I'm bringing this conversation "down" from the World of Greyhawk Discussion forum.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
You . . . define fiction as a fabrication or untruth, where I, in this case, define it as a narrative based on fact, yet not substantiated.
It could also be defined as an "elaboration" of the known facts. Taking "literary license" to expand upon a supposition. Some of which Howarth does do, but only as to motivation, in my opinion.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
A true "history book" would be "A History of the Middle Ages," by J Dahmus; and since it is not a chronicle of events, defer it to historical "narrative."
I am unfamiliar with this particular publication, but I am assuming (very dangerous) that this is a book that deals merely with facts and does not include the author's "expert" opinion anywhere within its pages.
That's my idea of a pure "history book" as well.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
Long and the Short of it: Yes it is a GOOD platform to base our village on, and it and the other listed books are good reads for any interested in the details of that period.
I appreciate your overall thoughts and opinion on the matter, but to compare: I don't believe that "1066" falls into the same category that HBO's "Rome" series does, for example. "Rome" is very much my idea of "historical fiction." Some brief examples:
Any "true history book" that I've ever read clearly says that Mark Antony was fanatically loyal to Julius Caesar. But, in the series "Rome," Mark Antony is portrayed as taking a whole day to decide whether or not to accept an alliance offered by Pompey Magnus. It was only during his conversation with Atia (Caesar's niece) that he decided to join Caesar in Greece.
There is no evidence that any such event took place. That was pure "literary license."
Another example: The same can be said of Pullo having mated with Cleopatra and producing a son that Caesar thought was his own; once again -- "literary license." It has always been supposed that Caesar did not truly father the child, but never actually proven. There is also no evidence that there were any such men as "Lucius Vorenus" or "Titus Pullo." For me, that is "historical fiction" and the book 1066 doesn't approach that.
These are events -- and even persons -- that cannot be "substantiated." The closest to this that I ever found within the pages of 1066 is Howarth's speculations as to motives and even that wasn't done very often. _________________ Mystic's web page: http://melkot.com/mysticscholar/index.html
Mystic's blog page: http://mysticscholar.blogspot.com/
Good Idea on moving it here.. I wanted to continue and clarify this (and share with others that had interest, WITHOUT purple Lightning) but was amiss as to how to do such so I PM'd you.... this is much better..... DUH... don't know why I didnt think to put on backalley.
and your right we need more Emoticon. in this case maybe
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
I'm bringing this conversation "down" from the World of Greyhawk Discussion forum.
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
You . . . define fiction as a fabrication or untruth, where I, in this case, define it as a narrative based on fact, yet not substantiated.
It could also be defined as an "elaboration" of the known facts. Taking "literary license" to expand upon a supposition. Some of which Howarth does do, but only as to motivation, in my opinion.
I agree, and that was my point exactly, he takes the "accepted facts" (more on that in abit) and derives a (his?) conclusion.
I agree with his conclusion, but as a "left brained engineer" I have to concede, they are as you put "elaborations", that I agree with based on knowns, but could change if more or differing evidence presented itself.
For example, suppose it came to light in a abscure text discovered in Buckingham Palace that the nobels were paid off prior to the invasion? it would certainly change the dynamic of the view of not only the book, but the event as a whole, yes? Which, inturn, would lead many a literary storm over the athentic nature of the discovery or to more items that have been conveniently buried because of lack of such evidence?
This is the closest thing historians & science have to "lawyering" They approach things as if false unless there is insurmountable evidence to the contrary. Point is, we as spectators, don't know. We have to take what "evidence" presented within, and determine our interpretation. That is the part of the book I do enjoy is his bi-partisan approach, allowing the reader to decide.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
Dark_Lord_Galen wrote:
A true "history book" would be "A History of the Middle Ages," by J Dahmus; and since it is not a chronicle of events, defer it to historical "narrative."
I am unfamiliar with this particular publication, but I am assuming (very dangerous) that this is a book that deals merely with facts and does not include the author's "expert" opinion anywhere within its pages.
