Welcome to Gaia! ::

How much of an "artistic license" do fiction writers actually have?

I ask this because of opinions that were recently expressed to me by various people I know. Our dicussion somehow turned to The Da Vinci Code. A few of the people I was talking with stated that they thought the book was a load of crap that expressed "utter lies and bullshit about Christianity's origins" and that it "modifidied historical events" to "make Christianity out to be a pack of lies". I told them that it was just a work of fiction, and they responded with "That's no excuse to mess with history".

Pardon my French, but-WHAT THE ******** it's fictitious, then it's intentionally false. If I wanted to, I could write a story in which Abe Lincoln was an evil man who didn't actually free the slaves, but instead tried to kill them. I could write a story where Stalin was a tragic hero. I could write a story about basically any historical event, and modify it to make the story more interesting. I mean, if I were to write a story about an American unit in World War II, I might write about battles that never happened, or change the way a battle really happened, or do any number of things to make the story more interesting. It's fiction, for otter's sake! It's not supposed to be one hundred percent accurate! It'd be like writing a book which had vampires living in NYC-no, there is not a cult of vampires living in the sewers, but it sure as hell makes for an interestin story.

So, my question: is there a limit to how far you can go in a work of fiction? If so, where is it? Also is so-why?

They're angry because they think it will taint faith. And let's face it, if your faith is so weak that a work of fiction can change it...

People who get their panties in a twist due to ficticious writing have always confused me. Like when all these huge groups showed up, boycotting Harry Potter because "it endorses witchcraft." Yeah, ok. Sure there are some nutters who believe the aformentioned books are to be taken literally, but that always happens.

Take for instance The Da Vinci Code. An ok book, I've read plenty that were much better on every level. Before I had read it, I had a friend who took every single word written to be the true and actual fact. She still does. And it makes me want to shoot her. Just because someone wrote a work of fiction that took elements from reality, it doesn't make that story true.

Fiction is fiction. Even historical fiction. Even realistic fiction.

the term 'Historical Fiction' has always been a paradox. 'history' by definition is The recorded events of the past and 'fiction', a creation of the imagination. History is completly factual, while fiction is not. These things should not nautrally coexist. Yet they do thanks to human disregard for comon sense when naming things. You just gotta love it.

man, if we got invaded by aliens anytime soon they would get so confused. 'Course I'm not one to promote the reconstruction of english, like in 1984.

It's not necessarily paradoxical, though. As an adjective, "historical" only means "like history", the same way "phantasmagoric" (I love this word) means "like a phantasmagoria". Somethign can be historical but not factual (more on this is a second), while somethign can be phantasmagoric and entirely factual. So, it's not exactly paradoxical, just a bit stretchy on the rules.

Now, about history: History is never, by it's very nature, entirely factual. History is a winner's interpretation of the events, and is therefore biased. So, calling it completely factual is a bit of a stretch, since if I kick your a** in a war, I'm going to paint you in a much less favorable light than I paint myself.