Couldn't resist wandering over here from the other thread after being quoted ;)
Without at all meaning to condemn your request/suggestion point-blanc (not least since the French Revolution does not strike me as a 'fandom' overrun by fourteen-year-olds whose knowledge of and interest in the real people and events extends no further than 'oh my gosh so-and-so was so hot' - whereas yes, Henry VIII of all people does have those fans, for obvious reasons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758790/) - people on this community, even if they aren't averse to the notion of their favourites sharing slightly more than an idea, generally do know and respect What It Was All About, so it's quite possible that this brings up interesting pieces), I agree with Sibylla's worries in general, and especially with this: 'What I feel uneasy about is if that plot does not mean anything at all on the level of either historical or philosophical or even psychological interpretation [...] If it's so meaningless, why not to create fictional characters?'.
I don't disapprove categorically of fictionalised/dramatised history (I don't think anyone here does), nor even, as I called it, 'soap opera' (romance, but also adventure, anything primarily entertaining) in a historical setting (that is, set against the background of a certain period or event, but using original characters). If (as was/is sadly often the case) a writer has something to say they couldn't get away with if they presented it as entirely their own creation, there is no better guise than 'telling a story from [your era of choice]' - even though this can have terrible effects in the way the facts are perceived by the people who don't realise under what circumstances the fictionalisation happened (case in point, Büchner, who wrote a complex philosophical play and passed it off as a simple historical one that many are still happy to take for fact today). If a writer is interested in a historical personage and wants to explore not (or not only) the stone-cold facts of their biography but the human behind them and introduce possibilities - backgrounds, relationships, what ever - that aren't proven (nor disproven), that can surely be just as good and interesting, if they make it clear that they are writing fiction that is merely historically inspired. Though if the liberties taken are very many and only the basics remain of the real person, there is no reason the author shouldn't give their character a new name and only acknowledge the inspiration outside of the text itself - for example (I'm sure there are lots), John Banville did this in his "The Untouchable", the protagonist of which is distinctly recognisable as based on Anthony Blunt (famous art historian specialising on Nicolas Poussin, belatedly revealed to have worked for Soviet intelligence, on friendly terms with the English royal family, gay ...), but there are a lot of deviations, too, some of them significant, which, even if he had simultaneously acknowledged that he was taking liberties, would have been irritating (to me, at least) if Banville had called his character Blunt. But if it's not even that, but purely soap opera/dime novel, and the only connections to history are names, portrait faces, and a few stereotypical attributes, then even if you don't see anything wrong with using history for pleasure alone there is really, really no reason the writer shouldn't instead come up with their own characters and put them in the same setting. Przybyszewska, apart from meaning better than she did - all three points of 'because you think they did it, or because you use it as a metaphor or their political alliance, or because you want to express and stress Desmoulins' mental dependence on strong figures in his life' somehow seem to apply in her case - can't be accused of this, since she does include a lot of political and psychological exploration, far-fetched though it may be. But there are people out there - less in writing, more in film and TV - who consciously ab/use history in this pointless, trivialising way, and there are audiences out there who forget to question what they are shown.
no subject
Without at all meaning to condemn your request/suggestion point-blanc (not least since the French Revolution does not strike me as a 'fandom' overrun by fourteen-year-olds whose knowledge of and interest in the real people and events extends no further than 'oh my gosh so-and-so was so hot' - whereas yes, Henry VIII of all people does have those fans, for obvious reasons (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0758790/) - people on this community, even if they aren't averse to the notion of their favourites sharing slightly more than an idea, generally do know and respect What It Was All About, so it's quite possible that this brings up interesting pieces), I agree with Sibylla's worries in general, and especially with this: 'What I feel uneasy about is if that plot does not mean anything at all on the level of either historical or philosophical or even psychological interpretation [...] If it's so meaningless, why not to create fictional characters?'.
I don't disapprove categorically of fictionalised/dramatised history (I don't think anyone here does), nor even, as I called it, 'soap opera' (romance, but also adventure, anything primarily entertaining) in a historical setting (that is, set against the background of a certain period or event, but using original characters).
If (as was/is sadly often the case) a writer has something to say they couldn't get away with if they presented it as entirely their own creation, there is no better guise than 'telling a story from [your era of choice]' - even though this can have terrible effects in the way the facts are perceived by the people who don't realise under what circumstances the fictionalisation happened (case in point, Büchner, who wrote a complex philosophical play and passed it off as a simple historical one that many are still happy to take for fact today).
If a writer is interested in a historical personage and wants to explore not (or not only) the stone-cold facts of their biography but the human behind them and introduce possibilities - backgrounds, relationships, what ever - that aren't proven (nor disproven), that can surely be just as good and interesting, if they make it clear that they are writing fiction that is merely historically inspired. Though if the liberties taken are very many and only the basics remain of the real person, there is no reason the author shouldn't give their character a new name and only acknowledge the inspiration outside of the text itself - for example (I'm sure there are lots), John Banville did this in his "The Untouchable", the protagonist of which is distinctly recognisable as based on Anthony Blunt (famous art historian specialising on Nicolas Poussin, belatedly revealed to have worked for Soviet intelligence, on friendly terms with the English royal family, gay ...), but there are a lot of deviations, too, some of them significant, which, even if he had simultaneously acknowledged that he was taking liberties, would have been irritating (to me, at least) if Banville had called his character Blunt.
But if it's not even that, but purely soap opera/dime novel, and the only connections to history are names, portrait faces, and a few stereotypical attributes, then even if you don't see anything wrong with using history for pleasure alone there is really, really no reason the writer shouldn't instead come up with their own characters and put them in the same setting.
Przybyszewska, apart from meaning better than she did - all three points of 'because you think they did it, or because you use it as a metaphor or their political alliance, or because you want to express and stress Desmoulins' mental dependence on strong figures in his life' somehow seem to apply in her case - can't be accused of this, since she does include a lot of political and psychological exploration, far-fetched though it may be. But there are people out there - less in writing, more in film and TV - who consciously ab/use history in this pointless, trivialising way, and there are audiences out there who forget to question what they are shown.