"Historical" Fiction
DonnaLetto
considering that Highlander was a show firmly based in historical fiction.
An extremely distant relation on my father's side of the family was a noted
historical figure. In East Africa in WW I, Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck led a small
group of soldiers and African askari fighters against a British army under Jan
Smuts that was 10 times larger, and in the process revolutionized modern
guerilla warfare. He was so respected for his skills and his honor by the
British and the Allies that, decades later when the plot to assassinate Hitler
was being devised that culminated at Wolf's Lair, the British secretly
contacted him (where he was working as a gardener after being disgraced by
Hitler for his anti-Nazi views) to see if he would consider heading up the new
German government should the plot succeed. (He turned them down.)
Anyway, while tracking down a copy of von Lettow's autobiography for my brother
for Christmas (the Internet is a wonderful thing <g>), I stumbled upon a book
that was an "historic fictional" account of the African campaign by the author
of "A Man Called Intrepid." There was a used copy dirt cheap, so I figured
what the heck, and bought it.
I can't decide what I think of it. The basic historical facts are correct, but
some of the supporting characters are completely fictional -- including the
American woman who becomes his lover in the middle of the war, and the
illegitimate child he fathers with her. (OK, I know what I think about that
part. Eeew.)
It's gotten me thinking. Because I often indulge in creating historical
fiction, and I really haven't been thinking twice about adding fictional
characters when it suits the purpose. For example, I've been developing some
MOW screenplays based on strong historical women. I've been playing with one
about the Celtic leader Boudicca (my dream casting would be Camryn Mannheim
<g>), and I really think what would enhance the story -- from a purely story
structure/entertainment standpoint -- would be to give her a lover, or at least
a suitor. Her husband was much older than her and dies at the start of the
show -- that part is history. From a story structure standpoint, she needs
someone to talk to (basic sidekick theory) and something to humanize her while
she's ravaging Britain so she's not just a demonic bitch. So I think adding
this fictional character would really help the story, plus make for some really
good (and maybe sexy) scenes.
And I'm sure that's what the author who gave Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck a mistress
and bastard child thought, too.
I know that the emperor depicted in Gladiator really didn't die in the
Coliseum. That didn't bother me. (The fact that the set design was based on
2000 year old ruins and therefore looked like they'd weathered for 2000 years
bothered me more <g>) I felt at the time -- much like the way I felt about
altering history in Highlander -- that if it inspires someone to find out more
about the period and maybe learn the real story, then it's worth it. And if
the viewer isn't so inspired but is entertained, no harm, no foul.
I don't know why this one book has suddenly given me pause. Maybe because I'm
familiar with this particular story in more than a strictly "historical" sense.
I don't know.
I suspect there are more than a few readers and viewers of historical fiction
(which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if you want
to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to Highlander. Do you
have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work for you?
Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point entertainment
or education?
Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear what
others think about this.
Donna
(off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)
Jette Goldie
DonnaLetto <donna...@aol.com> wrote in
> Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear what
> others think about this.
<biting tongue>
Flora MacDonald.
--
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
boss...@scotlandmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
Shomeret
historical mainstream novels, fantasies, mysteries and romances). I have an
attraction to certain periods and cultural milieus, but I'll read any
historical fiction if it sounds interesting and unusual.
How do I feel about the the addition of fictional characters in novels dealing
with historical personages? That depends.
I don't like it when a historical novelist contradicts known facts about a
personage. I consider invention completely appropriate if the facts aren't
known. As an example, since no one knows for certain who the Dark Lady of
Shakespeare's sonnets was, you can theorize all you like about her in fiction.
There are people who think they know for certain, but there is no solid
historical evidence on the subject. But don't give us a historical fiction in
which the Roman Emperor Augustus had an Empress other than Livia unless you're
writing alternate universe.
I have no problem with the idea that Highlander is an alternate universe in
which immortals exist. That would make it easy to deal with historical
additions and contradictions, wouldn't it?
Re
>(off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)-- Oh I'm so
disappointed! I thought they were named after the HL spin-off and it was a
team of Amanda clones! <eg>
Shomeret
inge
> I suspect there are more than a few readers and viewers of historical
> fiction
> (which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if
> you want
> to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to
> Highlander. Do you
> have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work
> for you?
> Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
> entertainment
> or education?
>
> Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear
> what
> others think about this.
OK, I'll try to answer.
I think there's historical research, and than there's historical
fiction. In fiction, historical people do a lot of things they *might*
have done, but no-one knows. How did they dress? What did they say? Did
they go for an evening stroll? In most cases you can't know. And it
doesn't matter, because you're not documenting, but telling a story.
What thoughts and ideas caused them to do what they did? You can guess,
but you can't know.
Whether they had a lover, or a sidekick, of if they wrote diaries or
liked the colour red -- you can prove it if these things existed, but
you can't prove a negative.
What I mean is, there is a point where you automatically diverge from
reality, but you don't know where it is. And there's nothing at all
wrong with this, and if it's done to create a better story, I'd say, go
for it.
And than there is a point where you notice that you diverge. In those
cases, like 'Gladiator', you put story, drama, symbolism whatever above
known fact, and the history buffs will hate you for it. But as long as
you do not claim to be true to history it doesn't matter, either. Just
do not mislabel it.
Personally I'm slightly annoyed when historical circumstances are
misrepresented, or when people act grossly out of character. But what do
I know? Today's history is not the same as yesterday's and propably not
the same as tomorrow's, our view and interpretation of historical people
and circumstances change -- why should I expect movies or novels, of all
things, to give me 'truth'?
inge
---
History is the most frustrating of sciences... you know that the truth
exists but no one will ever know it...
DonnaLetto
>> Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear what
>> others think about this.
Jette answered obscurely:
><biting tongue>
>
>Flora MacDonald.
This doesn't help me. Yes, we all know the Flora MacDonald story was
completely changed for Highlander. That's a fact.
And I know you found it offensive. That fact hasn't changed. What I'm trying
to get to now is the *why*.
Are you saying historical fact should always be depicted to the letter?
Are you saying fictional characters like Duncan should never be inserted, even
in fiction?
Or were you offended by the depiction of Flora herself as something she wasn't
-- Immortal?
If you're going to help, then help <g>
Donna
DonnaLetto
>dealing
>with historical personages? That depends.
>
>I don't like it when a historical novelist contradicts known facts about a
>personage.
How about when it's facts that most readers wouldn't know -- like I doubt most
of the people who picked up this WWI East Africa novel would have a working
knowledge of von Lettow and Smuts, much less whether or not they were sleeping
with Americans?
The author goes to great pains in the author's notes to say the mistress is
fiction. I'm trying to figure out whether I would give a darn or not if I
didn't know that going in. (Or maybe it's just that I'm just weirded out to
see the word Lettow throughout the sex scenes <g>)
>I consider invention completely appropriate if the facts aren't
>known. As an example, since no one knows for certain who the Dark Lady of
>Shakespeare's sonnets was, you can theorize all you like about her in
>fiction.
>There are people who think they know for certain, but there is no solid
>historical evidence on the subject. But don't give us a historical fiction
>in
>which the Roman Emperor Augustus had an Empress other than Livia unless
>you're
>writing alternate universe.
Okay, that works for me.
Did you see Gladiator? How did you feel about the "real" characters (like the
emperor) doing things they didn't historically (die in the Coliseum)?
>I have no problem with the idea that Highlander is an alternate universe in
>which immortals exist. That would make it easy to deal with historical
>additions and contradictions, wouldn't it?
That's always been my belief.
>>(off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)-- Oh I'm so
>disappointed! I thought they were named after the HL spin-off and it was a
>team of Amanda clones! <eg>
>
> Shomeret
Then I wouldn't have to worry so much about the Raven's inability to protect
their quarterback!
Donna
Ojagwers
those close to them -- are being depicted in the story and/or whether the film
has a "message" that is exhorting viewers to do something in the present (vote
for or against certain laws for example), when the message is created by
distorting facts.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
for "The Hurricane," "The Patriot" and "The Perfect Storm."
Actually, I think this tends to bother me more with films based on real
incidents than with history-based novels. When I read history-based novels, I
understand that the actual persons are being adapted to interact with the
author's original characters/situations, and figure it's my own damn fault for
not doing enough research if I get fact and fiction confused. Films/TV,
however, are a different story. For example, while the film "The Hurricane"
gave me pause -- I was so curious about "the Canadians" that I actually bought
the book that two of them had written just so I could figure out *exactly* how
they'd gotten involved in Rubin Carter's case -- since the characters who were
depicted *negatively* are all fictional composites, I ultimately didn't have a
problem. So far as I could tell, nobody was being defamed, and although some
of what happened to Carter was condensed, the evidence suggesting his innocence
was the evidence that was used to get him freed. The movie *is* making a
political statement, but so far as I could tell, *those* sections of the film
were based on facts (at least, those facts cited in the book I read and in
various newspaper reports that came out around the time of the film) -- the
fictionalized parts of the film didn't seem to change anything.
I thought "The Patriot" was a rather silly movie, mainly because I
thought lots of it was over the top and very broad when it didn't need to be
(though I thought Jason Isaacs was a great villain and I'm always glad to see a
HL alum in a big film). That had all kinds of historical inaccuracies as well
-- but not being a Revolutionary War buff, I found out about most of them by
reading newspaper reports criticizing these inaccuracies. I didn't think the
inaccuracies particularly insulted any real individuals -- well, I suppose if I
was related to Gen. Cornwallis I might be annoyed at the way he was depicted,
but the main villain and the main hero were fictional composites.
However, when I saw "The Perfect Storm," I had some real reservations.
The book it's based on is non-fiction -- I haven't read it, but I'm assuming
that when author Sebastian Junger wrote about scenes that have no living
survivors to provide an after-the-fact account, he said, "Something like this
*could* have happened." The film, of course, doesn't have that sort of
disclaimer.
George Clooney's captain character Billy Tyne is shown essentially
pressuring his men to agree to go into a storm that gets them all killed. This
real man, dead 10 years, is depicted as causing his own death and that of five
other men. Now, Clooney, in my opinion, does a fine job, and the character is
written dimensionally. However, I felt unsettled to see the movie presenting a
real person as culpable in six deaths ... and wasn't all that surprised to see
that Tyne's daughters had instigated a lawsuit against the film company because
of how their father was depicted. So I guess it's a fine line ...
Dunno if this you were asking about movies, Donna, so this may be
entirely irrelevant to the question! And JMHO, as always ...
O
Dotiran
No. History is not objective anyway *g* and so the interpretative skills of a
good writer can actually flesh out an historical period or event quite well.
In this regard I have no difficulty as long as there are no glaring
anachronisms. Good research is the key.
>
>Are you saying fictional characters like Duncan should never be inserted,
>even
>in fiction?
No. But it is interesting for me to remember how extraordinarily uncomfortable
I was watching Duncan MacLeod present in the room with Hitler. It was so
obviously not true. Yet......that creative license did make for one of the more
powerful episodes of that season. I had to rewatch it a few times on video to
come to that conclusion though. My first "live" run through was most
disconcerting.
I'll enjoy reading this thread because I'm sure the thoughts of those here who
read more historical fiction than I will help me to understand why I feel and
think what I do.
Good thought provoking topic.
Thanks.
