WI gubernatorial candidate says that if he wins, only Republicans will be elected from now on.
I think that’s normally called “historical fiction.” The article calls it “fan fiction” because that has some mildly pejorative connotations, but the book the guy wrote isn’t anything like fan fiction. It’s fiction featuring historical characters, which is very common genre.
Which isn’t meant to defend it - this is wildly inappropriate in all sorts of ways. But it’s not “fan fiction.”
Sometimes also known as historical revisionism.
Yeah, my guess is that he was not a fan.
I dunno, I think “fan fiction” is a better descriptor here than “historical fiction”. Historical fiction usually creates a fictional character who’s living through some historical event, which this didn’t. Fan fiction, meanwhile, is defined by its being non-canonical. For a story about a real, actual person who really, actually lived, surely the “canon” would be the actual facts of their life, and this drek doesn’t follow that canon.
No, historical revisionism is an agenda, while historical fiction is a genre. Certainly, historical fiction can sometime be employed in advancing an agenda of historical revisionism, but they aren’t the same thing, and most historical fiction doesn’t have an agenda beyond, “This would be a cool story.”
Right, which is why I said “sometimes”. For instance, this time.
Like this one.
I’m not disagreeing with anything you said here, I’m just talking shit about someone pushing an antisemitic agenda as seen here.
Fan fiction is defined as non-canonical, but only in a specific context where canon is determined by the property’s legal owner. Disney’s Hunchback of Notre Dame is non-canonical to the Victor Hugo novel, but nobody would describe it as “fan fiction.”
As for historical fiction, I think it’s a spectrum. On one side, there’s “Everything here is well attested to in the historical record.” On the other side, there’s “Fuck it, let’s put aliens in.” I don’t think having a protagonist or major supporting character who’s a historical figure is disqualifying from the genre - rather, it seems a pretty standard feature.
Mehmet Oz thinks Pennsylvania has an Atlantic coast.
Talk about saying the quiet part out loud!
To be fair, it’s easy to see how a Joisey boy like him could get confused.
Or places historical characters in a fictional storyline but one that is consistent with what is known – I, Claudius has been mentioned as an example.
The referenced work in the recent posts however is just propagandistic appropriation.
Sure, but there’s also a kind of historical fiction that asks, “What if aliens invaded in the middle of WWII?”
Fleetlord, is that you?
I had to look at a map, but then I’m not running in that state. I did spot an interesting feature, though, which is an almost perfect circular arc dividing Pennsylvania and Delaware. Some Googling revealed:
It dates back to 1681. Neat.
That is seriously gross.
Tim Michels, the Republican candidate for Governor of Wisconsin, says that if he’s elected, he’ll make sure that Republicans never lose another election.
Where on that spectrum would you place the hypothetical and yet probably upcoming movie, “Abraham Lincoln: Slave Hunter”?
In my mind, at least, there is a distinct difference between making stuff up about what a historical figure did, even if you are throwing in vampires or aliens, and fundamentally altering who they are.
I’d have to see a review.
I could see a drama based on the life of Lincoln that shows how people develop the attitudes they do, and how easily it could have been for even someone like Lincoln to end up on the other side of such a huge divide. But that would require actual talent and no small amount of historical knowledge to pull off successfully.
“Gee, wouldn’t it have been neat if Anne Frank had finally realized the error of her Jewish Ways?!?” doesn’t quite meet that standard, though. Especially when being hunted and killed for being Jewish is the big reason why any of us even know her name.
Writing such a book would be more like making a movie, “Abraham Lincoln: Guy Who Never Really Did Anything Important”.
Aside: It’s amusing the way this thread repeatedly wanders gently off-topic for a few posts and then it’s brought back when someone cites a new Republican Stupidity. Age (of the thread, that is) may have something to do with it.
Carry on.
It’s the Thread Equivalent of explaining why I had an onion on my belt.