3) I do like fiction, even a historical one. I do like Przybyszewska, Büchner, Rolland and Feuchtwanger, though I do not like the Scarlet Pimpernel ;-) But it's not the question of my literary preferences. I do not suggest people should only read historical scholarship. Not at all. That would be boring.
What I differ on is not the question of promoting an agenda through history or fictional writing, either. Because it's inavoidable, however deep, shallow, admirable or arguable this agenda might be. I know it and I don't need to be reminded of that.
What's more unconventional about my stance, is, however, that I don't think being an "artist" or "fiction writer" gives people a card-blanche to do anything with real people. You can disagree, I know my opinion is not very common n the "sell-it-all" times we live in. I do think real people -dead or alive- deserve certain respect. Of course a writer will always project her/his fantasies or agendas to the historical figures. However, I am not convinced that the fiction writers have the right to manipulate their characters in the sense contrary to any historical evidence. And historians certainly do not. If you end up being a professional writer, and someone later writes your biography, scholarly or fictional, do you think he/she has the liberty to invent crimes or abuse in your life just to make his/her book more "interesting"? I think he/she does not. And that's my point. Sorry, I know it's impopular.
![[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: 2009-10-18 06:27 pm (UTC)What I differ on is not the question of promoting an agenda through history or fictional writing, either. Because it's inavoidable, however deep, shallow, admirable or arguable this agenda might be. I know it and I don't need to be reminded of that.
What's more unconventional about my stance, is, however, that I don't think being an "artist" or "fiction writer" gives people a card-blanche to do anything with real people. You can disagree, I know my opinion is not very common n the "sell-it-all" times we live in.
I do think real people -dead or alive- deserve certain respect. Of course a writer will always project her/his fantasies or agendas to the historical figures. However, I am not convinced that the fiction writers have the right to manipulate their characters in the sense contrary to any historical evidence. And historians certainly do not. If you end up being a professional writer, and someone later writes your biography, scholarly or fictional, do you think he/she has the liberty to invent crimes or abuse in your life just to make his/her book more "interesting"? I think he/she does not. And that's my point. Sorry, I know it's impopular.