Quote:
Originally Posted by hunterseat
I love historical fiction and have learned a lot about stuff I didn't pay attention to in school. Yes, it's fiction but it's normally historically accurate.
|
That's the relevant part about historical fiction. The stories? Made up. The details? Made up. The dialogue? Made up. A historical backdrop doesn't change the fact that it's mostly made up.
I recently watched HBO's
Chernobyl. I absolutely loved it. It's fantastic entertainment. And when I watched, I wanted to be entertained, not educated... because
it's fiction. There were a number of things historically incorrect about the series. There's nothing wrong with that. The purpose is to entertain, so we have composite characters and changes made for dramatic effect. It's all good.
That is, it's all good until people start thinking that they're learning about history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rjshae
For the American Civil War, I don't think you can go to far wrong with Shelby Foote's extensive trilogy.
|
Foote sold a lot of books. And he was a lousy historian. He sold a lot of books because he was a Lost Cause romanticist, and there's a big market for that. That he was a Lost Cause romanticist is also the reason he was such a poor historian.
James McPherson's
Battle Cry of Freedom is the definitive one-volume history of the Civil War.