GETTING THE FACTS RIGHT
The Guardian newspaper took on the subject and comes to the conclusion that:
Judging historical fiction is not as simple as 'accurate equals good' and 'inaccurate equals bad'. It depends on whether the inaccuracies are constructive lies or accidental mistakes.**
Most recently movies have
made headlines regarding distortions of the truth. “Selma” apparently didn’t
follow historical record in its depiction of Lyndon Johnson. There’s been
criticism of “The Imitation Game” and its characterization of Alan Turing. “The
Hurt Locker” was accused of taking liberties in its portrayal of wartime. Could the Guardian be right when it says:
Novels have been criticized
in like manner, including best sellers such as The Pillars of the Earth, Shogun
and Wolf Hall. Historians
themselves speculate about the past by way of interpretation. Historical
fiction writers concoct even more creative speculations. However, at the bottom
lies a core of facts that have withstood authoritative examination. To dirty
the fact line may well take risks impacting our sense of culture and justice.
In spite of the “fiction” label, some readers know too little history to
separate out falsehoods. Too much attention to factual detail is undoubtedly an impediment to literary art.**
Of necessity, historical
fiction writers lie. The question becomes a matter of degree and/or impact. A
single falsification can have great import, for instance, a novel portraying
Frederick Douglas as a white man. Or one giving Custer a victory at
the Battle of the Little Bighorn. Even at that, there are those who defend
inaccuracies of any magnitude as long as they generate dynamism and an interest
in history.
I would argue that when we
go too far adrift from legitimate historical interpretation, we risk attracting
a nasty little bottom-feeder called propaganda. And when inaccuracies are shown to school children
for their instruction (as “Selma” was), this is cause for concern.
No comments:
Post a Comment