Bond, not a real spy.
Another virtue of dramatisation is the interest that can be derived from it. Take Gladiator for instance - drivel you call it, and certainly it is very historically incorrect.
Emperor Commodus was not an incestuous dictator who killed his father, but a well liked ruler and whilst he did participate in gladiatorial combat he was not killed in a match, instead he was drowned in a bath by a wrestler named Narcissus.
No matter how little truth there is to a piece of historical fiction, if it sparks someones interest, gets them thinking and learning, I think that's a good thing.
So yes, there's nothing stopping someone from making a piece of historical fiction that's truthful and entertaining, but if they want to embellish, then why not?
See, now here's where you can get interesting with this. Who is to say what's true and what isn't? In its broadest form, it's generally accepted that history is written by the winners, so where you read it in a textbook or saw it on the television, there's always going to be an element of fiction or bias to anything.
I think it's human nature to want to dramatise history, there seems to be a draw on putting a human face on history, from Gilgamesh, to King Arthur, right up to James Bond - by James Bond I'm just meaning spying in general. If you were to ask someone who the world most famous spy is, the answer is James Bond, not a real spy.
See, that, I don't mind. When there are eras of history where collation of extant chronicles/annals create conflict in event resolution, by all means, pick & choose or interpret that fits the narrative, but sometimes, there is a sort of creative defiance in the declaration that 'this is fact' that annoys...
Another virtue of dramatisation is the interest that can be derived from it. Take Gladiator for instance - drivel you call it, and certainly it is very historically incorrect.
Emperor Commodus was not an incestuous dictator who killed his father, but a well liked ruler and whilst he did participate in gladiatorial combat he was not killed in a match, instead he was drowned in a bath by a wrestler named Narcissus.
Actually, the reasons for historical inaccuracies are quite petty compared to why I really dislike Gladiator. It was that Ridley Scott rather unrepentantly bigged it up as the best portrayal of Roman culture ever.
No matter how little truth there is to a piece of historical fiction, if it sparks someones interest, gets them thinking and learning, I think that's a good thing.
So yes, there's nothing stopping someone from making a piece of historical fiction that's truthful and entertaining, but if they want to embellish, then why not?
Here's where I'll cite BBC/NBO's Rome. The actual device of presenting the overarching story from the perspective of Pullo & Vorenus intrigued me (since they were both centurions who served in Caesar's legions as written in his De bello Gallico)... however the presentation was s'damned crass and in your face it rather detracted from the intellectual value of it. Yes, I know that sounds stupid in retrospect, but I actually thought that was a good idea, wherein historical characters who were known to exist (or rather, recorded to exist), but of whom we know next to nothing, yes, give them a few things to do with either tangential or direct influence on the characters 'that matter' so long as it didn't disrupt the course of what is recognised chronology (as well as its participants).
However, how this is applied should have some moderation to prevent wilful distortion, hence the OP using the phrase 'acknowledged historical personalities/events', since almost regardless of which period is being dramatised, there will be multiple versions which can at least on a general level be resolved with each other with a great deal of intricacy. While it's great that some people will have their interest piqued by historical fiction, what bothers me is that it ends up in a lot of cases that they use said media as their template of 'truth'... thus, I appreciate it when Steven Pressfield or Colleen McCollough or David Anthony Durham acknowledge that what they write is fictional with some fact in it (as opposed to a little fact with a shedload of fiction in it), particularly in the Masters of Rome series which has extensive appendices (though granted, some of which were unnecessary, but I still appreciated the effort she went through to explain her decisions of identifying characters and what they did in the way the narrative presented it).
Now, I realise that historical fiction has the word 'fiction' in it and it isn't bound to any obligations to be factual, but then one wonders at the word 'historical' in that context. Now, I've read a number of books (contemporaneous & modern factual as well as fictional) about a certain span of thirty years and the novels have ranged from downright insulting to pretty darn good, but the line is too fine (for me, anyway), wherein you separate 'fiction with interwoven fact' and 'fact diluted with fiction' (loaded language? of course... -_- ). Thus, those appendices I mentioned, it's up to the reader whether or not to read them, but they would provide a good (if 'popular') history lesson and serve to clarify/perhaps further entertain/educate and interest. As I mentioned, there is nothing stopping a historically faithful representation from being entertaining, and while you are right that embellishment can and should be made to add drama, I typically protest at its excessiveness and its 'intellectual misdirection' shall we say...
