Wow! That's a beautiful analysis. It reminds me of the worthiness of an interdisciplinary approach, as a literary critic you have such an original, deep insight. It is clear that cultural historians and literary critics should work together more often, it'd be so fruitful. 1) Yes, the films, the plays and the novels that attempt at certain historical realism are used as source of historical knowledge. That's obvious and to deny it is to refuse to see how "common" people access the past. Even professional historians only become professional after having acquired an idea about the past based on children's stories, comics, fiction books, movies and lieux de mémoire. This undeniable fact should produce a debate on the responsibility of the authors of historical fiction towards real people and real events of the past. It's not that I'd like to limit the liberty of the artists, but then people should be made very aware of the difference between history and fiction, even between fiction attempting at realism and fiction that deliberately takes things out of context, that takes many liberties - and I see that quite the opposite is going on nowadays. In case of the books, I really like how old fiction books had long analytic prefaces that explained many important things, including the contextualization. Imagine, for example, that Büchner's book would be read together with an analytic text written by a literary critic and a historian, stressing all the points you make in you post. That would indeed make a difference. Anyway, it would be good if history and fiction were more often presented together, side by side, to make people think about their problematic relation and to make them learn how to read (watch) critically. Wishful thinking, I know. 2) I agree with your analysis. Using the persons from the past as vehicles for our ideas, consciously and unconsciously, is very human, indeed, so I would not reproach Büchner or Przybyszewska for it. OK, I would, but I should control my tics ;-) Again, the problem begins when the piece is read (watched) as history or if it's presented without providing historical context. I'd really love if such "serious historical fiction" would always be accompanied by a debate, featuring both literary critics and historians. If the plays are read in school, then it's clearly the role of the teacher to provide historical context, including some articles on history, question the "realism", guide students from the most obvious, biased interpretations to a more nuanced ones. I cannot see any other solution, maybe you can think of some... What a silly idealist I am, anyway. And you are right, Rolland is really quite successful in letting his characters think and act like late 18th century men, not like proto-Nietzschean heroes or proto-communist prophets. 3) The Pylades syndrom is annoying, and you're right, both Rolland's Le Bas and Przybyszewska's Saint-Just suffer from it. Actually, many people do adopt this role in real life, but I don't see it historically justified in neither case you mention.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-09-06 02:13 pm (UTC)1) Yes, the films, the plays and the novels that attempt at certain historical realism are used as source of historical knowledge. That's obvious and to deny it is to refuse to see how "common" people access the past. Even professional historians only become professional after having acquired an idea about the past based on children's stories, comics, fiction books, movies and lieux de mémoire. This undeniable fact should produce a debate on the responsibility of the authors of historical fiction towards real people and real events of the past. It's not that I'd like to limit the liberty of the artists, but then people should be made very aware of the difference between history and fiction, even between fiction attempting at realism and fiction that deliberately takes things out of context, that takes many liberties - and I see that quite the opposite is going on nowadays. In case of the books, I really like how old fiction books had long analytic prefaces that explained many important things, including the contextualization. Imagine, for example, that Büchner's book would be read together with an analytic text written by a literary critic and a historian, stressing all the points you make in you post. That would indeed make a difference. Anyway, it would be good if history and fiction were more often presented together, side by side, to make people think about their problematic relation and to make them learn how to read (watch) critically. Wishful thinking, I know.
2) I agree with your analysis. Using the persons from the past as vehicles for our ideas, consciously and unconsciously, is very human, indeed, so I would not reproach Büchner or Przybyszewska for it. OK, I would, but I should control my tics ;-) Again, the problem begins when the piece is read (watched) as history or if it's presented without providing historical context. I'd really love if such "serious historical fiction" would always be accompanied by a debate, featuring both literary critics and historians. If the plays are read in school, then it's clearly the role of the teacher to provide historical context, including some articles on history, question the "realism", guide students from the most obvious, biased interpretations to a more nuanced ones. I cannot see any other solution, maybe you can think of some... What a silly idealist I am, anyway.
And you are right, Rolland is really quite successful in letting his characters think and act like late 18th century men, not like proto-Nietzschean heroes or proto-communist prophets.
3) The Pylades syndrom is annoying, and you're right, both Rolland's Le Bas and Przybyszewska's Saint-Just suffer from it. Actually, many people do adopt this role in real life, but I don't see it historically justified in neither case you mention.