Dorothy aka Rottweiler on the Rysher forum
Patch0999
>(which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if you
>want
>to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to Highlander. Do
>you
>have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work for you?
>Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
>entertainment
>or education?
>
Basically, it depends upon the work. If the main character was a real person,
I would want more accuracy. If the main character was fictional, and 'real'
people were supporting only, then I would expect more fiction in their make-up.
The main thing I expect is for the setting to be historically correct as much
as possible. No 2001 politically correct attitudes in the 18th century, etc.
My reading lately is strictly for entertainment, but if it doesn't at least
'feel' correct, then it isn't entertaining. [unless it is something like Xena
where you know it isn't going to be anywhere near accurate]
question - what is a MOW screenplay?
Dotiran
>
doesn't it mean Movie of the Week [e.g. tv.?]
Patch0999
Thanks - When the movie gets filmed [thinking positive and hopefully sending
good vibes] will make a point to watch and/or tape.
Doctor TOC
>
> How about when it's facts that most readers wouldn't know -- like I doubt most
> of the people who picked up this WWI East Africa novel would have a working
> knowledge of von Lettow and Smuts, much less whether or not they were sleeping
> with Americans?
It drives me nuts when history is disregarded for petty reasons. Take
some recent movies, like "The Patriot" and "U-571". There are some
horrific acts attributed to the British in "The Patriot" that simply
didn't happen, or if they did happen did so centuries later and on
another continent (the burning of civilians in a church for instance did
occur - at the hands of the Nazis in WWII). Does that matter to the
producers of the movie? No, because they're willing to paint honourable
men fighting for their king as scum for the sake of a story. Could the
story have been as effective without that "villainisation"? Yes, but it
would have been harder to do, so the motivation for disregarding the
truth of the events the movie claims to portray is laziness. "U-571"
claims to be based on real events, but the men involved were British,
not American. Why the change? Because the primary audience (Americans)
are assumed to be only interested in watching Americans. Could the story
have been told with a British cast? Of course - there's very little
evidence that the audiences *would* have stayed away from a film about
the Brits. The motivation for disregarding the truth in this case
becomes conservatism and fear. An upcoming remake of "The Colditz Story"
plans to do the same thing, exchanging British for American, for the
same reason, despite the fact that there were never any Americans kept
at Colditz Castle. Once again, Hollywood appropriates the history of
others for itself.
The whole idea of giving von Lettow a mistress and a child would seem to
be to make him more interesting as a character, yet his life and
experience was already enough to make him interesting without smearing
his character. A skilled author could bring that out, but again, it's
harder to do, so the motivator becomes laziness once again. It's sloppy
storytelling, taking the easy way to engage a reader's interest rather
than taking the time to fully flesh out the man.
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" - Wu Name: Jive Talkin' Choirboy
ICQ # 4814586
Daleks! 3D - http://redrival.com/drtoc/index.shtml
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
alt.tv.sevendays FAQ - http://welcome.to/7-Days
The TOC Files - http://members.fortunecity.com/toc
Patrick W. Heinske
>
>Did you see Gladiator? How did you feel about the "real" characters (like
>the
>emperor) doing things they didn't historically (die in the Coliseum)?
>
I didn't know much about the history of the situation before I went in to see
Gladiator. But if the true and factual Commodus has already been known to have
died in some other way than in a battle in the Coliseum against an unnamed
Gladiator, then I wish they had found a different way to tell the story that
was much closer to historical truth...
Speaking for myself, I love it when well-liked fictional characters are worked
into factual history, as long as it remains plausible... and none of the more
well-known facts are changed to fit the fictional situation.
Such as, (if my basic knowledge of historical Europe is remembered correctly),
it is known that Alexander the Great died from being poisoned. For Nefertiri to
have been a handmaiden who may have disguised herself and slipped him the
poison, is fine. For Nefertiri to have challenged him to a fight and beheaded
him, is not acceptable (to me). Dying from lack of a head can in no way be,
even with the rudimentary medical knowledge ofthe day, mistaken for dying from
poison.
However, in a different take on the situation, say the facts as we know them to
be are that AtG died of a heart attack. If Nefertiri poisoned him in such a way
that, with the medical knowledge of the time, they would not have been able to
tell he was poisoned, and the generallly accepted *thought* was that, since
there were no outward signs of trouble, he must have died of a heart attack, is
O.K. (with me).
However, a fictional character's interaction with factual characters can be
carried too far... it's a tool that must be used carefully... i.e., if Connor
MacLeod has photographs of himself standing right next to every famous person
we were ever taught about in Grade School, then that goes over the top...
*some* is fine, but if you get too much in there, it all becomes unbelievable,
unless the connection is at greatly varying distances from the famous factual
individuals and that distance is made clear. Connor couldn't have done
*everything* as personal first assistant to *every* famous person *ever* - he
might have been involved in some way, shape or form, but the odds are too far
against him being *right there*, every time.
I guess what it boils down to, is don't change historical continuity openly and
blatantly... if you do have to alter the facts slightly, do it in a plausible
way that does not directly contradict the accepted facts as they are known to
exist.
(Just my two cents...)
Patrick W. Heinske
LZeit...@aol.NOSPAM.com
BronzeA...@aol.NOSPAM.com
ATH Resident Methos
Gate
> I suspect there are more than a few readers and viewers of historical
fiction
> (which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if you
want
> to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to Highlander.
Do you
> have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work for
you?
> Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
entertainment
> or education?
I find that I fall onto the side of entertainment for entertainment's sake.
I watch movies and television to be entertained. To take a step out of
reality. As long as they're not touting themselves as historically accurate
if they aren't, I have no problem with "adjusting" the characters and facts
in order to make the story more interesting/compelling/whatever.
I didn't come out of Braveheart thinking I'd just had a wonderful history
lesson. I certainly didn't take as gospel fact. But I was entertained, and
enough so to go out the next day and buy a book on the actual history of
Scotland.
Gate - don't know if I'm entertained or disturbed by seeing Britney Spears
and Aerosmith on the same stage at the Superbowl
~~~~
It's not about who's right or wrong. No denomination's
nailed it yet, 'cause they're all too self-righteous to
realize that it doesn't matter what you have faith in, as
long as you have faith.
- Serendipity, Dogma
Jennifer Peters
DonnaLetto wrote:
> And now for something completely different, but not entirely off-topic,
> considering that Highlander was a show firmly based in historical fiction.
> <Lettow-related historical fiction snipped>
Just another data point, so to speak.
My aunt has published a novel called Silent Friends, historical fiction about
Quakers moving west into Iowa.
It's based on our ancestors. The meeting house built in the first chapter still
exists, although it's no longer used as a place of worship. (In the novel, it's
burned down.)
She takes some liberties with the family tree. She's combined herself with her
younger sister. My mom and my uncle are intact.
Of course, nobody but my brother, the geneologist would recognise other details
she's changed. A great-aunt is totally missing. An uncle dies much younger in the
novel.
Really, the only thing that gave me pause was burning down the meeting house. I've
been to it many times. I like the idea that I could visit it again. (I can't
visit my grandmother's house. It's been torn down. Perhaps my aunt subbed one for
the other.)
While I've never discussed it with her, I think my aunt wanted to tell about
Quakers, and what makes us unique in society. I think she succeeded in that. The
liberties she took helped her do that. (The great-aunt would have cluttered the
story. The early death was a suicide, which had to be dealt with as a Quaker
community.)
So, if the artistic liberties allow for more truth to be told, I'm all for it. Was
this historical Lettow the kind of man who would have had a mistress, American or
otherwise? If not, then it does history a disservice to add one.
JMHO.
> Donna
> (off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)
Gemini, in Ohio, where we're cheering against the Ravens, since Art Model deserves
to suffer greatly.
Kristina
wrote:
>Gate - don't know if I'm entertained or disturbed by seeing Britney Spears
>and Aerosmith on the same stage at the Superbowl
I don't know either - but I know it disturbs me to think that kids are
going to completely miss the fact that the song worked because of
*Aerosmith*, not Brit and Co.
Kristina <I admit to liking 'NSync, but facts is facts>
*~*~*~*
Don't let the things you can't do
Stop you from doing the things you can.
One of the Four Horsewomen of the ATH Gutter
DonnaLetto
>the same as tomorrow's, our view and interpretation of historical people
>and circumstances change -- why should I expect movies or novels, of all
>things, to give me 'truth'?
A very good point indeed.
Donna
DonnaLetto
> Dunno if this you were asking about movies, Donna, so this may be
>entirely irrelevant to the question!
Not irrelevant at all, since where I'm usually defaming history is in TV or
movies. <g>
>Hmmm ... I guess the borderline for me may be if real, living people -- or
>those close to them -- are being depicted in the story and/or whether the
>film
>has a "message" that is exhorting viewers to do something in the present
>(vote
>for or against certain laws for example), when the message is created by
>distorting facts.
Yeah, living people is a real problem for me, too. When I was planning
"Barricades," I was trying really hard to find a way to steer away from any of
the actual leaders of the 1968 Paris student uprising, because most of them are
still with us. One of them is now a member of the German parliament. The
chances that anyone involved or even anyone who knew them would see the book
was so slight, yet the responsibility I felt to accurately depict them was
nearly overwhelming.
And yet, if I stayed away from them and stayed with all fictional characters,
was I then still depicting a historical event. It was a very thin and fuzzy
line.
Donna
John Biltz
think if it a story worth telling then tell the story. If you want to make
a lot of embellishments and stuff then change the names and tell the story
you want and protect the innocent. It is how I have always felt about it.
And please no stirrups in the bronze age.
Historical Moose
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010128153421...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
DonnaLetto
>There are some
>horrific acts attributed to the British in "The Patriot" that simply
>didn't happen, or if they did happen did so centuries later and on
>another continent (the burning of civilians in a church for instance did
>occur - at the hands of the Nazis in WWII). Does that matter to the
>producers of the movie? No, because they're willing to paint honourable
>men fighting for their king as scum for the sake of a story. Could the
>story have been as effective without that "villainisation"? Yes, but it
>would have been harder to do, so the motivation for disregarding the
>truth of the events the movie claims to portray is laziness.
Much the same way as we "villainized" the English re Culloden and the Jacobites
in HL, I suppose. Although I always felt that, in the case of HL, we weren't
seeing an objective historical depiction of the events, but events definitely
skewed through Duncan's POV.
We also reached for a lot of shorthand in HL, since we were trying to portray
an historical situation in about 18 minutes total. Of course, that's not an
excuse "The Patriot" can use <g>
>"U-571" claims to be based on real events, but the men involved were British,
>not American.
Man, I *hated* that!
> Why the change? Because the primary audience (Americans)
>are assumed to be only interested in watching Americans.
I thought it was more because the primary audience (Americans) are generally
assumed to be culturally illiterate, so they felt they could steal the idea of
Enigma and put it anywhere. (Granted, I didn't actually see the movie -- I
have a thing against drowning movies, and a sub film is pretty good bet to be a
drowning movie <g> -- was it the actual Enigma story with the passports
changed, or hadn't they inserted Enigma someplace it never belonged because
they thought it sounded "cool"?)
Donna
DonnaLetto
>if Connor
>MacLeod has photographs of himself standing right next to every famous person
>we were ever taught about in Grade School, then that goes over the top...
