|
|
Post by Z451 on Mar 30, 2014 3:48:14 GMT
Hey ya'll, I've been struggling with a topic, as some ideas for writing something have been ruminating through my head. And that topic is specifically, are alternate histories, or historical revisionisms offensive, and or wrong to write?
The reason that I ask is in pertinence to my on-going ethical dilemma, in which I am debating about writing an alternate history of Carol I, ala action based material and the like, but am holding back due to the Romanian people's potential offense to such a thing.
However, that said, I present this to you all, as my friends that is, do you believe alternate history fictions that deviate from the actual history, are either offensive or wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by Nova Prime X on Mar 30, 2014 13:02:06 GMT
One of my favorite films: Inglourious Basterds.
|
|
supes
Red shirt
Posts: 114 
|
Post by supes on Mar 30, 2014 23:54:34 GMT
Well, I think that alternate history fiction is fascinating and creative. You never know what the world would be like if one little thing had been changed.
What would happen if the Titanic had not sank?
What if JFK wasn't shot?
What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? (shudder)
However, if you're somebody like Michael Bay and you show something that's blatantly untrue (no, the Japanese did NOT attack the hospitals at Pearl Harbor) during something 'based on a true story' then you're insulting the people of the time as well as the audience.
|
|
|
|
Post by Z451 on Apr 2, 2014 2:22:09 GMT
Hmm... so you're saying that alternate histories in general aren't offensive, except for when it is that they say they're going "by the books", but rather, deviate and add in content that is offensive?
Also, the thing about it is, what about the case with the movie 300? For you see when that movie was released, there was some backlash from many communities, those in Iran especially so, about how much the film, and the graphic novel, I suppose, deviated from the historical information gathered about ancient Greece, and ancient Persia.
|
|
|
|
Post by Nova Prime X on Apr 2, 2014 2:54:59 GMT
I'm going to come in and say that I really really really doubt something you write is going to be mass media the same way a Hollywood movie like 300 is, so how about just write it already, huh?
And if I'm proven wrong about this assumption, which is possible, I will be the first to eat my own words.
|
|
mercenaryblade
Red shirt
Mercenary Captain
How much you pay?
Posts: 223
|
Post by mercenaryblade on Apr 2, 2014 4:15:22 GMT
I don't think it's offensive or wrong it's a fascinating concept which many ideas have sprung from, we have no way of knowing how history would be differant if certain things played out in a differant way, but it's fun to speculate.
What if the South won the civil war?
What if Truman didn't use the bomb?
What if Archduke Ferdinand wasn't assassinated?
As long as there is a disclaimer saying this isn't actualy how it happened, or this is what could have happened I see no problem
You get the idea
|
|
supes
Red shirt
Posts: 114
|
Post by supes on Apr 2, 2014 18:20:32 GMT
Hmm... so you're saying that alternate histories in general aren't offensive, except for when it is that they say they're going "by the books", but rather, deviate and add in content that is offensive?Also, the thing about it is, what about the case with the movie 300? For you see when that movie was released, there was some backlash from many communities, those in Iran especially so, about how much the film, and the graphic novel, I suppose, deviated from the historical information gathered about ancient Greece, and ancient Persia. Pretty much. Now, I am not pissed off with the 300 film, but rather the comic. Frank Miller's not exactly my favorite person, and his racist, homophobic, and sexist tendencies make themselves pretty clear in the comic book. Further more, as a history buff I saw it as a wasted opportunity to make a badass yet historically accurate graphic novel. I understand why Iran and other middle easterners were offended by it. That being said, Zack Snyder was only trying to be faithful to the comic when making the movie. Same with Watchmen (minus the whole Dr. Manhattan bomb and a few other small changes). So I don't really direct my frustrations towards him. |
|
|
|
Post by deo on Apr 3, 2014 6:39:31 GMT
Yeah in cases where its not intentional alternate history, but intentional misrepresentation of actual history, it can be offensive to change events to fit your personal worldview. It sort of depends by how much and for what reasons though. Most films about real historical situations leave something out because a film can only last 180 minutes at most these days. Argo, for example sort of undercut the Canadian embassy's influence in the hostage crisis to A, simplify the already complicated plot, and B make the Americans look more impressive for doing it all their own. It wasn't as mean spirited as the 300 issue, but people did get upset that the heroic actions of the canadians were getting edited from cultural memory.
But in the situation you mentioned earlier, for your writing, alternate histories aren't inherently offensive since you're making it clear that it is fictional. It's not a blank check to be vulgar in other ways, but it isn't inherently offensive just to propose an alt history story.
|
|
.png)
