I really enjoyed the article "Writing Backward: Modern Models in Historical Fiction" by Anne MacLeod. She had many valid points that made sense to me but I couldn't help but feel her biased, not to mention negative, attitude towards the subject. Her main argument was that children's historical fiction was telling everything but the truth, and I understand where she's coming from. History is very important for the enrichment of children's lives. However, her doubtfulness and overall judgment of the books she mentioned came off as harsh and condescending. These books that she is demeaning aren't random stories either, most seem to be well known among children as well as adults. According to MacLeod, The book Sarah, Plain and Tall won a Newbery Medal, and she's still ripping it apart. She goes on to say that the book is so far from accurate and nothing about it is realistic for that time period. I honestly feel like this can’t be the truth or else the book wouldn’t have generated so much success or popularity. I think the author, Patricia MacLachlan, made an enjoyable story while still incorporating important ideas from our history. I'm not really sure what MacLeod expected, after all it's a children's book, not an encyclopedia.
I also disagree with her in regards to the way she talked about the portrayal of these main characters. It seemed like she was implying that having strong and independent women as main characters was a bad thing just because they didn’t fit the typical social roles of their time periods. I think more authors should revere characters like Sarah and Charlotte as role models for the younger audiences, especially since maturing girls are the targets for these types of books. Perhaps we should be satisfied that the youth are actually reading instead of sitting in front of the TV or playing video games.
MacLeod also states that these books portray non-conformists and the problem is not everybody in society is a rebel. But this is what intrigues people the most about these books, the chance to live vicariously through a fearless character with no consequences. Since these are children’s books, people may not view them so critically like she does. I guess I agree that perhaps some of these books shouldn’t be regarded as 100 percent pure historical data. As long as no one is assuming as much, which I doubt that people are, I think these stories are harmless and only have the best intentions.
Posts
1 comment:
I completely agree with you that overall the article "Writing Backward: Modern Models in Historical Fiction," has a very negative feel. I think that with historical fiction, or any other information that is read or told should be taken with a grain of salt. The genre is historical fiction for a reason, there is some fiction to it. I don't feel that readers are going to take everything the book says and say it's true. As readers we are educated or educating ourselves, and if we happen to read a historical fiction novel such as "The Book Thief" by Markus Zusak that was read for class, we will understand the context and not believe everything that was wrote.
As far as female main characters, I see nothing wrong with them. No matter the time period, women were around and they had thoughts and opinions as well as men. It is empowering for women to read novels where we ourselves are main characters. Sarah, Plain, and Tall was an extraordinary book and I think it deserved the awards it received. We are not teaching the youth of America to believe everything we read or hear and if we get some historical facts while reading for fun then that is great. I don't think she should slam authors for writing about a historical event, even if it is not entirely accurate. It's fiction for a reason.
Post a Comment