Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ajira2 t1_j5szvu4 wrote

Seems odd to want to require historical fiction watching. Holocaust deniers would have a field day.

−5

CrookedCreek13 t1_j5t9fe0 wrote

I think they’re aiming that recommendation more to people that are open to the idea that the Holocaust happened

14

Ajira2 t1_j5tsubt wrote

Just seems like asking for “they’re making us watch this fake movie because there aren’t any real ones”. Then that’ll lead people to finding Anne Frank’s sister on Good Morning Britain saying that the Soviet photos are fake. Then who knows?

−8

hairsprayking t1_j5uk7dl wrote

Fascists will always make bad-faith arguments no matter how perfect the evidence is against them. Better to heed them no mind and just teach good critical thinking skills.

8

HephaestusHarper t1_j5u2rax wrote

Do you feel that way about school teaching Maus or Number the Stars since they're historical fiction depictions of the Holocaust?

9

argross91 t1_j5vj8bc wrote

Maus is not fiction. Art Spiegelman told his parents’ story. Yes he used the allegory of cats and mice, but it doesn’t make it less true

1

HephaestusHarper t1_j5vkqkh wrote

So how is that different from a historical fiction book on the exact same subject? Obviously Maus is an allegory, but they're both telling the same story of people experiencing the same event, with aspects fictionalized or changed for the purpose of storytelling.

As long as historical fiction is well-researched and respectful and accurate to the events and real-life figures depicted, and as long as it's correctly labeled and not presented as nonfiction, I can't see it as sensationalizing anything.

A final question - what about narrative nonfiction, something like The Killer Angels, where the events of the battle are meticulously detailed and all characters are actual historical figures but the dialogue is fictionalized because obviously we don't know everything that was actually said?

1

argross91 t1_j5vle9j wrote

I’m not against historical fiction when it is properly researched. But it is very problematic when it is not well researched because it often feeds into deniers’ narratives. But Maus is telling his parents’ actual story. Not a story he made up

0

HephaestusHarper t1_j5vlqkk wrote

Okay, I give up. Dismissing an entire literary genre because some people are bad at it and some books are problematic or wrong is - let's call it a bold choice.

1

argross91 t1_j5vlyyg wrote

I’m not dismissing a whole genre. I read plenty of historical fiction that is researched. I am just saying that there is a difference between fiction and nonfiction, even if it is historical fiction

0

Ajira2 t1_j5u5ajv wrote

Yes. Is there really a need to sensationalize the event?

−10

HephaestusHarper t1_j5up3h4 wrote

How - huh? How does historical fiction sensationalize an event? Well-written, well-researched HF can provide insight into the lives and experiences of those who didn't have a chance to tell their story. It shouldn't be used at the expense of factual and first-hand accounts, but it's a useful tool.

Edited to add: I also think historical fiction is extremely useful in elementary classroom settings. Depending on the era you're teaching, narrative nonfiction accounts might be scarce or nonexistent at that reading and maturity level. Telling the story of the event through the eyes of a character their age allows them to relate to the story and understand it. It's what made me fall in love with history as a child. Books like The Witch of Blackbird Pond and Steal Away Home and Fortune's Journey and all the diaries in the Dear America Series, the American Girl books, even my problematic-but-beloved Little House series - these are what introduced me to the specific realm of history I find most fascinating as an adult: the often mundane, day-to-day lives of ordinary girls and women who cooked and cleaned and taught school and got married and had relatable feelings and thoughts.

5