Connor Gump of the Clan Gump
>I guess what it boils down to, is don't change historical continuity openly
>and
>blatantly... if you do have to alter the facts slightly, do it in a plausible
>way that does not directly contradict the accepted facts as they are known to
>exist.
>
>(Just my two cents...)
>
This is all really interesting. Thanks for playing with me!
Donna
(and have I said yet: "Whoo-hoo! Way to go Ravens!")
DonnaLetto
>>doesn't it mean Movie of the Week [e.g. tv.?]
Patch:
>Thanks - When the movie gets filmed [thinking positive and hopefully sending
>good vibes] will make a point to watch and/or tape.
It still has a few hurdles to clear. It has to be written. It has to be sold.
So I wouldn't go scouring the TV Guide just yet. Or for the next 5 years or
so <g>
Donna
(looking for some "money-boys" of my own <g>)
DonnaLetto
>I didn't come out of Braveheart thinking I'd just had a wonderful history
>lesson. I certainly didn't take as gospel fact. But I was entertained, and
>enough so to go out the next day and buy a book on the actual history of
>Scotland.
Which to me is a big win.
Personally, I love people to challenge us on Flora MacDonald -- if it means
they were intrigued by the flashback and picked up a book about Flora
MacDonald. That's great! That's a win! (Knowing it genetically doesn't
count, Jette <g>)
>don't know if I'm entertained or disturbed by seeing Britney Spears
>and Aerosmith on the same stage at the Superbowl
I was disturbed by the way Steven Tyler was looking at Britney Spears <g>
Donna
DonnaLetto
>Quakers moving west into Iowa.
>It's based on our ancestors. The meeting house built in the first chapter
>still
>exists, although it's no longer used as a place of worship. (In the novel,
>it's
>burned down.)
>
>Quakers, and what makes us unique in society. I think she succeeded in that.
>The
>liberties she took helped her do that. (The great-aunt would have cluttered
>the
>story. The early death was a suicide, which had to be dealt with as a Quaker
>community.)
This sounds wonderful.
>So, if the artistic liberties allow for more truth to be told, I'm all for
>it. Was
>this historical Lettow the kind of man who would have had a mistress,
>American or
>otherwise? If not, then it does history a disservice to add one.
That's a really good point. In the specific case of the General, I really
don't know. And from the book, I suspect the author doesn't know, either <g>
But I think it's helped shed some light my Boudicca situation.
>Gemini, in Ohio, where we're cheering against the Ravens, since Art Model
>deserves
>to suffer greatly.
Yeah, well, we've been hoping the Indiana (blech) Colts would curl up and die
for the last 15 years, but it hasn't happened yet. <g>
Donna
DonnaLetto
>I always prefer my historical fiction more historical and less fiction. I
>think if it a story worth telling then tell the story. If you want to make
>a lot of embellishments and stuff then change the names and tell the story
>you want and protect the innocent. It is how I have always felt about it.
So what about a case where there's not a lot known about the personalities of
the individuals involved? When the *events* are historical, but we don't know
anything about the participants other than the facts of the participation?
Just brainstorming... don't mind me.
>And please no stirrups in the bronze age.
LOL.
Of course, in a book, you don't have to worry about the actors lying to you
about their horsemanship <g>
Donna
Kathy Morey
> DonnaLetto <donna...@aol.com> wrote
> > I suspect there are more than a few readers and viewers of historical
> fiction
> > (which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if you
> want
> > to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to Highlander.
> Do you
> > have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work for
> you?
> > Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
> entertainment
> > or education?
>
> I find that I fall onto the side of entertainment for entertainment's sake.
> I watch movies and television to be entertained. To take a step out of
> reality. As long as they're not touting themselves as historically accurate
> if they aren't, I have no problem with "adjusting" the characters and facts
> in order to make the story more interesting/compelling/whatever.
> I didn't come out of Braveheart thinking I'd just had a wonderful history
> lesson. I certainly didn't take as gospel fact. But I was entertained, and
> enough so to go out the next day and buy a book on the actual history of
> Scotland.
This is a good point, and I agree to a certain extant. The problem I have with
fictionalizing real events is that there are lots of viewers who *do* accept
what they see as fact, or at least who let the emotionality of a piece affect
their feelings about the issues involved. For example, I worked with some
people, who were not stupid, who now apparently believe that the movie JFK
presents the real and complete story of the Kennedy assassination.
I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of tv/movie makers to educate a
public that's unwilling to educate themselves, or that they're responsible for
people who don't percieve the difference between reality and fiction, but I do
think that there is a responsibility to be as accurate as possible, especially
with more "current" events.
Or, as someone else said, to at least be very careful in labeling which parts
are indeed fictional.
(I realize that this probably doesn't help at all. I guess all I've said is
that I recognize that this can be a touchy issue and that I certainly don't have
an answer.......)
Kathy
HiRene23
movies, primarily to be entertained. Learning a few historical facts along the
way is just gravy. When I read historical non-fiction, I expect it to be
exactly that, a truthful, historically accurate (as reasonably as the author
can be) representation of facts.
I think we touched on this previously when we were discussing The Patriot. I
certainly never considered this a historically accurate movie and I am
surprised that there were people who did. The English were presented as almost
cartoonish bad guys... reminiscent of the Japanese during most, if not all, of
the WWII war movies. This isn't the Discover channel or PBS, it's a Mel
Gibson blockbuster.
I guess it comes down to expectations. I don't expect historical accuracy
from what I consider to be entertainment books/movies. I just expect to be
entertained. I don't trust "historical fiction" to teach me accurate
historical details either. Who knows where the line of fiction begins or ends?
I have, however, been inspired to find out more about certain times or events
of history by historical fiction. The seeds of interest in finding out what
*really* happened have been planted by many a movie/book. For this, I go to
resources that are intended to be historically accurate.
Rene
methos_fan
out more
> about the period and maybe learn the real story, then it's worth it.
And if
> the viewer isn't so inspired but is entertained, no harm, no foul.
>
> I don't know why this one book has suddenly given me pause. Maybe
because I'm
> familiar with this particular story in more than a
strictly "historical" sense.
> I don't know.
>
fiction
> (which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but
if you want
> to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to
Highlander. Do you
> have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work
for you?
> Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
entertainment
> or education?
>
what
> others think about this.
>
> Donna
> (off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)
I think there is no problem in changing (a little) facts in an
alternative world, like on "Highlander", for instance; in fact, I like
to see fictional character's interaction with factual ones -- Lord
Byron, Prince Bonny Charlie, Percy and Mary Shelley, Hitler. Mainly
because it's quite obvious in these situations that Byron isn't an
Immortal or that Mary Shelley didn't got inspired by a Quickening to
write Frankenstein or that Duncan MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod didn't
try to kill Hitler.
IMO, however, the writers should respect the personalities of each
person (as it was done with Lord Byron -- for what I read, he was like
we saw on the show, besides the fact he really was a friend of Percy's
and Mary's) -- and they also have to be accurate with dates.
The facts just have to be adjusted to the main characters, to fit the
story that is being told, but without messing up much with History. All
I know about Culloden and Bonny Prince Charlie, for instance, I learned
from "Highlander" and if Charlie wasn't like he was portrayed on the
show, the same with Culloden, it's too late for taking those images
from my mind...
But, when it isn't an alternative world, when the story being told is
real, the facts have to be very accurate. I've just watched on TV the
movie Joan of Arc (1999), and I hope that the movie had been faithful
with the historical truth. Changing facts to turn the plot
more "interesting", or to reach a specific audience (as I read here,
change "Brits" for "Americans"), it's horrible.
Well, these are my .2
Gisele
--
Live Highlander, Grow Stronger, Fight Another Day.
http://www.geocities.com/gisele_highlander_fan
--
Live Highlander, Grow Stronger, Fight Another Day.
http://www.geocities.com/gisele_highlander_fan
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
methos_fan
Gisele
--
Live Highlander, Grow Stronger, Fight Another Day.
http://www.geocities.com/gisele_highlander_fan
Eance
And each cultures version of the same events differs greatly, try
explaining to your kids who have just learnt "Roman Britains" in school
why the French schools have a different version, "Les Gauls". <g>
Go back to the old saying 'History books are written by the winners'.
Which brings me to 'Shakespear in love'; a nice film, historically
accurate? (don`t think so) Should Shakespear be portrayed in a
fictional setting or remembered for his supposed love life, or for his
works?
I remember reading a justification by Disney about 'Hunchback of Notre
dame'; they were being slammed at the time by press who thought they
were commericalising and denegrating Hugos` work. It ran along the
lines that if one person should pick up and read the original story
because of the animation then not only does the animation serve its`
aim, entertainment, but it also helps to broaden the audience for
classical Hugo.
I often wonder how many people are inspired to learn about history
because of fictious retellings.
Then there`s the myth stories that cannot be proven but are held as
absolute truth by many; King Arthur, Robin Hood, taken further (no
offense intended) various Bible stories.
IMO it depends, is the representation for reference or for
entertainment? Reference should be as historically true as possible.
Entertainment may *broaden the horizons*, giving the audience something
a little more personal to identify with, without corrupting the true
version entirely.
Which BTW is one of the reasons I like the HL ep Modern Promethesis so
very much.
Eance <sorry for the ramble>
DonnaLetto
>Or, as someone else said, to at least be very careful in labeling which parts
>are indeed fictional.
I don't think Oliver Stone believes there are parts of JFK which are indeed
fictional <g>
I'm sure he believes he's just filling the blanks.
So does that mean you can only tell a story the way it appears in high school
history books?
Donna
Eance
Kristina <Careless...@aol.comgoaway> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 20:27:23 -0500, "Gate" <kaya...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Gate - don't know if I'm entertained or disturbed by seeing Britney
Spears
> >and Aerosmith on the same stage at the Superbowl
>
> I don't know either - but I know it disturbs me to think that kids are
> going to completely miss the fact that the song worked because of
> *Aerosmith*, not Brit and Co.
>
>
So which is more important, the song or the band?
Eance
Kristina
>A Moose covered in kitty fur:
>>I always prefer my historical fiction more historical and less fiction. I
>>think if it a story worth telling then tell the story. If you want to make
>>a lot of embellishments and stuff then change the names and tell the story
>>you want and protect the innocent. It is how I have always felt about it.
>
>So what about a case where there's not a lot known about the personalities of
>the individuals involved? When the *events* are historical, but we don't know
>anything about the participants other than the facts of the participation?
Coming late to the party...
I love historical fiction. I discovered a liking for history because
of historical novels, specifically "The Agony and the Ecstasy". I
didn't know much about Michelangelo when I picked it up, it just
looked interesting. A week later, I was carrying home stacks of books
[non-fiction] from the library about him.
I don't like when well-known [and I'm aware that what constitutes
well-know varies from person to person <grin>] historical facts are
changed for a novel. But creating situations, characters or
conversations where none exist doesn't bother me, as long as it's not
something that seems strikingly at odds with what *is* known about the
person/s or events.
And a well-written historical fiction [whether it's a book or a movie]
will drive me to discover what I can about what *really* happened,
which is never a bad thing.
