Perhaps I should make myself more clear. I recognize that historians analyze. A whole lot. This is incredibly valuable. It is the facts and developments given by historians that provide the inspiration that storytellers live on. But who is it that shows that analysis to the rest of the world, and uses that knowledge to capture the imaginations of the whole of humanity?
Good historians. People who make good documentaries and books on the subjects.
I will concede you this and only this. That storytellers can communicate a pure concept better. But history is far more than just concept. Stories are at best a very very very irresponsible method of learning history, at worst that's exactly what propaganda is.
History can give facts and interpretations, but literature tells us why we should care in the first place.
I should hope people don't need stories to feel that.
Ah, alright then. I stand corrected, in a sense. My errors on this subject mostly come from the insanely boring high school history classes I've suffered, but that is not my point.
And I apologize if I came off too harsh on you. I was mostly still mad from mechysou's bullshit, and will still probably bash his skull in if and when he returns.
Well, that's not very good writing, then, is it?
It is the inherent fault of being a storyteller that you gravitate for finding narrative. When in the case of history you must avoid as much possible that instinct as it fogs your vision more then anything. I myself struggle with this.
Do you think that authors care about whether their work is considered as fact by politicians or universities? If you want to actually learn about history, read a history book. Unless you're a lazy asshole.
And if I want a more moving, more real, more engrossing, more earthshattering story, no story you could recommend me could outdo the current events in the middle east or hell, even in my own family right now.
Just as you could say that fiction writers don't really need historians. But we do.
You uh, don't.
Without historians, most fiction would just be meaningless dribble.
No, a lot of it would be perfectly fine.
The best fiction draws upon universal human experience that works in practically any time and any place.
I personally hold a deep respect for history. But to say that history alone is enough to satisfy the human imagination and sense of curiosity? Nonsense.
It is. I'm quite fine with it thanks.
One poor jobless student setting himself on fire and dying lonely in a hospital erupts an entire region into revolution against it's iron fisted rulers and toppling (soon) three of them and possibly even more in the future, including incredibly entrenched bastards who were counting in the decades their rule.
What you got that can amaze me anywhere near that level.
[/hide]
[/hide]