That's my idea of a pure "history book" as well.
Assumption is accurate, though as we all know "facts" are subjective. At one time the earth was the center of the universe, flat, and there were 9 planets..
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
I appreciate your overall thoughts and opinion on the matter, but to compare: I don't believe that "1066" falls into the same category that HBO's "Rome" series does, for example. "Rome" is very much my idea of "historical fiction." ..............There is no evidence that any such event took place. That was pure "literary license."
Ok, my turn to "assume" hehe... Since I have never seen any of the program to which you are refering I would frame my response soley from your examples..... That said, I too don't think they are within the "same catagory" but differing branches from the "same tree"? We first should define the word catagory. In this case, I see it like so
Literature
Fiction.................................... Non-Fiction
.....Historical................................ Historical (Chronological)
.....Fantasy.................................. Fantasy- Occult
.....Western................................. American Frontier
.....Sci-Fi..................................... Pure Science- Physics, Metalurgy, etc
From those catagories and on the fiction side of the "tree"
Historical
.....Period Narrative
.....Novel
Then of course separated by timeframe.
I see this (and others) as having a foot in two places, Taking the Non-fiction Historical Chronical of that period in time and weaving a plausable but yet unproven fictional account of underlying events.
Granted I am by NO MEANS an authority in Library Science (seems there was someone here involved in that??) So this is VERY incomplete and rough
I would think your "Rome" anology akin to my "Titanic", taking literary license and weaving fictional drama around events? There are certainly a multitude of works that do this and worse... Nora Roberts has made a career from such, though not to my taste.
Mystic-Scholar wrote:
The closest to this that I ever found within the pages of 1066 is Howarth's speculations as to motives and even that wasn't done very often.
I can certainly see the Non-fictional elements and your reasoning. As 1066 lists strongly in that direction, but lacks a chronology of timeline events or footnote corroberation of facts that most historical non-fictions contain. (aka A to B to C, and this followed by this) Which is why most find the study of history a mundane dolore of dates, places, events. 1066 is more of the interpersonal relationships that were "shaped" from and "leading" to particular events and how the author percieved they may have occured when there was lack of supporting corroberation. IMO
Do bear in mind I do this not to be argumentative It is with upmost respect. I just by nature enjoy a good debate. Especially if it can be rooted firmly in facts and not empassioned with opinion.. Everyone has a right to opinion (IMO hehe) they just need to remember theirs' is not fact unless supported so AND more importantly, others have the right to thier opinion as well.
I won't get into details at this time, I'm just "passing through" and will write more thoroughly later -- and I'm writing this quickly and of the top of my head.
An example from the book: There is no evidence one way or the other, though it is supposed that Harold once promised to support William's claim to the throne.
Howarth's supposition -- which I think should be accepted as fact -- is this; Harold knew good and well that the Witena Gemot was the only "legal body" capable of installing a new king and they would not, necessarily, vote for whom Harold might suggest. That was English Law and is a fact , not a supposition. So, why would Harold make a promise he knew he couldn't keep? Perhaps to keep William from killing him while he was captive?
Supposition sprinkled all through there, but what else could possibly be the answer? Politicians do it all the time, making promises they know they cannot keep, just to keep their political life "alive." Whatever "it" is, it's not their decision.
That is an example of what I'm talking about. Sprinkling in reasoning like that doesn't suddenly make the book fiction.
I think you're saying that you're going with "fiction" definition #1: "the class of literature comprising works of imaginative narration, especially in prose form."
I, on the other hand, more readily accept definitions #3: "something feigned, invented, or imagined; a made-up story") #4: "the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining") and #5: "an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation."
Like I said, we're merely disagreeing on the meaning and usage of the phrase "historical fiction." And those definitions I've given above are the reason why.
ROFL I was good with it till you put Politicians, Facts, and truth in the same post
MINUS -3 credibility points in Knowlege- Fictional Writings for you!!!!
like you gotta run and will add further when not doing it from my phone.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
At one time the earth was the center of the universe, flat, and there were 9 planets.. 