>> A book written in 1860 is not the same as a book
written in 1960 and set in
>> 1860. The idealization (idealizing either hard
times or good times) and
>> drama is what makes a historical a
historical.
>You're saying a book set in the past that's not
idealized isn't an
>historical? Let's say I write a novel set in 1945
and I do my best to
>make it an accurate representation of the times,
without any
>idealization or distortion -- what have I written if
not an historical?
I think the point is that a writer is a product of his/her
times and consciously or unconsciously projects the beliefs
and values of those times onto the past. Since the writer's
audience is a product of the same times, this projection
doesn't bother them and in fact may be necessary for the
story to be appreciated. For instance, a novel set during the
time of slavery in the deep south with the author and
characters espousing the beliefs of the time would be pretty
hard for a modern reader to take -- the reader needs to have
a character *somewhere* in the story who to some degree
shares modern beliefs, no matter how unrealistic that is. I
remember one reviewer who used to complain about the
projection of modern sexual mores onto tales set in the first
half of the century (before the sexual revolution of the
1960s), when in reality no-sex-before-marriage was a rather
strict norm.
________________
Kent Johnson San Francisco
kjohnson@slip.net
-- # To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to majordomo@icomm.ca. # The web pages for the list are at http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/ .
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Feb 2000 EST