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?
BobT
-- # 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