*shrug*
PS - Apologies for the apparent jumble of somewhat incoherent thoughts... long day! -_-
It really depends how important changing the historic details is to the story. If it's a detail that has a minor, or no effect on the actual plot, then they should try to get those accurate, because there's really no reason not to. However, if the plot wouldn't work without changing the history, then it's probably excusable. Although I find the less historically accurate a piece of historical fiction is, the better it has to be to make up for it. Then again, I'm not exactly a huge fan of historical fiction, so I'm probably not terribly qualified to talk about this subject.
I'm not sure I agree with messing with history....it mis informs people
though if the work is clearly fiction then Its ok
one thing that always annoyed me was putting modern vaules into the setting for the main charachters,, of coarse out main guys
-arent racist
-arent sexist
-don't belive in smoking
-have liberal veiws
I can't gelp but role my eyes everytime I see a "token STRONG INDEPENDANT WOMEN"
I've been reading a bit of historical fiction in recent weeks, and watch a lot of warfilms of one persuasion or another, but I find myself, for the most part, rather dissatisfied with a lot of it. Perhaps because I demand too great a degree of (perceived) historical fidelity that, to a lot of people, might detract from the drama of a presentation (e.g. Tora! Tora! Tora!, based entirely on acknowledged historical fact yet panned when it was released because of a lack of personability, even though now it's widely praised as the best graphic representation of Dec7-41 ever done). And s'why I find Gladiator, Enemy at the Gates, Pearl Harbor, U-571 and a whole host of other films to be complete drivel.
So, question: to what extent should filmmakers, authors, playwrights, comic-artists/writers etc etc justify the deviations from 'acknowledged historical personalities/events' in their work (aside from those people/events that are impossible to definitively verify whether or not they existed/interacted/occurred)? (Secondary question - to what extent should filmmakers, authors, playwrights, comic-artists/writers etc etc be allowed to deviate from 'acknowledged historical personalities/events' in their work (same conditions apply)?)
Let me put it this way, you want historical accracy? Go read a history book, you want entertainment, go read fiction. I say as long as you arent putting a Roman legion against the modern US military (unless this is FONV), you can spunge some historical facts to give the audience a more entertaining experience.
Most important though, when it comes to historical fiction, the historical part is the canvas, the fictional part is the artwork.
I don't have a lot to add to the conversation, since I see the value in both types of historical drama, but I have to ask...Have you seen the 1989 made-for-TV movie Day One, about the Manhattan Project? I've seen it a couple times, and I keep wanting to see it again. It manages to be both a really good drama and very historically accurate, and I strongly recommend it.
It was praised highly and even won an Emmy, but most people don't remember it. Unfortunately I think it's only available on VHS, which may have something to do with it.
I don't have a lot to add to the conversation, since I see the value in both types of historical drama, but I have to ask...Have you seen the 1989 made-for-TV movie Day One, about the Manhattan Project? I've seen it a couple times, and I keep wanting to see it again. It manages to be both a really good drama and very historically accurate, and I strongly recommend it.
It was praised highly and even won an Emmy, but most people don't remember it. Unfortunately I think it's only available on VHS, which may have something to do with it.
Actually... looks like it's been released on DVD (out in the UK under the title of Hiroshima aka Day One). Will give it a look...
ohnoitsabear said:
It really depends how important changing the historic details is to the story. If it's a detail that has a minor, or no effect on the actual plot, then they should try to get those accurate, because there's really no reason not to. However, if the plot wouldn't work without changing the history, then it's probably excusable. Although I find the less historically accurate a piece of historical fiction is, the better it has to be to make up for it. Then again, I'm not exactly a huge fan of historical fiction, so I'm probably not terribly qualified to talk about this subject.
Somewhat paradoxically... that's my take on it as well... the little details imply the effort taken and should come at no real cost to the creator, while the major deviations require too great a compensation in what would need to be a solidly gripping alternative plot. However, if that was necessary in the first place, why bother with the dramatisation in the first place and why not make it an original story with simply a historical setting? '
(thought continued below)
WanderingFool said:
Most important though, when it comes to historical fiction, the historical part is the canvas, the fictional part is the artwork.
Much as I like the analogy, that applies more to things like... le Comte de Monte-Cristo (the Hundred Days & after), Les Miserables (1832 Revolution), A Tale of Two Cities (French Revolution), Ben Hurr (Christ) etc. etc. etc. that is to say a fictional plot amidst a historical setting, where the actions of the cast do not impact on that of 'real events'. Now, to continue your analogy, the historical part is the canvas, the factual part is the coarse brushwork and the fictional part is the fine brushwork i.e. the semblance of historical recounting is there and it is obvious and the general aspects & characters form the foundation of the story, but it is the characters' interactions and their portrayal that allows the depth of drama, given by embellishments without compromising the integrity of what they did and how they did it. Or do you find this too restrictive?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
'