Kristina <entertainment and education all in one><g>
Kristina
She reminded me of Heather Graham's character in Bowfinger [a movie I
didn't really enjoy, btw], for some reason. <g>
Kristina
Kristina
Important? I don't know - I'm not really an Aerosmith fan, although
I've enjoyed a lot of their songs. But when you can do that song with
as many different people as they have [or alone], over a period of a
few decades, and it always rocks [at least whenever I've heard it] -
I'm thinkin' everyone else is just window dressing. <g>
Kristina
Ojagwers
>When I was planning
>"Barricades," I was trying really hard to find a way to steer away from any
>of
>the actual leaders of the 1968 Paris student uprising, because most of them
>are
>still with us. One of them is now a member of the German parliament. The
>chances that anyone involved or even anyone who knew them would see the book
>was so slight, yet the responsibility I felt to accurately depict them was
>nearly overwhelming.
>
>And yet, if I stayed away from them and stayed with all fictional characters,
>was I then still depicting a historical event. It was a very thin and fuzzy
>line.
I think so long as the actual historical personages weren't written as doing
anything they didn't do -- a married woman having an affair with Duncan, for
instance (here we have the possibility of, if somebody's real relative reads
this, they may go, "Ewww!"), or secretly being on the other political side --
it wouldn't be a problem, but confining them to their historical roles might
not have served your story. I think this is why composite characters are so
popular in modern historical fiction -- you get the advantage of including the
incidents you want without the disadvantage of questioning the fidelity of
somebody's actual Aunt Suzette by writing that she did something naughty with a
strange man (even if the man in question was Duncan MacLeod) ...
JMHO ...
O
Jette Goldie
> Donna:
> >> Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear
what
> >> others think about this.
>
> ><biting tongue>
> >
> >Flora MacDonald.
>
> This doesn't help me. Yes, we all know the Flora MacDonald story was
> completely changed for Highlander. That's a fact.
>
> And I know you found it offensive. That fact hasn't changed. What I'm
trying
> to get to now is the *why*.
>
> Are you saying historical fact should always be depicted to the letter?
>
> Are you saying fictional characters like Duncan should never be inserted,
even
> in fiction?
>
> Or were you offended by the depiction of Flora herself as something she
wasn't
> -- Immortal?
>
> If you're going to help, then help <g>
OK, you take a major RL heroine and make her Immortal so that
the dangers that the RL woman faced =don't have any relevance=
(RL Flora was in danger of hanging - that wouldn't be deadly
to Immie Flora). When she's in no *real* danger, what she
does ceases to be truly heroic.
Fine, insert characters into history. You need to to make the
story work.
But you can't change the basis of that character. For another
example, the family of the first officer on the Titanic were NOT
happy to see the "dramatic license" taken with his character.
You weren't exactly happy to see the changes made in your
relative's life to make a good story.
Flora's descendants (and she has plenty) might not have been
too happy to see those changes either.
(I wasn't overly impressed with the Rob Roy MacGregor movie
either BECAUSE they made him into a hero - and he IS an
ancestor of mine!)
--
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
boss...@scotlandmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
Jette Goldie
DonnaLetto <donna...@aol.com> wrote
> Much the same way as we "villainized" the English re Culloden and the
Jacobites
> in HL, I suppose. Although I always felt that, in the case of HL, we
weren't
> seeing an objective historical depiction of the events, but events
definitely
> skewed through Duncan's POV.
>
And as a Scot, that hurt.
We don't need to villanise the English - I find the idea that
the Scots have always been their own worst enemies quite
dramatic enough.
Culloden portrayed as it was - brother against brother, father
against son.......tragedy anyone?
Ingeborg Denner
>
> Which brings me to 'Shakespear in love'; a nice film, historically
> accurate? (don`t think so) Should Shakespear be portrayed in a
> fictional setting or remembered for his supposed love life, or for his
> works?
I don't think there's any likelyhood of Shakespeare being remembered
more for a 1990's movie than for his works. Oscar or not, I strongly
doubt that the movie will still be relevant in 4-500 years' time ;-)
And, in a way, it might be less dangerous ground, portraying him for his
love life than for his work, *because* his work is more important, and
thus it's more embarrassing to get *that* wrong.
>
> I often wonder how many people are inspired to learn about history
> because of fictious retellings.
Can speak only for myself and a few friends here... we dug into the
history books after every historical movie we liked ;-)
>
>
> Which BTW is one of the reasons I like the HL ep Modern Promethesis so
> very much.
I like the idea but I'm not sure about the execution.... but that's
another story.
inge
--
Everybody is somebody else's weirdo.
First Fallen
face when he was told he'd be performing with N'SYNC.
<couldn't cheer for the Ravens...they used to be the Cleveland Browns...and
as a Bengals fan, that's just not right (no one has to remind me how bad the
Bengals suck, I'm well aware)>
First Fallen
me if I can do something...and I can't, I'll tell them. Remembering that I
can ride, and studied English riding when I was young.
Director: "I see here you can ride"
Me: "Yes I can. I've ridden both Western and English, but I'm more
experienced with Western."
Director: "Can you ride without stirrups?"
Me: "You mean bareback?"
Director: "No, there will be a saddle, just no stirrups."
Me<puzzled>: "Well, I haven't ridden like that since 1984, but I can give
it a shot."
Director: "I see...well, thanks for coming in."
In comes actor who has only ever seen horses in magazines...
Director: "Can you ride?"
Actor: "Yes I can"
Director: "Can you ride without stirrups?"
Actor: "Absolutely"
Director: "Great, we start shooting on Monday."
John Biltz
don't know) I don't like making stuff up, at least not for real people. If
there was no mistress, then there should be no mistress and you are
misrepresenting that person. You not only did not nail that character you
completely missed him and would do better to make up a new character doing
something similar because you are no longer telling his story you are
telling your story and pawning it off as being him.
Moose Typing Over a Cat
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010128232900...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
John Biltz
So you went and stole our team? I don't wish the Ravens to die, would shed
no tears for Model though.
Browns Moose
Leslie Fish
Doctor TOC <other...@erols.com> wrote:
> It drives me nuts when history is disregarded for petty reasons.
Couldn't agree more! It's one thing to insert a fictional character or
two into real-life events, or try to fill in with speculation when the
facts aren't there; it's something else to play fast and loose with the
known facts themselves. And there's really no need for it! The closer
you look at history, the more bizarre and fascinating things you see --
some of which would be hard to pass off as fiction, because the truth
really is stranger. There's no need for "dramatic license": only more
research. Which facts the author chooses to focus on and develop depend
on the story you're telling, but ignoring them altogether does no one
any favors.
--
--Leslie <;)))><
Leslie Fish
lzeit...@aol.comNOSPAM (Patrick W. Heinske) wrote:
> I didn't know much about the history of the situation before I went in
to see
> Gladiator. But if the true and factual Commodus has already been known
to have
> died in some other way than in a battle in the Coliseum against an
unnamed
> Gladiator, then I wish they had found a different way to tell the
story that
> was much closer to historical truth...
Commodus was, in fact, strangled by a wrestler -- but it wasn't in the
Colosseum (which, in those days, was called the Flavian Amphitheatre --
after the emperor Flavius, who built it). I think the film could have
worked just as well dramatically if it had stuck to the truth. Think:
Commodus, having had his fun with the gladiators, accepts a challenge
for a small wrestling bout -- and the wrestler, who lost friends in the
arena, wrings his neck. Think of the dramatic possibilities of that.
>
Such as, (if my basic knowledge of historical Europe is remembered
correctly),
> it is known that Alexander the Great died from being poisoned. For
Nefertiri to
> have been a handmaiden who may have disguised herself and slipped him
the
> poison, is fine. For Nefertiri to have challenged him to a fight and
beheaded
> him, is not acceptable (to me).
Judging from the symptoms, and what happened later, most historians now
accept that Alexander the Great died of what was later called Influenza.
This shouldn't surprise us, seeing how many people died of the Spanish
Flu during World War I. Now Nefertiri slipping AtG a poison whose
effects resembled Flu might indeed have worked, but AtG's bodyguards --
being unacquainted with Flu -- would have suspected poison anyway. If
Nefertiri did that, she took a serious risk.
Leslie Fish
donna...@aol.com (DonnaLetto) wrote:
>
> So does that mean you can only tell a story the way it appears in high
school
> history books?
>
Oy! Ack! Perish the thought! From what I've seen, most high-school
history books ARE fiction -- and badly done fiction, at that. At least
historical fiction entertains, and doesn't leave you bored with reading
about history!
Edie
Way to go Ravens!!!! Yay!!!
Er, ahem. Had to get that out of my system... <g> (Although
the irony of the Ravens in light of the Colts is not lost on me...)
I'm *really* late to this party (had a party of my own to give <g>)
and my thoughts are probably no more that what has been said
by others...
This is a very difficult question for me to answer. Because what I
end up saying is:
"I really hate it when movies mess with history...except when I
don't." <g>
With respect to von Lettow-Vorbeck- was he married? If he was
and he had a lover and an illegitimate child, this would contradict
what you have described as a man who was extremely well-
respected for his honor. And if so, this book would have upset
me too, not because characters were created who didn't really
exist, but because in creating these particular characters, the
author took away from von Lettow-Vorbeck a good bit of what
defined him as a man.
I don't mind seeing new characters created to illuminate the
main character; what bugs me is when these characters either
become too important in and of themselves, actually eclipsing the
main character's role somewhat, or change the depiction of the
main character in such a way as to change something that we
know from historical accounts to be an essential part of his
character.
If I were writing the Boudicca story, I would not give her a
second husband if we know enough about her from the
historical records to know that she did not have one. But a
lover- I don't see why not, unless giving her a lover would
mean altering her character in some essential way. (It would
surprise me if the historical accounts of Boudicca were so
detailed that we could say that she didn't have a lover,
but then, I am often surprised... :-))
I am uncomfortable when historical fiction uses real people's
names and then messes with the facts of their lives, such as how
and where they died. I would prefer that they told the same story
and changed the names. But it didn't bother me one bit that Flora
MacDonald was Caerdwyn in H:TS. I thought this was a great
touch. Sure it turned history on its ear. But that's one of the great
opportunities that fantasy can afford- it is one of the few genres
that if done well can mess with history believably and IMO,
without offense, precisely because it *is* fantasy. (Flora's story
changed, but what a cool change! She fought with Boudicca, and
did who knows what else in her life? She might not have feared
hanging for helping Bonnie Prince Charlie, but she risked
beheading all of her life.)
So much depends on the genre you're writing in, and the
purpose of the story. If the purpose is to render an accurate
account of someone's life and/or an historical period, then IMO,
the rendition should be as historically accurate as possible. If
your theme is not so much the person's life, but a less concrete,
more philosophical one, then accuracy of the history of that life
may not be so important. The same goes for historical events,
IMO. I do think that it is important for the movie makers
to make a statement somewhere on the relative accuracy of
the history, however.
I think that whenever possible, the truer a movie is to the real period
and events and people that it its depicting, the better that movie is
for a whole host of reasons. But a movie is first and last an illusion,
IMO. The spirit and sense for an historical event, period, or person
can be brought home profoundly and accurately, even when
historical details are fudged, because the movie in its totality
conveys these things. When I go to a movie I try to take that
movie on its own terms. It generally succeeds or fails for me
when I see that it worked in accordance with its own internal
theme and structure.
