4 ms·
I think that the author's point was something else. People expect fiction to be consistent, believable and predictable and yet they take their own history for g
by CodeMage 16y ago
I think that the author's point was something else. People expect fiction to be consistent, believable and predictable and yet they take their own history for granted.
You'll hear people complain that the show X jumped the shark because of the character A or plot device B. Yet a lot of those same people don't question much of what they "know" about World War II. And a lot of those who do question it, just give up and say "Oh, well, it's history. We'll never really know, will we?"
- chipsy 16y agoThat's what I got out of it too. "Believable" or "realistic" often translates to "conventional" or "predictable." Fiction authors tend to toe the line between them very carefully; yet some of the most respected literature around tends to be based on a ridiculous or fantastic premise. Examples: Moby Dick, the Odyssey, Don Quixote, the Metamorphosis.
- brazzy 16y agoPart of that is that fiction generally gives a very immediate, close-up view of events, whereas you get history as a biased summary of a vast amount of indirect reports.
- vgurgov 16y agowell i can only agree with you. to me lessons here are quite obvious: 1) history channel is not a right pick if you want to learn some history. 2) if you take any complex story and try to make popcorn story out of it - you most likely end-up making something inconsistent/unbelievable for some curious minds(like HN readers)