Thank you for your reply again, I am really glad that we are having such a great discussion (which, I can assure, does not happen so often). My judgment about the movie "Danton" is probably different: I think this is a striking case of conscient manipulation in pretty much every aspect. What I read in it -but it might as well be my own idea of reception- it is the same rhetorical device that orators use, for example, when referring to characters of the past (this happens a lot in Cicero, for example): Wajda is taking something which is historical, but it is completely depriving it of its meaning to turn it into something else. As I see it -I think I told this already to hanriotfan is nothing but a giant metaphor (pretty much the same kind of manipulation that Desmoulins used when turning Tacitus' English translation in a portrayal of France political situation). Is that respectful of history? Absolutely not, of course, but this is not its aim and it is natural that any scholars of the periodo will go crazy about it (at first, it is the same reaction I have when confronting the reception of some figures from the latin or Greek history). Is this legitimate? Probably the answer differs according to the point of view (absolutely no for the historians, perhaps for the writer, yes for the rhetorician).
I agree whit what you said about the respect for the historical figures (which is, I think, an overall respect for the `Truth'of history), which should be the same that an historian should show, even he personally dislike/disprove of some of the said figures (and honestly I find that in the historiography of the French Revolution this happens quite often). Then a writer has another issue to take into account which is the point of view he/she is adopting, that will inevitably change his/her attitude towards determined character and in this sense will probably not be so close to the actual sources -or that will fill the gaps of the sources themselves (a trivial example could be if you want to describe the Duplays according to Charlotte Robespierre POV at the time of her quarrel with them, according to Maximilien or to a third fictitious character). Of course you first have to analyze your sources and then you can build on them.
As to being boring, I think a lot of authors make the mistake of thinking that the more you invent and deviate from the historical record, the more interesting your work will be. What I meant by that it is not the fidelity as in following the historical narrative, but in the very common and very annoying practice of inserting very long excerpt of the original sources into the narrative. For example I read last summer an historical novel on Catilina's conjuration, which was nice to read, but it had extremely long excerpt from Cicero's Catilinariae (more than half a page every time); perhaps it's just me, but if I want to read what Cicero actually said, I will take Cicero's edition and read it, I don't need a writer to give so much space in his/her text to someone else's text (if you really want to do so, use the appendix of your book). A Small and nicely chosen quotation at the beginning of a chapter is pleasant, but scattering quotations every few pages is really annoying.
Re: Clarification 1
My judgment about the movie "Danton" is probably different: I think this is a striking case of conscient manipulation in pretty much every aspect. What I read in it -but it might as well be my own idea of reception- it is the same rhetorical device that orators use, for example, when referring to characters of the past (this happens a lot in Cicero, for example): Wajda is taking something which is historical, but it is completely depriving it of its meaning to turn it into something else. As I see it -I think I told this already to
I agree whit what you said about the respect for the historical figures (which is, I think, an overall respect for the `Truth'of history), which should be the same that an historian should show, even he personally dislike/disprove of some of the said figures (and honestly I find that in the historiography of the French Revolution this happens quite often). Then a writer has another issue to take into account which is the point of view he/she is adopting, that will inevitably change his/her attitude towards determined character and in this sense will probably not be so close to the actual sources -or that will fill the gaps of the sources themselves (a trivial example could be if you want to describe the Duplays according to Charlotte Robespierre POV at the time of her quarrel with them, according to Maximilien or to a third fictitious character). Of course you first have to analyze your sources and then you can build on them.
As to being boring, I think a lot of authors make the mistake of thinking that the more you invent and deviate from the historical record, the more interesting your work will be. What I meant by that it is not the fidelity as in following the historical narrative, but in the very common and very annoying practice of inserting very long excerpt of the original sources into the narrative. For example I read last summer an historical novel on Catilina's conjuration, which was nice to read, but it had extremely long excerpt from Cicero's Catilinariae (more than half a page every time); perhaps it's just me, but if I want to read what Cicero actually said, I will take Cicero's edition and read it, I don't need a writer to give so much space in his/her text to someone else's text (if you really want to do so, use the appendix of your book). A Small and nicely chosen quotation at the beginning of a chapter is pleasant, but scattering quotations every few pages is really annoying.