One more person's POV... :-)
Edie
DonnaLetto wrote:
> Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers. I'm curious to hear what
> others think about this.
>
DonnaLetto
>OK, you take a major RL heroine and make her Immortal so that
>the dangers that the RL woman faced =don't have any relevance=
>(RL Flora was in danger of hanging - that wouldn't be deadly
>to Immie Flora). When she's in no *real* danger, what she
>does ceases to be truly heroic.
So, off the historical fiction topic for a moment and back to Highlander -- so,
to you at least, no matter what Immortals do, they can't be heroic? There's no
heroism in heartbreak, grief, guilt, passion?
Is heroism in our world as simple as dead/not dead?
Back to historical fiction:
>But you can't change the basis of that character. For another
>example, the family of the first officer on the Titanic were NOT
>happy to see the "dramatic license" taken with his character.
>
>You weren't exactly happy to see the changes made in your
>relative's life to make a good story.
>
>Flora's descendants (and she has plenty) might not have been
>too happy to see those changes either.
>
>(I wasn't overly impressed with the Rob Roy MacGregor movie
>either BECAUSE they made him into a hero - and he IS an
>ancestor of mine!)
So then your vote is, if you don't know the a participant in an historical
event's personality, then don't use them. And if you do know it, don't change
it to make a better or more entertaining story. Fair enough.
Donna
(Does this hold for characters who aren't Scottish, by any chance? <g>)
DonnaLetto
>We don't need to villanise the English - I find the idea that
>the Scots have always been their own worst enemies quite
>dramatic enough.
Is that what you would have thought in 1747, though? Or is this a modern Scots
view seen through time and distance?
I don't claim to know the answer to that -- I'm just curious to explore it.
However, I do know people who lived through WWII who do still feel a need to
"villainize" the Germans of the period as a group.
And I'm not sure that point of view would change, even if they lived 400 years.
Donna
DonnaLetto
>> >deserves
>> >to suffer greatly.
Donna:
>> Yeah, well, we've been hoping the Indiana (blech) Colts would curl up and
>die
>> for the last 15 years, but it hasn't happened yet. <g>
>Browns Moose
>So you went and stole our team? I don't wish the Ravens to die, would shed
>no tears for Model though.
At least Model gave you plenty of warning. Robert Irsay literally snuck the
Colts out of town in the middle of the night and we woke up to find them in
Indiannapolis.
At least the Ravens had the courtesy of giving you the name back! <g>
Donna
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
DonnaLetto
Not that I'm gloating or anything... <g>
>I'm *really* late to this party (had a party of my own to give <g>)
>and my thoughts are probably no more that what has been said
>by others...
>
<snip>
>One more person's POV... :-)
>
>Edie
Wow, that was great. Definitely food for thought.
And you're right -- "I really hate it when movies mess with history...except
when I
>don't." <g>
That's the crux of it for me, too. Like everything else, it comes down to
execution. But like (contrary to popular belief) no writer actually sets out
saying "I'm going to write a crappy episode just to screw the fans," no writer
actually believes he's butchering a character as he's writing -- it's just
pointed out to him later. Which is why I'm trying to formulate some rough
guidelines in my own head, so I don't deliberately drift into that territory.
I'm keeping these. Thanks again, everyone!
Donna
Gate
> This is a good point, and I agree to a certain extant. The problem I have
with
> fictionalizing real events is that there are lots of viewers who *do*
accept
> what they see as fact, or at least who let the emotionality of a piece
affect
> their feelings about the issues involved. For example, I worked with some
> people, who were not stupid, who now apparently believe that the movie JFK
> presents the real and complete story of the Kennedy assassination.
> I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of tv/movie makers to educate
a
> public that's unwilling to educate themselves, or that they're responsible
for
> people who don't percieve the difference between reality and fiction, but
I do
> think that there is a responsibility to be as accurate as possible,
especially
> with more "current" events.
Okay, but doesn't that sort of suck out any room for creativity? I mean, if
you've got this accuracy responsibility looming over your head, doesn't it
limit your possiblities?
I guess I just don't care. If I want accuracy, I'll go read a history book.
When my friend and I went to see Gladiator, I really liked one particular
shot of the Roman army lighting their flaming arrows from this little
burning trench thing that was dug in front of them. My friend's response
was, "That's not at all historically accurate." And my response is, "Who
cares? It was a cool shot." I don't believe that they really lit their
arrows that way, just because I saw it on-screen and I think it takes a
certain level of naivete to take a movie as fact.
Gate
~~~~
Friendship is born at that moment when
one person says to another: What! You
too? Thought I was the only one.
- C.S. Lewis
TBird
Oh my god Donna.....
I don't care what you do - don't let anything slow you down.
You're one of the most enjoyable and informative writers I've ever read.
(Personally, I'd like to see you do more prose on the side.)
Add who you have to add....do what you need to do to get the story told.
I won't hold it against you.
"The Patriot" comes to mind.
I'm sure a lot of that was embellished, but the story, the underlying
message, that people made sacrifices that involved their families, that's
the truth. That's the part that held me tight. That the reality of where I
am now was based on their sacrifices....to have that feeling grip me and
hold me and become real to me.... the embellishing was a small price to pay.
Does that make sense?
TBird <---- who for one doesn't want to see Donna doublethink herself out of
good writing
--
One of the Four HorseWomen of the ATH Gutter
~
Blood and ashes, time burning
On a skyline dark against the stars
A solitary Horseman, waiting...
- Bruce Cockburn
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010128153421...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
Doctor TOC
>
> > Why the change? Because the primary audience (Americans)
> >are assumed to be only interested in watching Americans.
>
> I thought it was more because the primary audience (Americans) are generally
> assumed to be culturally illiterate, so they felt they could steal the idea of
> Enigma and put it anywhere.
It translates to the same thing in the end.
> (Granted, I didn't actually see the movie -- I
> have a thing against drowning movies, and a sub film is pretty good bet to be a
> drowning movie <g> -- was it the actual Enigma story with the passports
> changed, or hadn't they inserted Enigma someplace it never belonged because
> they thought it sounded "cool"?)
It was a combination of seperate real events with the passports changed.
A friend of mine knows one of the men involved (now very fragile) and
considers him a real hero, which brings it closer to home. I saw it with
some friends here in Boston, and when we came out everyone was looking
at me a little nervously. Probably the steam coming from my ears that
did it :-)
The thing that wound me up more than anything was the novelisation,
which I had a look at in Barnes & Noble. Though there's an author's note
at the end thanking various folks for the research (hah!), at no point
does it say "Oh, and by the way folks, the Brits did this actually".
There's *no* excuse for that, IMHO.
Doctor TOC
--
The Reverend Doctor "The Other Chris" - Wu Name: Jive Talkin' Choirboy
ICQ # 4814586
Daleks! 3D - http://redrival.com/drtoc/index.shtml
Time War RPG - http://jump.to/TimeWar
alt.tv.sevendays FAQ - http://welcome.to/7-Days
The TOC Files - http://members.fortunecity.com/toc
3D Master
> Jette:
> >We don't need to villanise the English - I find the idea that
> >the Scots have always been their own worst enemies quite
> >dramatic enough.
>
> Is that what you would have thought in 1747, though? Or is this a modern
Scots
> view seen through time and distance?
>
> I don't claim to know the answer to that -- I'm just curious to explore
it.
> However, I do know people who lived through WWII who do still feel a need
to
> "villainize" the Germans of the period as a group.
Villanize the Nazis, now why do I think that any villanization of them
wouldn't do them justice. They were probably worse in real life.
3D Master
Doctor TOC
>
> However, I do know people who lived through WWII who do still feel a need to
> "villainize" the Germans of the period as a group.
This is an interesting observation, because it shows that they have
*entirely* missed the lesson in the events they lived through. The Nazis
villainised the Jews, Gays, Gypsies, Blacks - anyone they felt they
could isolate and beat up. The civilian masses felt justified in
supporting this, because they could point at these groups and feel
superior to them. The atrocities commited against these groups came
easily, because they were "other", not part of the tribe, considered
less than human.
Fast forward fifty odd years. We look back at the Nazi's, and many of
those who lived through the war years now consider them beyond the pale,
inhuman... "other". When I was 14, my grandmother freaked out when she
found out I was travelling to Germany on a school exchange trip. "You
can't trust them", she said, without really understanding what she was
doing. In perpetuating that sort of groundless hatred, she was handing
the Nazi's their greatest victory. She refused to see them as people. As
long as we allow ourselves the luxury of looking at an easily defined
group of people and hating them, we run the risk of becoming fascists
ourselves.
> And I'm not sure that point of view would change, even if they lived 400 years.
And that's the great tragedy, that we have allowed the Nazis to poison
us.
Ann Hall
When it comes to historical fiction (not historical romance), my personal
preference is to have the story stick to facts as closely as possible. That
doesn't mean that you can't add characters to interact with this person.
However, it becomes tricky how close you want your fictional character to be
to the real person. If he or she had mistresses, adding another would not
make a difference, but adding more wives or more children would be another
matter. Also, having them act out of character would to me be a no-no,
provided we know something about his/her character. The further back in
history you go the harder that gets, but with recent historical personages I
think you have to be careful.
Does this mean you can't make up stuff, of course not, but you have to take
the person as a whole and incorporate events and people with great care. I
think the closer you (the reader) are to your subject the more you object to
things that aren't known to be true. If you only have a smattering of
knowledge of the person and period you may not even notice anything if the
story is well written.
I have seen some things on screen where the writer/director took some great
liberties. If I knew the story it bothered me. However, I have probably
watched dozens of movies and read books that had the same great liberties in
them and I never knew.
--
Ann Hall
"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle."
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
Gate
news:dFid6.1003775$%C1.12953917@Flipper...
The Nazis, maybe. But not the Germans as a whole, which was Donna's point,
I think.
3D Master
news:3A7515F9...@erlf.siemens.de...
> Eance wrote:
> >
>
> > Which brings me to 'Shakespear in love'; a nice film, historically
> > accurate? (don`t think so) Should Shakespear be portrayed in a
> > fictional setting or remembered for his supposed love life, or for his
> > works?
>
> I don't think there's any likelyhood of Shakespeare being remembered
> more for a 1990's movie than for his works. Oscar or not, I strongly
> doubt that the movie will still be relevant in 4-500 years' time ;-)
Of course that's what the people though of Shakespear's work in his hay day.
It was considered smut, and too commercial and anything but art by the
people in his time. Some even called it evil, since the actors say they're
somebody else than who they really are, hence their lying, 'thou shalt no
lie', hence they're evil.
Makes you wonder what people in 4-500 years will consider art of our
fictional productions. Perhaps they'll look at 'Days of our lives' and say,
see the grand form of 20th century art.
Brrrr, blegh. Let's hope not!
3D Master
Ann Hall
people portrayed on the screen or in print aren't given actual true names,
but are invented and placed in a historical event. When you put a famous
name to a person, I think you have to stick with who that person was and
what he represents. If you do a composite character, as in The Patriot,
then it's OK to invent wives, mistresses, children, you name it. However,
the outcome of the event shouldn't be changed, IMO.
However, you have to remember that there are lots of people who go to these
movies and leave the theater believing that this is the truth! For myself,
if I don't know and the event and/or person interests me, I dig further and
read more (non-fiction this time).
