Rewriting History

[white avenger]

The forthcoming "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter" movie inspired this, but it's a long way from being the first story to manipulate or downright change what we now accept as historical accuracy. What is your opinion on the subject? Does it bother you when writers of historical fiction exercise a degree of poetic license in making history correspond with their fiction, as opposed to the other way around, or do you just go with it and enjoy the story?

As for myself, I think that as long as the manipulation is simply for the sake of entertainment, and seen as such, it's relatively harmless. Where the harm comes in is when the fiction is presented and believed by the public to be based on actual fact. Wars have been fought over just such fiction, and that is where the harm comes in. It's bad enough when so called "historians" editorialize actual events. Actual fiction writers should be acknowledged as such, and the difference between their fiction and actual truth recognized.

 

[Taake]

As for myself, I think that as long as the manipulation is simply for the sake of entertainment, and seen as such, it's relatively harmless. Where the harm comes in is when the fiction is presented and believed by the public to be based on actual fact. Wars have been fought over just such fiction, and that is where the harm comes in. It's bad enough when so called "historians" editorialize actual events. Actual fiction writers should be acknowledged as such, and the difference between their fiction and actual truth recognized.

I would have to go with this above. As long as it's simply for the sake of entertainment I don't really see the harm in it, as long as it is taken as such too, but entertainment has a way of finding it's way into history just because it makes stories more salacious and simply, well, more entertaining.

So I don't mind but I mind, if that makes sense 🙂... I like it when things are historically accurate but at the same time "what is history but a fable agreed upon?" so really, at the end of the day, I don't mind theorizing for the sake of entertainment around historical events, most if it is up to conjecture anyway IMO, there are few things we know with a 100% certainty.

 

[JCoatsworth]

I like it when authors rewrite history. I have absolutely nothing against historically accurate movies, but simply changing history can be really interesting and fun.

Author Michael Crichton did something similar in his novel Timeline. Crichton always had an incredibly wide background knowledge about the subjects he was writing about.
In Timeline, a few people travel back in time and find themselves in the 14th century. They experience how living in the Middle Ages really was.
Many of the assumptions of today's archaeologists and historians get proven wrong, some get affirmed.
It is really interesting. Michael Crichton's version of the Middle Ages is pretty much the same as we think it was, but he alters those little details.

 

[Vamp Jenny]

I like when people "rewrite" history when it makes sense. Now I know vampires don't exist (or maybe they do... 😉) but Abraham Lincoln having a secret life as a vampire hunter is something that could've made sense (especially since in those times they still believed in vampires, witch, werewolves and such).

What I don't like is when a movie is based on historical facts and things are changed to fit the history. Immortals is the best example I can come up with. They basically decided to drop 90% of the Greek mythology to fit their story. They acted as if all those other gods never existed, when we all know the Greek gods were a lot more than 5.

I know movies and books are just storytelling, but I prefer when they stay as true as the context as possible. I wouldn't have enjoyed Da Vinci Code and Angel & Demons if they had changed basics of the religion. Did Jesus have kids with Marie Madeleine? We'll never really know. But he was still the son of a carpenter in the book/movie. Same thing for Angel & Demon. The basic facts concerning the Pope and Cardinals and the Vantican.

I prefer when they stay as close as possible to the true story. It makes it more believable and a lot more enjoyable in my eyes.

Then maybe it's just because I'm a history geek...

 

[ashleigh]

Well, I was kind of irritated when I saw his book 'Pride, Prejudice & Zombies' in a book store I was annoyed. But I don't like that book anyway.

But I guess if he's not messing with other people's books, I don't really mind it 🙂 It's pretty obvious that in this case, the story is fictional. Unless a deluded person reads the book. 😉

 

[brinkster130]

I don't mind if it is for the sake of entertainment and that fact is made abundantly clear. It does slightly annoy me when it's presented as truth; but what gets to me most is when people in the general public accept the rewritten history as truth with out question.

For me personally, when I come across a film or book that gives their own take on historical events it usually makes me curious enough to do some of my own research to better understand said events and stories; which often allows me to enjoy the rewritten version more. 🙂

 

[Kean]

History has been my life long passion (I got a degree in it for my trouble) and I really nit pick about entertainment maintaining the historical integrity in their depictions. It's a really uptight, nerdy way to be but I can't help it.

In one sense, any telling of history will reveal more about the author than it will about the event, even academic works by professional historians. You can't really fault cinema doing the same, but so often things are just made up or bastardized unnecessarily. In my book, if an historical event/figure bears writing or making a movie about, you'll find everything you need in their true story. You won't need "Hollywoood" it up.

 

[SinisterPledge]

I don't really care. If it's for entertainment, no problem. If they present it as truth, get some knowledge, read some books. If people want a reason for war, they'll find it...

Also, we can't really know what the actual truth is now can we, when the history is written by the victors?

 

[kittenpoker]

Hmm....I don't know anything about Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter - but this question intrigues me.

I think definitely creative license to redefine (or recreate) history for entertainment (and artistic value) is awesome!

But I also think (and hope this isn't too political) - that history itself is pretty much redefined all the time - as it's often biased and based on the accounts of the winners.

 

[Ianigsy]

It's nothing new- Shakespeare wrote a series of plays about English history which take massive liberties and condense events so that decades of history take place in a few hours on the stage. In the case of Richard III, he created an image which has stuck.

The interesting thing with Lincoln is that you're doing it with somebody who has been idolised for some 150 years, sometimes at the cost of an all-round picture of the real human being. In Lincoln's lifetime he was often considered quite an uncouth person to be a national leader, but being assassinated shortly after the Union victory meant that he became idealised in the popular imagination.

 

[sisterofmercy]

I don't mind as the clue is kind of in the name 'historic FICTION.' If I wanted to watch a historically accurate TV show/film then I'd watch a documentary. I'm all for artistic license, sometimes it makes all the difference and is what can make or break all the constant adaptations of the classics.

 

[Jodast]

If a rewrite is done as an alternate fictional history or a pastiche or satire then I have no problem with it.

 

[Joan the Vampire Slayer]

I haven't read much historical fiction, so I don't know how much I can weight in on this, but I do think "what if" scenarios are very interesting. Lik, what would have happened if we had lost the war, etc. I think it is ok as long as people know it is fiction, and know the real history.