3 ms·
Facts are not knowledge. For instance, I've seen "facts" about Henry VIII all my life but it wasn't until I watched The Tudors that I gained some context to app
by nopassrecover 17y ago
Facts are not knowledge. For instance, I've seen "facts" about Henry VIII all my life but it wasn't until I watched The Tudors that I gained some context to appreciate how those facts work. The Tudors might not be completely accurate but it was engaging, and with that context in place I can fill in the gaps and replace the erroneous facts here and there in a meaningful way.
- jamesbritt 17y ago"The Tudors might not be completely accurate but it was engaging, and with that context in place I can fill in the gaps and replace the erroneous facts here and there in a meaningful way." But how do you know which are the fake parts? This is one problem with Dan Brown. He'll present a bunch of stuff, some of which is true, some made up for the sake of plot. How do you tell the difference?
- ErrantX 17y agoYeh, definitely fiction is not to be considered factually conclusive or anything. But The Tudors was great for light information about Tudor life, The Da Vinci code was insightful in terms of classical history. The idea is that if stuff sparks your interest you can always go read into it in more depth. Otherwise you have at least a baseline; I have absolutely no interest in the Tudors, really, but the TV series means I could at least try to have a worthwhile conversation with a Tudor history buff :)