Ann Hall
"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle."
"HiRene23" <hire...@aol.comn> wrote in message
news:20010128235401...@ng-fn1.aol.com...
> I guess my opinions on this subject are similar to Gate's. I read books,
watch
> movies, primarily to be entertained. Learning a few historical facts
along the
> way is just gravy. When I read historical non-fiction, I expect it to be
> exactly that, a truthful, historically accurate (as reasonably as the
author
> can be) representation of facts.
>
> I think we touched on this previously when we were discussing The Patriot.
I
> certainly never considered this a historically accurate movie and I am
> surprised that there were people who did. The English were presented as
almost
> cartoonish bad guys... reminiscent of the Japanese during most, if not
all, of
> the WWII war movies. This isn't the Discover channel or PBS, it's a Mel
> Gibson blockbuster.
>
> I guess it comes down to expectations. I don't expect historical
accuracy
> from what I consider to be entertainment books/movies. I just expect to
be
> entertained. I don't trust "historical fiction" to teach me accurate
> historical details either. Who knows where the line of fiction begins or
ends?
> I have, however, been inspired to find out more about certain times or
events
> of history by historical fiction. The seeds of interest in finding out
what
> *really* happened have been planted by many a movie/book. For this, I go
to
> resources that are intended to be historically accurate.
>
>
>
>
> Rene
GinjerB
film ELIZABETH. The only thing that would have made it more historically
inaccurate was a special guest appearance by Blackadder!
Grunble, grumble, grumble.
GinjerB
Jerri LaPoint
Oh my ... I think a Blackadder treatment would have made ELIZABETH
infinitely more enjoyable. I stay out of discussions involving historical
accuracy in fictional treatments because I don't care about historical
accuracy at all. I just care about how much I enjoyed watching or reading
it. I liked parts of The Patriot. Loved Last of the Mohicans to death. Hated
pretty much all of ELIZABETH. Loved every minute of Shakespeare In Love. Can
sing every word to every song in 1776 ... and Pippin, too! All historical to
one level or another, and who really cares if it's right or not? History, so
they say, is written by the winners. It explains or excuses or exults their
own deeds, and villifies and dehumanizes the losers. Ultimately, it ends up
in dry tomes on library shelves ... until someone picks it up, shakes it up,
and puts it out for popular consumption in the form of a novel or a movie
other entertainment. I prefer mine lightly salted with lots of butter and a
large Diet Coke on the side.
Jerri [the once-and-forever Queen of Shallow]
tiber...@webtv.net
(I wasn't overly impressed with the Rob Roy MacGregor movie either
BECAUSE they made him into a hero - and he IS an ancestor of mine!)
>>That's very interesting, Jette. How does your family perceive him?
Tiberius
tiber...@webtv.net
<couldn't cheer for the Ravens...they used to be the Cleveland
Browns...and as a Bengals fan, that's just not right (no one has to
remind me how bad the Bengals suck, I'm well aware)>
>>Ditto, ditto, ditto.
Maybe the Bengals will make it to Superbowl 75. <g>
Tiberius
tiber...@webtv.net
Y'know, sometimes I wonder if I'll make it as an actor, because if they
ask me if I can do something...and I can't, I'll tell them. Remembering
that I can ride, and studied English riding when I was young.
Director: "I see here you can ride"
Me: "Yes I can. I've ridden both Western and English, but I'm more
experienced with Western."
Director: "Can you ride without stirrups?"
Me: "You mean bareback?"
Director: "No, there will be a saddle, just no stirrups."
Me<puzzled>: "Well, I haven't ridden like that since 1984, but I can
give
it a shot."
Director: "I see...well, thanks for coming in."
>>This reminded me of that line in Ghostbusters: The next time someone
asks you if you're a god, you say yes! (or something like that)
Tiberius
Ask me if I'm a god.
GinjerB
LaPoint" <jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Historical" Fiction
>From: "Jerri LaPoint" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 19:29:42 GMT
<<Well, there were parts of Braveheart that were hard to take with
popcorn...<g.
ELIZABETH seemd, to me, to be particularly egregious. But I suspect that the
same may have been true for BRAVEHART--it just happens that I know a *whole*
lot about Elizabeth Tudor, so the "dramatic license" was very obvious. And
annoying.
GinjerB
3D Master
news:OwHBvNiiAHA.280@cpmsnbbsa07...
How much procent votes did the nazis get again? 88%? I consider that a
pretty big part of the Germans, enough to call that the Germans, even if 12%
are the exceptions that state the rule.
3D Master
tiber...@webtv.net
I was disturbed by the way Steven Tyler was looking at Britney Spears
<g>
>>Yeah, but I bet today Tyler could pick that belly-button out of any
lineup. <eg>
Tiberius
Who officially became a dirty old man the first time he saw Britney
Spears.
Mary L. Foster-Galasso
world history and American history last year. Both textbooks were not
at all what you're describing. Nor is the Louisiana history text my son
has this year. All are very well done, especially the American history
text, although granted it does have some inaccuracies.
Mary
Edie
GinjerB wrote:
> My particular rant on this topic, which I think Donna has heard, concerns the
> film ELIZABETH. The only thing that would have made it more historically
> inaccurate was a special guest appearance by Blackadder!
<g>
And yet, I liked this film, (although it took The Truman Show's
rightful place as Best Picture nominee that year, grumble :-))
perhaps because it was so wildly inaccurate historically, that its
inaccuracies ceased to bother me. <g>
Historical accuracy could not have been the goal of the movie
makers. This film could not have been meant to be an accurate
account of ths period of Elizabeth's life. It took on the realm of
alternate history, almost. And yet, for it to be the film it was,
the skeleton of Elizabeth's story was integral to it.
I think it succeeded on its own terms, because its themes were
thought-provoking and well realized by the movie, even though
it didn't accurately depict the true history of Elizabeth's life
(and other people's). It was entertaining, well-acted and
filmed, and while I think it was in no way the best picture of the
year, it interested me.
(I'm not sure I expressed this too well.)
Edie
>
> Grunble, grumble, grumble.
I feel your pain. <g> Don't get me talking about Demi Moore's
The Scarlet Letter... (A slightly different situation than what we're
talking about here in this thread...<g>)
Edie
>
>
> GinjerB
Jerri LaPoint
> Well, there were parts of Braveheart that were
> hard to take with popcorn...<g.
Parts of Braveheart I just couldn't watch. How DARE they do that to Mel!
> ELIZABETH seemd, to me, to be particularly egregious.
> But I suspect that the same may have been true for
> BRAVEHART--it just happens that I know a *whole*
> lot about Elizabeth Tudor, so the "dramatic license" was
> very obvious. And annoying.
There's your mistake. Knowing too much or even an awful lot about anything
in particular can rise up to bite you in the butt when you're trying to keep
your reality suspenders firmly in place. I prefer a sort of genial ignorance
when it comes to movies and books and such. When one's favorite fictional
creatures breathe fire, it's kind of hard to insist that anything else stick
to just the facts.
Jerri [who learned in high school that we exist only in the dreams of a
large green cat] [don't remember much else from high school, but I do
remember that]
Jette Goldie
<tiber...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:1440-3A7...@storefull-218.iap.bryant.webtv.net...
boss...@scotlandmail.com (Jette Goldie) wrote:
As a murderer a robber and a rapist. And a kin-slayer.
--
Jette
Glory may be fleeting, but obscurity is forever!
boss...@scotlandmail.com
http://members.tripod.com/~bosslady/fanfic.html
Susan Stansfield
In article <20010128225543...@ng-xa1.aol.com>, donna...@aol.com
(DonnaLetto) wrote:
>Patrick W. Heinske:
>>if Connor
>>MacLeod has photographs of himself standing right next to every famous
>person
>>we were ever taught about in Grade School, then that goes over the top...
>
>Connor Gump of the Clan Gump
LOL!
Susan
Susan Stansfield
In article <9534dh$3oe$2...@taliesin.netcom.net.uk>, "Jette Goldie"
<boss...@scotlandmail.com> wrote:
>We don't need to villanise the English - I find the idea that
>the Scots have always been their own worst enemies quite
>dramatic enough.
>
>Culloden portrayed as it was - brother against brother, father
>against son.......tragedy anyone?
Interesting; I never thought of it that way. (Then again, all I know about
Culloden I learned from Highlander <g>). Jette, your description of the real
battle of Culloden sounds a lot like our Civil War!
Susan
Susan Stansfield
In article <j79d6.767$x_2.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "John
Biltz" <bilt...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Moose Typing Over a Cat
Awwwwwww! :-)
Susan
(often types over a cat herself <g>)
Susan Stansfield
In article <20010128225144...@ng-xa1.aol.com>, donna...@aol.com
(DonnaLetto) wrote:
>Although I always felt that, in the case of HL, we weren't
>seeing an objective historical depiction of the events, but events definitely
>skewed through Duncan's POV.
That's why I thought it worked, Donna. You were telling the story through
Duncan's eyes; what showed up on screen was the events as Duncan saw and
remembered them.
Susan
Banzai88
I was gonna stay out of this, even though Donna's mentioning
of Boudicca gave me a great Ceirdwyn opening, but then she
went and said this:
>So what about a case where there's not a lot known about the personalities of
>the individuals involved? When the *events* are historical, but we don't
>know
>anything about the participants other than the facts of the participation?
Right before Christmas I picked up a couple of "historical fiction" murder
mysteries by Max Allan Collins; _The Titanic Murders_ and _The Hindenburg
Murders_. In both of those, but the Titanic book in particular, he stuck with
the names of people that were actually there. And as such, made a couple
of most likely innocent victims of those tragedies
murderers/blackmailers/Nazis/
spies/etc...
Now, pretty much nothing is known about these particular people beyond
their name on a passenger list, so one of them *could* have been Jack the
Ripper
(who's been portrayed as a variety of real-life personages over the years, come
to think of it) but we don't know either way, and it made me a little
uncomfortable.
They were good books, but I can't help but think I'd feel better about liking
them
if he'd tossed in completely fictional baddies. Not like there's enough people
out there who've memorized all those names and would've realized who the
guilty party was by virtue of them not being real.
Over all, I don't expect history lessons from my entertainment, whether
it's "based on a true story" or not. I take text books and straight
documentaries
with a grain of salt, too.
One factor I use as far as 'how much is too much' divergence from the
truth is the point and focus of the project. Xena can do whatever they
want with whoever they want and it doesn't bother me at all. The story
is about Xena, after all. Everybody else is window dressing to serve
her story. "Braveheart" bothered me more because it
was supposed to be about a real person, and if his life was worth
having a movie about, it should've been worth a more accurate story.
But again, I don't really expect any of these things to be correct, anyway.
On another newsgroup I read, a discussion of movie adaptions of books
came up, and one interesting thing that was mentioned was that instead
of seeing how close a movie followed the letter of the book, the poster
was more interested in how close the movie followed the spirit/intent
of the book. I think that could apply to these "historical fiction" things,
too.
Interestingly, when I first came across this thread, the History Channel
was running a marathon of their "History vs. Hollywood" shows. Talking
to the filmmakers and the folks the films were made about. Pretty neat.
