Waterloo50
Major
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2015
- Location
- England
(Ooops, I may well have posted this in the wrong thread, if anyone could shift it to the correct place I would appreciate it)
I have just finished listening to an interview/debate with authors Steven Saylor and Steven Pressfield, both of these men are accomplished historic fiction authors. The title of their debate was ' The art of writing historical fiction set in antiquity and the challenges of interpreting the classical past for modern audiences.' At the end of the debate the audience were able to ask questions and one of the questions asked was 'what responsibilities do authors have to the readers of their books in maintaining historical accuracy. The response from the authors was that it was important for a number of reasons, Steven Pressfield argued that there was a time (1950s and early 1960s) where movies like Ben Hur and Cleopatra were considered popular entertainment but he added that audiances are less likely to want to sit through a historic movie like the ones he had mentioned because the plots are packed with history and politics. He went on to argue that audiances just wouldn't sit through them today. Mr Pressfield also pointed out that HBOs 'Rome' was incredibly dumbed and as a result some very interesting Machiavellian plots were lost. It was also argued that movies like '300' are successful because audiences today want instant gratification, they want the plot to move quickly unlike those earlier 1950s movies. The point that Mr Pressfield was making was that historic fiction writers need to be accurate in their writing because for some readers it is the only time that they will be exposed to history and for obvious reasons it needs to be correct, occasionally fiction readers will feel inspired to research real history as a result of a good historic fictional work.
The interesting thing that I took away from listening to the debate was the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be, It occurred to me that historians, historical fiction, historic movies and plays all have a place and a responsibility in educating people and in particular,the younger generation about history, each one of these methods of teaching are for the most part clearly defined, today, we know what to expect from each of these genres.
Here is my question(s), where does re-enacting fit into the scheme of things? When it comes to historic education, what niche does it fill and do those that re-enact feel that they are making a difference in bringing history into the lives of people especially those of school age. One further question if you don't mind, what does re-enacting teach, what do people take away from a re-enacting event?
before I sign off and bore you with anymore of my questions I would hasten to add that I think reenactors do a great job and I admire all of them.
I have just finished listening to an interview/debate with authors Steven Saylor and Steven Pressfield, both of these men are accomplished historic fiction authors. The title of their debate was ' The art of writing historical fiction set in antiquity and the challenges of interpreting the classical past for modern audiences.' At the end of the debate the audience were able to ask questions and one of the questions asked was 'what responsibilities do authors have to the readers of their books in maintaining historical accuracy. The response from the authors was that it was important for a number of reasons, Steven Pressfield argued that there was a time (1950s and early 1960s) where movies like Ben Hur and Cleopatra were considered popular entertainment but he added that audiances are less likely to want to sit through a historic movie like the ones he had mentioned because the plots are packed with history and politics. He went on to argue that audiances just wouldn't sit through them today. Mr Pressfield also pointed out that HBOs 'Rome' was incredibly dumbed and as a result some very interesting Machiavellian plots were lost. It was also argued that movies like '300' are successful because audiences today want instant gratification, they want the plot to move quickly unlike those earlier 1950s movies. The point that Mr Pressfield was making was that historic fiction writers need to be accurate in their writing because for some readers it is the only time that they will be exposed to history and for obvious reasons it needs to be correct, occasionally fiction readers will feel inspired to research real history as a result of a good historic fictional work.
The interesting thing that I took away from listening to the debate was the general opinion from authors and the audience alike that history is not being taught as well as it used to be, It occurred to me that historians, historical fiction, historic movies and plays all have a place and a responsibility in educating people and in particular,the younger generation about history, each one of these methods of teaching are for the most part clearly defined, today, we know what to expect from each of these genres.
Here is my question(s), where does re-enacting fit into the scheme of things? When it comes to historic education, what niche does it fill and do those that re-enact feel that they are making a difference in bringing history into the lives of people especially those of school age. One further question if you don't mind, what does re-enacting teach, what do people take away from a re-enacting event?
before I sign off and bore you with anymore of my questions I would hasten to add that I think reenactors do a great job and I admire all of them.
Last edited: