Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

argross91 t1_j5vj8bc wrote

Maus is not fiction. Art Spiegelman told his parents’ story. Yes he used the allegory of cats and mice, but it doesn’t make it less true

1

HephaestusHarper t1_j5vkqkh wrote

So how is that different from a historical fiction book on the exact same subject? Obviously Maus is an allegory, but they're both telling the same story of people experiencing the same event, with aspects fictionalized or changed for the purpose of storytelling.

As long as historical fiction is well-researched and respectful and accurate to the events and real-life figures depicted, and as long as it's correctly labeled and not presented as nonfiction, I can't see it as sensationalizing anything.

A final question - what about narrative nonfiction, something like The Killer Angels, where the events of the battle are meticulously detailed and all characters are actual historical figures but the dialogue is fictionalized because obviously we don't know everything that was actually said?

1

argross91 t1_j5vle9j wrote

I’m not against historical fiction when it is properly researched. But it is very problematic when it is not well researched because it often feeds into deniers’ narratives. But Maus is telling his parents’ actual story. Not a story he made up

0

HephaestusHarper t1_j5vlqkk wrote

Okay, I give up. Dismissing an entire literary genre because some people are bad at it and some books are problematic or wrong is - let's call it a bold choice.

1

argross91 t1_j5vlyyg wrote

I’m not dismissing a whole genre. I read plenty of historical fiction that is researched. I am just saying that there is a difference between fiction and nonfiction, even if it is historical fiction

0