Chris
remove 77 to reply
Buckaroo Banzai - http://www.WorldWatchOnline.com
http://come.to/ConnorMacLeod
http://come.to/Buffy-timeline
][
@#####|}======================>
][
John Biltz
charter cutting an illegal deal on a parked plane at the end of a runway.
He didn't warn he was uncovered. At least the government of Cleveland
showed some class. Told the NFL face a $2,000,000,000 lawsuit for an
illegal deal or we get the next the expansion team. They had serious
leverage. That lawsuit was money in the bank. The other thing was they had
sold out virtually every game in 40 years in a 70,000 seat stadium including
that season. It was not a case where the fans had deserted the franchise,
the franchise deserted the fans and the city. That 2 billion represented
real financial losses for the city over not too many years and season ticket
holders. Which were first rights tickets for any event in the stadium
including concerts. There were divorces that went to court over those
tickets when everything else had been settled amicably.
Browns Moose
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010129115856...@ng-mf1.aol.com...
> >> >Gemini, in Ohio, where we're cheering against the Ravens, since Art
Model
> >> >deserves
> >> >to suffer greatly.
>
> Donna:
> >> Yeah, well, we've been hoping the Indiana (blech) Colts would curl up
and
> >die
> >> for the last 15 years, but it hasn't happened yet. <g>
>
> >Browns Moose
> >So you went and stole our team? I don't wish the Ravens to die, would
shed
> >no tears for Model though.
>
> At least Model gave you plenty of warning. Robert Irsay literally snuck
the
> Colts out of town in the middle of the night and we woke up to find them
in
> Indiannapolis.
>
> At least the Ravens had the courtesy of giving you the name back! <g>
>
> Donna
>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
SUQKRT
In article <24080-3A...@storefull-214.iap.bryant.webtv.net>,
tiber...@webtv.net wrote:
yuck I don't understand.
Suz #5A
Iron Chef Macmoosette
Thank Heavens There's Only One
230+
=^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^= =^..^=
Cats are born free, but get expensive very quickly.
SUQKRT
In article <FYid6.1004074$%C1.12960323@Flipper>, "3D Master"
<3d.m...@chello.nl> wrote:
>
>Makes you wonder what people in 4-500 years will consider art of our
>fictional productions. Perhaps they'll look at 'Days of our lives' and
>say,
>see the grand form of 20th century art.
>
>Brrrr, blegh. Let's hope not!
>
>3D Master
watch it buddy, thats my Soap(but yes the "writing" is not at all real). I've
only watched it since I was 8.
tiber...@webtv.net
donna...@aol.com (DonnaLetto) wrote:
<snip> altering history in Highlander -- that if it inspires someone to
find out more about the period and maybe learn the real story, then it's
worth it.
>>In my case it inspired me to go to my encyclopedia and look-up Bonnie
Prince Charlie.
<snip> Does adding these characters work for you? Would you prefer a
more strict historical account? Is the point entertainment or education?
>>Obviously, it's what works for you that matters, but since you want my
opinion.
I think that if I were reading this these characters would work for me.
I have a passion for history (mainly the US Presidents and the WWII
period), but when I'm reading non-fiction I'm trying to
be educated, when I'm reading fiction (even historical fiction) I'm
looking to be entertained. I don't have a problem mixing them as long as
fact isn't tampered with too much.
As others have mentioned here, I thought DM being in the same bunker as
Hitler was over the top, but HL was combining fact with fiction in an
entertaining way. Now, if DM would have killed Hitler, then I would have
had a problem with it.
One of my all time favorite movies is Immortal Beloved, the story of
Ludwig Von Beethoven. It's a loose mixture of fact and fiction, but it's
done in such a way that it's both educational and entertaining.
If I were a music teacher I would recommend my students watch it. They
would be both entertained and informed.
I can see where mixing fact and fiction would be like juggling chainsaws
for a professional writer. You make one little mistake and -- oh, what a
mess!
It's your story to tell, Donna. If your comfortable with it it will show
through to your readers, and then they will be comfortable with it.
Not much help, am I. <g>
Tiberius
Kathy Morey
> Personally, I would have paid real money to see the look on Steven Tyler's
> face when he was told he'd be performing with N'SYNC.
>
> <couldn't cheer for the Ravens...they used to be the Cleveland Browns...and
> as a Bengals fan, that's just not right (no one has to remind me how bad the
> Bengals suck, I'm well aware)>
>
LOL! Growing up in southern Ohio, myself, I learned very early that we rooted
for the Cincinnati Bengals and whoever played against the Cleveland Browns!
Kathy
Kathy Morey
> Kathy:
> >Or, as someone else said, to at least be very careful in labeling which parts
> >are indeed fictional.
>
> I don't think Oliver Stone believes there are parts of JFK which are indeed
> fictional <g>
>
> I'm sure he believes he's just filling the blanks.
LOL! Yeah, you may very well be right, there.
> So does that mean you can only tell a story the way it appears in high school
> history books?
>
> Donna
Well, I would never have claimed high school history books as a valid source for
serious historical research, so ... no!
Seriously, I'm not sure there is a good answer to this question. One man's (or
woman's) hot-point is another's ho-hum, even if both are equally "close" to the
historical event. I guess I would tend to err on the side of caution when it came
to making blatant changes regarding events that are well-recorded, but wouldn't
worry quite so much about speculation in areas that are less known. Still not
much help, huh?
Kathy
(This is why I program computers instead of writing....)
DonnaLetto
>>against son.......tragedy anyone?
>
>Interesting; I never thought of it that way. (Then again, all I know about
>Culloden I learned from Highlander <g>). Jette, your description of the real
>battle of Culloden sounds a lot like our Civil War!
>
>Susan
Although that's also considered a very romanticized view of the Civil War these
days.
Donna
DonnaLetto
Not to mention, he generally wrote what his patrons told him to write. Why do
you think his companies were called the Lord Chamberlain's Men and the King's
Men?
Donna
(some things never change)
Kathy Morey
> "Kathy Morey" <kmm...@ix.netcom.com> wrote
> > This is a good point, and I agree to a certain extant. The problem I have
> with
> > fictionalizing real events is that there are lots of viewers who *do*
> accept
> > what they see as fact, or at least who let the emotionality of a piece
> affect
> > their feelings about the issues involved. For example, I worked with some
> > people, who were not stupid, who now apparently believe that the movie JFK
> > presents the real and complete story of the Kennedy assassination.
> > I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of tv/movie makers to educate
> a
> > public that's unwilling to educate themselves, or that they're responsible
> for
> > people who don't percieve the difference between reality and fiction, but
> I do
> > think that there is a responsibility to be as accurate as possible,
> especially
> > with more "current" events.
>
> Okay, but doesn't that sort of suck out any room for creativity? I mean, if
> you've got this accuracy responsibility looming over your head, doesn't it
> limit your possiblities?
Not necessarily. There can be a wealth of possibilities in the details, and in
speculation on the reasoning behind the facts. (Are we getting off Donna's
topic?) And, especially with older events, there are usually lots of things
that aren't known with any degree of accuracy.
I also think that a less important detail could be played with less "danger"
than an important one, if you can actually determine the difference.
> I guess I just don't care. If I want accuracy, I'll go read a history book.
> When my friend and I went to see Gladiator, I really liked one particular
> shot of the Roman army lighting their flaming arrows from this little
> burning trench thing that was dug in front of them. My friend's response
> was, "That's not at all historically accurate." And my response is, "Who
> cares? It was a cool shot." I don't believe that they really lit their
> arrows that way, just because I saw it on-screen and I think it takes a
> certain level of naivete to take a movie as fact.
And there certainly isn't anything wrong with that approach, of course. I often
don't care, either, if I don't have strong feelings one way or the other about
the events being shown. That's why sometimes I think the older the history is,
the easier time the writer/movie maker has because he's less likely to stir
someone up. (With the probably exception of nation-defining moments that have
great sentimental value to the citizens of the country.)
Kathy
(probably still not helping)
DonnaLetto
Same way I always have. I listen to what other people have to say about things
that have happened in the past, and then I make my own decisions and do my own
thing.
This is not a binding election <g>
Donna
(Uh oh, 57% of the fans who post to alt.tv.highlander say fictional characters
shouldn't sleep with non-fictional characters. Damn, there goes my next book!)
Ann Hall
Not living in the South for more than 25 years for nothing.
--
Ann Hall
"If the world were a logical place, men would ride side saddle."
"DonnaLetto" <donna...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010129213642...@ng-xa1.aol.com...
TBird
I thought I was the only Quaker on the group. I'll have to look for your
Aunts book!
TBird <---- Quaker by convincement <---- which wasn't as painful as it
sounds
--
One of the Four HorseWomen of the ATH Gutter
~
Blood and ashes, time burning
On a skyline dark against the stars
A solitary Horseman, waiting...
- Bruce Cockburn
"Jennifer Peters" <run...@spamless.erinet.com> wrote in message
news:3a74ca44$0$1515$53a6...@news.erinet.com...
>
>
> DonnaLetto wrote:
>
> > And now for something completely different, but not entirely off-topic,
> > considering that Highlander was a show firmly based in historical
fiction.
> > <Lettow-related historical fiction snipped>
>
> Just another data point, so to speak.
>
> My aunt has published a novel called Silent Friends, historical fiction
about
> Quakers moving west into Iowa.
> It's based on our ancestors. The meeting house built in the first chapter
still
> exists, although it's no longer used as a place of worship. (In the
novel, it's
> burned down.)
>
> She takes some liberties with the family tree. She's combined herself
with her
> younger sister. My mom and my uncle are intact.
>
> Of course, nobody but my brother, the geneologist would recognise other
details
> she's changed. A great-aunt is totally missing. An uncle dies much
younger in the
> novel.
>
> Really, the only thing that gave me pause was burning down the meeting
house. I've
> been to it many times. I like the idea that I could visit it again. (I
can't
> visit my grandmother's house. It's been torn down. Perhaps my aunt
subbed one for
> the other.)
>
> While I've never discussed it with her, I think my aunt wanted to tell
about
> Quakers, and what makes us unique in society. I think she succeeded in
that. The
> liberties she took helped her do that. (The great-aunt would have
cluttered the
> story. The early death was a suicide, which had to be dealt with as a
Quaker
> community.)
>
> So, if the artistic liberties allow for more truth to be told, I'm all for
it. Was
> this historical Lettow the kind of man who would have had a mistress,
American or
> otherwise? If not, then it does history a disservice to add one.
>
> JMHO.
>
> > Donna
> > (off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)
Jerri LaPoint
> (Uh oh, 57% of the fans who post to alt.tv.highlander
> say fictional characters shouldn't sleep with non-fictional
> characters. Damn, there goes my next book!)
I have had a rather large crush on one of my own characters ... Nick Gabriel
... for years. When I decided to marry him off to Maybeth Pringle, I had to
change his name to Saber Forrest. Just in case. You know?
Jerri
Jennifer Peters
TBird wrote:
> Cool!
> I thought I was the only Quaker on the group. I'll have to look for your
> Aunts book!
>
It's from Stormline Press. I don't know if it's still in print.
>
> TBird <---- Quaker by convincement <---- which wasn't as painful as it
> sounds
> --
I'm a birthright Quaker. The family tree goes way back, to when we got run out
of Britain by Cromwell.
