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

From: Words from the Monastery (
Date: 04 Feb 2000

Actually, historical setting and factual accuracy is what makes a work historical. Idealization of the good ole days is just a fact of human perception.

volente Deo,

Anthony Dauer Alexandria, Virginia

"I know. We are ... the lucky ones." Bif Naked, 1999

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Toomey
> Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 9:30 PM
> 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 : 04 Feb 2000 EST