BF2S Forums BF3s Book Club

Macbeth wrote:

There has certainly been plenty of great historical fiction novels throughout time and I don't hate the genre as much as I hate where it is now. My problem with historical fiction like the ones FEOS posted is how much it screws up with people's perception of history. 

It annoys me when you have historical fiction, both movies and books, that are full of anachronisms like modern atheist in 1th century Rome and discussions involving 21th century ideas of equality in 12th century Baghdad. It also annoys me when it totally distorts historical events and pushes fringe ideas like a black Cleopatra. Now you can say that my complaint that historical fiction is screwing with people's perception of history is just me whining about stupid people who are going to find a way to be stupid no matter what but these things actually matter. A lot of people seriously think Cleopatra was black because of movies and books that have pushed that idea. This may seem like nothing to get worked up about but there is a genuine movement out there to rewrite the history of Egypt as a black accomplishment when it wasn't. She was from a Greek family. We have sculptures made in her lifetime that shows her with white features. A lot of people have this idea thanks to the 300 that the Persians were monsters that wanted to destroy the advanced beautiful Greek civilization. But the truth is that the Greeks were hillbillies compared to the Persians. This idea of 'monster Persians' leads people to think and spot all sort of racist bullshit. People have it drilled in their head this idea of a 'Grand Rome'. Rome was a great Empire but compared to the empires in China and Persia at the time it doesn't compare well. Thanks to books and movies that push this grand rome idea we have idiots that post things like

Again you are probably thinking I am getting upset over something petty like people thinking things aren't true but this stuff matters. There is plenty of historical fiction books that push the 'Superman founding father' trope. Idiots then drag this into politics and our political system gets borked by people who thinks the the constitution holds all the answers for life.



As for the actual quality of historical fiction as entertainment- the vast majority isn't that great. Rather than building a unique story or something   a lot of it takes historical events, adds a love story or something, and pushes it onto people with Rome or Mongol fetishes. It doesn't take a lot of work and creativity to insert a love story into a world where most of everything you need to move the story along has already been written.

A man and woman met and fall in love in 12 century Baghdad? Need an antagonist? Bam Mongol invasion. Need to fill some pages with some scarey stuff to draw the audience in and care about the characters? Bam written accounts of the rape of Baghdad. Need a resolution to the story? Bam Mamluk counter offense. You can pump these out easily and make a ton of money.

The series FEOS posted is pretty much this. I'm not impressed that the guy posted a small chapter on what actually happened and how his story deviated from. You can get the same thing from a wikipedia entry. Considering he is running a series on Rome and the Mongols I would not be surprised if he uses wikipedia since you can't become an expert in both of those histories since they are so massively a part. You won't be able to build histrionically accurate characters from wikipedia. To understand the Mongols and the various people you are going to be making characters of you are going to have to understand the Chinese world at the time. The Islamic world. The Russian world. You would have to do the same for Rome. There is zero crossover between them.

I have a hardback of SlaughterHouse 5 signed by KV

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

ironic seeing as the whole post wasn't strictly about the book you mentioned but more an indictment of cheap historical fiction.  So, a response to a wall-o-text you haven't read.

gg

or maybe you did read it but you're being cheap with your response.  I don't know what you did or didn't read, but I tend to agree with Macbeth that generally historical fiction can lead stupid people to think the version they read is the real history, despite it being called historical FICTION.

FEOS wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

The series FEOS posted is pretty much this. I'm not impressed that the guy posted a small chapter on what actually happened and how his story deviated from. You can get the same thing from a wikipedia entry. Considering he is running a series on Rome and the Mongols I would not be surprised if he uses wikipedia since you can't become an expert in both of those histories since they are so massively a part. You won't be able to build histrionically accurate characters from wikipedia. To understand the Mongols and the various people you are going to be making characters of you are going to have to understand the Chinese world at the time. The Islamic world. The Russian world. You would have to do the same for Rome. There is zero crossover between them.

The two series aren't linked. He would know that if he had bothered to read either.

The series on the Mongols covers China, Korea, the Islamic world, the Russians, eastern Europe. He would know this if he bothered to read a single book of that series.

The author spends as much time researching the topics he writes about as any academic in the field--wikipedia is not his source for information. He would know this if he bothered to read either series.

You can have a PHD in multiple fields but the fields have to be in at least the same ballpark when it comes to history. Mongol and Roman history are not even the same sport. It just too big and there is too much.

Roman is history is what? 400BC to 400AD Mediterranean. Mongol history is 1100AD to 1500AD Asian. Not even close to each other.

me to purchase and read the tomes that he based the series on. Over five thousand pages spent studying a rather obscure and useless topic just because I liked the historical fiction account so much.

Reading what everyone else reads doesn't make you smart. 50 shades of grey is garbage.

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-09-17 19:35:59)

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

but there's nothing holding him to be as accurate to the known history of that time period as an academic would.  Reading it for a story is cool.  Reading it and thinking you have an accurate history of the Mongols, China, Korea, the Islamic world etc. regardless how much the author researched the topics could create problems.

A much more pressing matter...

its the same issue - history is skewed depending on the lens you view it in.  We've had this debate regarding Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States."  It started with you critiquing the book and in the end admitting you never read it.  Had you read it, you would have noticed in the prologue Zinn makes a point to let the reader know what lens he using to filter the history.

I'm not a fan of revisionism for the sake of revisionism

Last edited by Macbeth (2012-09-17 19:47:42)

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

So you have or haven't read his book?  How is he instigating racial and class warfare?

I haven't read it. Would honestly never have any desire to do so. From the opinions of those that have read it, which includes many of my friends, it's basically an anti-white textbook designed to make white people feel bad about themselves and their government for what it's done in the past.

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass. I never owned a slave, I never forced a black man to go to the back of the bus, I never stole land from a Native American. I've got nothing to feel ashamed of. So why on earth would I ever want to read his drivel?

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

Jay wrote:

KEN-JENNINGS wrote:

So you have or haven't read his book?  How is he instigating racial and class warfare?

I haven't read it. Would honestly never have any desire to do so. From the opinions of those that have read it, which includes many of my friends, it's basically an anti-white textbook designed to make white people feel bad about themselves and their government for what it's done in the past.

Frankly, I don't give a rats ass. I never owned a slave, I never forced a black man to go to the back of the bus, I never stole land from a Native American. I've got nothing to feel ashamed of. So why on earth would I ever want to read his drivel?

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=118110&p=19

Macbeth wrote:

FYI "histrionic" doesn't mean anything to do with "historical".

I probably made a typo and didn't pay attention to I which I picked as a correct one.

And I'm not much sure about your statements that you cannot be an expert in more than one historical period. Quite a lot of academics do have a broad range of topics and interests beyond one small era or country.

You can have a PHD in multiple fields but the fields have to be in at least the same ballpark when it comes to history. Mongol and Roman history are not even the same sport. It just too big and there is too much.

Roman is history is what? 400BC to 400AD Mediterranean. Mongol history is 1100AD to 1500AD Asian. Not even close to each other.

Last edited by Shocking (2012-09-19 01:00:55)