:-)
Gemini
GinjerB
<Careless...@aol.comgoaway> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Historical" Fiction
>From: Kristina <Careless...@aol.comgoaway>
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 22:57:44 -0700
>
>On 29 Jan 2001 04:29:00 GMT, donna...@aol.com (DonnaLetto) wrote:
>
>>A Moose covered in kitty fur:
>>>I always prefer my historical fiction more historical and less fiction. I
>>>think if it a story worth telling then tell the story. If you want to make
>>>a lot of embellishments and stuff then change the names and tell the story
>>>you want and protect the innocent. It is how I have always felt about it.
>>
>>So what about a case where there's not a lot known about the personalities
>of
>>the individuals involved? When the *events* are historical, but we don't
>know
>>anything about the participants other than the facts of the participation?
>
>Coming late to the party...
>
>I love historical fiction. I discovered a liking for history because
>of historical novels, specifically "The Agony and the Ecstasy". I
>didn't know much about Michelangelo when I picked it up, it just
>looked interesting. A week later, I was carrying home stacks of books
>[non-fiction] from the library about him.
>
>I don't like when well-known [and I'm aware that what constitutes
>well-know varies from person to person <grin>] historical facts are
>changed for a novel. But creating situations, characters or
>conversations where none exist doesn't bother me, as long as it's not
>something that seems strikingly at odds with what *is* known about the
>person/s or events.
>
>And a well-written historical fiction [whether it's a book or a movie]
>will drive me to discover what I can about what *really* happened,
>which is never a bad thing.
>
>Kristina <entertainment and education all in one><g>
>*~*~
<<Most of Mary Renault, who I adore, is historical fiction about characters we
don't know a whole lot about.
Certainly, the Theseus duology is. There is more documentation on Alexander and
the Peloppenesian (sp?) Wars, but you're still talking a lot of room for
imagination.
GinjerB (Points to THE LAST OF THE WINE as one of her all-time favorite books)
GinjerB
<kmm...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Historical" Fiction
>From: Kathy Morey <kmm...@ix.netcom.com>
>Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:38:20 -0500
>
>Gate wrote:
>
>> DonnaLetto <donna...@aol.com> wrote
>> > I suspect there are more than a few readers and viewers of historical
>> fiction
>> > (which I consider slightly different than "historical romance," but if
>you
>> want
>> > to talk about that, that's cool, too) in a group devoted to Highlander.
>> Do you
>> > have any thoughts on the matter? Does adding these characters work for
>> you?
>> > Would you prefer a more strict historical account? Is the point
>> entertainment
>> > or education?
>>
>> I find that I fall onto the side of entertainment for entertainment's sake.
>> I watch movies and television to be entertained. To take a step out of
>> reality. As long as they're not touting themselves as historically
>accurate
>> if they aren't, I have no problem with "adjusting" the characters and facts
>> in order to make the story more interesting/compelling/whatever.
>> I didn't come out of Braveheart thinking I'd just had a wonderful history
>> lesson. I certainly didn't take as gospel fact. But I was entertained,
>and
>> enough so to go out the next day and buy a book on the actual history of
>> Scotland.
>
>This is a good point, and I agree to a certain extant. The problem I have
>with
>fictionalizing real events is that there are lots of viewers who *do* accept
>what they see as fact, or at least who let the emotionality of a piece affect
>their feelings about the issues involved. For example, I worked with some
>people, who were not stupid, who now apparently believe that the movie JFK
>presents the real and complete story of the Kennedy assassination.
>
>I'm not saying that it's the responsibility of tv/movie makers to educate a
>public that's unwilling to educate themselves, or that they're responsible
>for
>people who don't percieve the difference between reality and fiction, but I
>do
>think that there is a responsibility to be as accurate as possible,
>especially
>with more "current" events.
>
>Or, as someone else said, to at least be very careful in labeling which parts
>are indeed fictional.
>
>(I realize that this probably doesn't help at all. I guess all I've said is
>that I recognize that this can be a touchy issue and that I certainly don't
>have
>an answer.......)
>
>Kathy
>
<<This is an intersting topic--I was thinking, I *adore* A LION IN WINTER. It
is, in fact, not historically accurate. Two sons named Geoffrey are combined
into one, I don't think there is any historical evidence that Richard slept
with Philip, etc.
But it is just so *right* in what it says about the relationship of Henry and
Eleanor to each other and thier children, that it doesn't matter, the "dramatic
license" doesn't bother me.
Yet it does in ELIZABETH, which, while wildy inaccurate, does have emotional
truth. I wonder if it's because in the case of LIW, I knew the fiction before I
had read anything at all about the facts, while with ELIZABETH, the opposite
is true?
GinjerB (mulling this...)
GinjerB
(Shomeret) writes:
>Subject: Re: "Historical" Fiction
>From: shom...@aol.com (Shomeret)
>Date: 28 Jan 2001 21:22:27 GMT
>
>I read a great deal of historical fiction, both genre and non-genre. (i.e.
>historical mainstream novels, fantasies, mysteries and romances). I have an
>attraction to certain periods and cultural milieus, but I'll read any
>historical fiction if it sounds interesting and unusual.
>
>How do I feel about the the addition of fictional characters in novels
>dealing
>with historical personages? That depends.
>
>I don't like it when a historical novelist contradicts known facts about a
>personage. I consider invention completely appropriate if the facts aren't
>known. As an example, since no one knows for certain who the Dark Lady of
>Shakespeare's sonnets was, you can theorize all you like about her in
>fiction.
>There are people who think they know for certain, but there is no solid
>historical evidence on the subject. But don't give us a historical fiction
>in
>which the Roman Emperor Augustus had an Empress other than Livia unless
>you're
>writing alternate universe.
>
>I have no problem with the idea that Highlander is an alternate universe in
>which immortals exist. That would make it easy to deal with historical
>additions and contradictions, wouldn't it?
>
>Re
>>(off to watch men named for Edgar Allen Poe poetry kick butt!)-- Oh I'm so
>disappointed! I thought they were named after the HL spin-off and it was a
>team of Amanda clones! <eg>
>
> Shomeret
>
<<Good point--but FOREVER AMBER, one of the two Ur books of all Romance fiction
(The other is GONE WITH THE WIND) has Amber becoming the mistress of James 2nd.
Now, of course James didn't have a mistress named Amber St John--but he did
have a *lot* of mistresses, so it doesn't seem like it's creating alternate
history to put her in his bed.
She doesn't replace any actual historical character--the author uses her affair
with the King as a device to have her in certain places at certain times so
that she can witness history.
GinjerB
GinjerB
(Ojagwers) writes:
> George Clooney's captain character Billy Tyne is shown essentially
>pressuring his men to agree to go into a storm that gets them all killed.
>This
>real man, dead 10 years, is depicted as causing his own death and that of
>five
>other men. Now, Clooney, in my opinion, does a fine job, and the character
>is
>written dimensionally. However, I felt unsettled to see the movie presenting
>a
>real person as culpable in six deaths ... and wasn't all that surprised to
>see
>that Tyne's daughters had instigated a lawsuit against the film company
>because
>of how their father was depicted. So I guess it's a fine line ...
> Dunno if this you were asking about movies, Donna, so this may be
>entirely irrelevant to the question! And JMHO, as always ...
>
>O
<<I didn't read the book until after we'd seen the movie. When I finished it, I
said to Spousal something like, if I were Billy Tyne's family, I'd sue.
I could not believe what liberties they had taken with the lives of people who
died barely six/seven years ago! Uneccessarily, IMHO. The facts didn't have to
be decked out in film cliches to make the movie work emotionally.
GinjerB (annoyed by A PERFECT STORM, in case you couldn't tell. Another
multimillion dollar film with spectacular FX--AND NO SCRIPT!)
>
>
>
>
GinjerB
LaPoint" <jerla...@earthlink.net> writes:
>Subject: Re: "Historical" Fiction
>From: "Jerri LaPoint" <jerla...@earthlink.net>
>Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:40:30 GMT
<<Just the facts, M'am? <g>
Alas, my favorite leisure reading is historical fiction and biograpies. So I am
going to absorb some information along the way...
GinjerB (has something like ten bios/novels aabout Elizabeth Tudor)
Kristina
><<Most of Mary Renault, who I adore, is historical fiction about characters we
>don't know a whole lot about.
>Certainly, the Theseus duology is. There is more documentation on Alexander and
>the Peloppenesian (sp?) Wars, but you're still talking a lot of room for
>imagination.
>
>GinjerB (Points to THE LAST OF THE WINE as one of her all-time favorite books)
Authors/titles duly noted.
Kristina <always looking for more good stuff to read>
*~*~*~*
"This is how it seems to me,
life is only therapy,
real expensive and no guarantees."
- "You Move Me" by Garth Brooks
One of the Four Horsewomen of the ATH Gutter
Ojagwers
Cate Blanchett is a wonderful actress, I'm a fan of Christopher Eccleston (who
played Norfolk), it was nice (and rare, like a solar eclipse!) to see Geoffrey
Rush playing a calm person for a change and I felt if I wanted to know more
about what *really* happened, I'll read a history book. I *love* the movie
"The Lion in Winter," and its late author, James Goldman, acknowledges that the
Plantagenet clan plus King Philip never all got together for Christmas at that
castle. Still a wonderful movie ("I know that you know, you know that I know,
he knows that we know, and we know that he knows that we know. We're a
knowledgeable family" :) ). Again, this is a story about figures who are not
personally known to anyone living -- unless, of course, the "Highlander" has a
more factual base than has hitherto been disclosed. I would have tremendous
sympathy for any Immortals on this board who personally knew (or were)
Elizabeth I, the Duke of Norfolk, Henry II, etc., and have a bad feeling about
their old friends/enemies/alter egos being misrepresented ... Hmm, you know,
Elizabeth I could've been an Immie -- one of the ones who never had her
Immortality triggered. She was childless, after all -- and her mother Anne
Boleyn would have been motivated to procure a healthy infant if something
happened to her actual offspring (although you think she'd try to get a boy
child, if she had to do such a thing at all) ... which probably wouldn't have
been too much historically weirder than the contents of the film "Elizabeth."
As history, I gather that the film is next to useless, but as a movie on its
own terms, I liked it quite a lot. JMHO ...
O
DonnaLetto
>Are we getting off Donna's
>topic?
No such thing. <g>
Donna
Ojagwers
activities regarding the Enigma code:
>Why the change? Because the primary audience (Americans)
>> >are assumed to be only interested in watching Americans.
>>
>> I thought it was more because the primary audience (Americans) are
>generally
>> assumed to be culturally illiterate, so they felt they could steal the idea
>of
>> Enigma and put it anywhere.
>
>It translates to the same thing in the end.
>
>> (Granted, I didn't actually see the movie -- I
>> have a thing against drowning movies, and a sub film is pretty good bet to
>be a
>> drowning movie <g> -- was it the actual Enigma story with the passports
>> changed, or hadn't they inserted Enigma someplace it never belonged because
>> they thought it sounded "cool"?)
>
If it makes anyone interested in the Enigma code feel any better, there is a
British-made film which I think is *called* "Enigma," about English decoders
during WWII. It is due for release later this year and stars Kate Winslet and
-- HL link, I'm on topic, honest! -- Dougray Scott, forever known to us as
Warren Cochrane.
O