Re: RARA-AVIS: Re: Pellecanos (and Adams)

From: Bob Toomey (
Date: 03 Feb 2000

Sharon Villines wrote:

> It has been suggested that the reason people read historicals is to see
> contemporary ideas/opinions/attitudes attached to the romance of the past.

I wasn't aware of this, not being much of a reader of historicals.

> 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?


# To unsubscribe, say "unsubscribe rara-avis" to
# The web pages for the list are at .

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 03 Feb 2000 EST