History v historical fiction

[ish mailian]

I'm not convinced by Jane Smiley's argument about history and fiction
making; she slaps at the condescender, Niall Ferguson, a face most readers
of The Guardian want to slap at too, then goes on to promote herself and
her books. What she says about fiction and history, historical fiction, is
mostly bullshit. Flowers in a vase, constructs, logic. What rubbish.

On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 5:44 AM, Mark Kohut <mark.kohut at gmail.com> wrote:

> Agree. He projects his biased world.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> > On Oct 17, 2015, at 6:44 PM, Paul Nightingale <isread at btinternet.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Ferguson barely cuts it as a 'secondary' historian.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-pynchon-l at waste.org [mailto:owner-pynchon-l at waste.org] On
> Behalf Of Dave Monroe
> > Sent: 17 October 2015 23:10
> > To: pynchon -l <pynchon-l at waste.org>
> > Subject: History v historical fiction
> >
> > Historical fiction is not a secondary form – I was condescended to by a
> conservative historian who cannot see that he too constructs stories
> >
> >
> http://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/oct/15/jane-smiley-niall-ferguson-history-versus-historical-fiction
> >
> > Thanks, Doug Millison!
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=nchon-l
> >
> > -
> > Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?list=pynchon-l
> -
> Pynchon-l / http://www.waste.org/mail/?listpynchon-l
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20151018/fc24bc11/attachment.html>