BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

Macbeth wrote:

Historical fiction is such a shit genre and waste of time. It takes no creativity to write a historical fiction novel. They confuse the general public about historic events. They are usually never well written or researched.

Read a lot of historical fiction, do you?

If anyone is dumb enough to think that historical fiction is the same as historical fact, then they deserve whatever they get out of it...which is probably nothing important, anyway.

AussieReaper wrote:

hahaha

oh my.

Explain to me what's so funny. He never specifically stated he would put the jews in concentration camps and gas them (that's not to absolve him from blame but the fact is that he simply didn't). The closest he got is saying that he will bring the solution to the "Jewish problem" in a speech. Though after he got into power, the man didn't lift a finger. Even his personal adjudant had problems reaching him with as a result that his "inner circle" had to wait for months on answers to questions they gave him. Hence Kershaw's title of the essay&book, working towards the führer. As Hitler was nearly unreachable people just interpreted his speeches and acted on that. There was no cohesive, orderly government at all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd read 'Mein Kampf', then a short history of Nazism and WW2.

Then you'd like to know that Kershaw is the foremost expert on Hitler and Nazi government in the world.

Also FYI antisemitism wasn't unique to Nazis at all. In Eastern Europe (I believe Romania if I recall correctly) you had crowds of Romanians, not Nazis, beating jews to death in public displays for fun during WW2. Some small blonde arian dude with a club was called "the butcher" there and he regularly 'put on a show' for crowds in the street. Jews would be pushed forward and had to wait in line to get beaten to death. Anti-jewish sentiments lived in France and Britain as much as it did in Germany. It took the discovery of the concentration camps made by the latter for these sort of 'feelings' to die out.

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Hitler never really pulled any strings. Mussolini was still popular even after establishing himself as fascist dictator and Stalin came to power when it (public support) didn't really matter anymore.

On the point of Hitler and Mussolini, they only lost support after their wars went bad, which is typical.

it was lack of public support that saw mussolini hanging with his mistress in a gas station

Yes, in 45, after his war went bad.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-07-05 09:53:20)

Shocking wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

hahaha

oh my.

Explain to me what's so funny. He never specifically stated he would put the jews in concentration camps and gas them (that's not to absolve him from blame but the fact is that he simply didn't). The closest he got is saying that he will bring the solution to the "Jewish problem" in a speech. Though after he got into power, the man didn't lift a finger. Even his personal adjudant had problems reaching him with as a result that his "inner circle" had to wait for months on answers to questions they gave him. Hence Kershaw's title of the essay&book, working towards the führer. As Hitler was nearly unreachable people just interpreted his speeches and acted on that. There was no cohesive, orderly government at all.

Dilbert_X wrote:

I'd read 'Mein Kampf', then a short history of Nazism and WW2.

Then you'd like to know that Kershaw is the foremost expert on Hitler and Nazi government in the world.

Also FYI antisemitism wasn't unique to Nazis at all. In Eastern Europe (I believe Romania if I recall correctly) you had crowds of Romanians, not Nazis, beating jews to death in public displays for fun during WW2. Some small blonde arian dude with a club was called "the butcher" there and he regularly 'put on a show' for crowds in the street. Jews would be pushed forward and had to wait in line to get beaten to death. Anti-jewish sentiments lived in France and Britain as much as it did in Germany. It took the discovery of the concentration camps made by the latter for these sort of 'feelings' to die out.

eleven bravo wrote:

eleven bravo wrote:

it was lack of public support that saw mussolini hanging with his mistress in a gas station

Yes, in 45, after his war went bad.

wasnt he removed from power in 43?

ive read before that there was a significant anti-nazi movement in the early to mid 30's in germany

Macbeth wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Historical fiction is such a shit genre and waste of time. It takes no creativity to write a historical fiction novel. They confuse the general public about historic events. They are usually never well written or researched.

Read a lot of historical fiction, do you?

If anyone is dumb enough to think that historical fiction is the same as historical fact, then they deserve whatever they get out of it...which is probably nothing important, anyway.

It is still uninspired lazy uncreative writing. Instead of developing your own complex story and characters you just borrow and dramatize the life of someone else or events that were happening or dropping a story in the middle of something like WW2. Add to that anachronisms and characters acting way out of their time frame. I'm not saying all historical fiction is bad. Gravity's Rainbow and War an Peace are great books. But the author of a series on Rome and the Mongols certainly fits my prior definition of lazy historical fiction writer.

So you've read Iggulden's work, then?

Takes a ton of creativity to copy other people's work and put it into a textbook, too.

But you just said historical fiction doesn't require creativity. But it's fiction, which does require creativity. Which is it?

Of course it's apples and oranges. And I enjoy various quantities of both. I certainly don't eschew one and raise the other to some otherworldly status. It comes down to preference, which is individual. You don't like historical fiction. I think we all get that. It doesn't mean that there aren't works of historical fiction--other than Shakespeare--that are worth reading.

I've read a few pages of plenty of non-fiction books and meh'd...but I went ahead and read the rest of those pages, too. Weirdly enough, the sum of the book was more than the impression gained by casually reading a few pages of something I'd prejudged because I didn't prefer the genre.

what about time travel novels

finished the last hunger games book (Mockingjay) - i know lol. didn't really like it compared to the other two

started A Feast for Crows

Last edited by Brasso (2012-07-06 11:43:17)

FEOS wrote:

I completely disagree. There are gobs of examples of fiction written around/about historical events.

Roots?

With historical fiction you have to actually know your shit otherwise every two-bit scholar will rip you to shreds once the books are published. I know Bernard Cornwell does extensive research for every book series he's published, to the point that he could undoubtedly write a non-fiction text of his own based on other peoples work which is what most contemporary history hacks do (see: Antony Beevor). His Agincourt series was mostly based on Jonathan Sumption's texts (which are the work of a lawyer writing in his free time, and are fantastic btw) and work to mostly focus on a small piece of the action, and fill in the gaps with dramatic elements, while leaving the historical acts alone.

Most of the genre sucks, but there are definitely a few bright spots worth reading. The same could be said for any genre though.

I was at the bookstore today and saw a book called "I Am Jennie." I thought the woman on the cover resembled a pornstar I like, Penny Flame.

Turns out she wrote that book!

Penny = Jennie ?