04-12-2011, 02:30 PM
How important is historical accuracy in fiction? I’ve always been a hard-liner, getting angry at wrong clothes in movies or inaccurate events in books. But about a month ago I was reading Aristotle’s Poetics and had an epiphany of sorts.
It starts with definitions: Aristotle says that a writer of fiction (poet in his terminology) creates a representative of life and tries to arouse emotions. He says the difference between a historian and a poet is “that one tells what happened and the other what might happen… poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.”
He gives examples: invented personas interacting with historical figures, or historical figures acting in ways that may not be historically accurate but still illuminate something important about that individual. The writer of fiction is supposed to create a story and inspire emotions in the audience.
I think he has a point. It is unfair to a author to expect something other than his goal, and it is unfair to the reader to try and get one disciple (history) from another (fiction).
What do you think?
It starts with definitions: Aristotle says that a writer of fiction (poet in his terminology) creates a representative of life and tries to arouse emotions. He says the difference between a historian and a poet is “that one tells what happened and the other what might happen… poetry tends to give general truths while history gives particular facts.”
He gives examples: invented personas interacting with historical figures, or historical figures acting in ways that may not be historically accurate but still illuminate something important about that individual. The writer of fiction is supposed to create a story and inspire emotions in the audience.
I think he has a point. It is unfair to a author to expect something other than his goal, and it is unfair to the reader to try and get one disciple (history) from another (fiction).
What do you think?
David J. Cord
www.davidcord.com
www.davidcord.com
