In history based books about people doing good things... (1 Viewer)

[Ahsoka]

Does it bother you if the author neglects to mention or ignores the persons negative qualities? Or do you think it would detract from the positive acts that they've done? Thinking about Schindler's List atm

 

[Day]

If I don't know about the negatives then that's just not knowing, but overall both should be weighed

 

[Ahsoka]

If I don't know about the negatives then that's just not knowing, but overall both should be weighed

To me I get why the focus should be on the actually major important thing if it outweighs the negative thing considerably, but it also feels weird to read it knowing that most people who read probably don't know about the negatives and have a skewed view of the person, especially when the book or other medium becomes super well known. But I guess it's on them if they don't research past the book/event. But still idk, it's a hard question to me.

 

[litc]

Does it bother you if the author neglects to mention or ignores the persons negative qualities? Or do you think it would detract from the positive acts that they've done? Thinking about Schindler's List atm

I literally got cynical about this and was whining to my friend and it was literally buddha

like actual buddha

this is what I get for wanting to take a class on asian religions

the teacher was like jains say he abandoned his wife but it was necessary for spiritual development

but ok conveniently left out ...

Spoiler

he abandoned his infant son but everyone seems to conveniently forget

I literally do not care about any excuses ppl make for him abandoning a newborn to "find yourself"???? he is a deadbeat dad I don't care

and my family is kinda buddhist too

so

 

[litc]

I literally got cynical about this and was whining to my friend and it was literally buddha

like actual buddha

this is what I get for wanting to take a class on asian religions

the teacher was like jains say he abandoned his wife but it was necessary for spiritual development

but ok conveniently left out ...

Spoiler

he abandoned his infant son but everyone seems to conveniently forget

I literally do not care about any excuses ppl make for him abandoning a newborn to "find yourself"???? he is a deadbeat dad I don't care

and my family is kinda buddhist too

so

oh wait nvm that wasn't a book it was a class

yeah if it's a biography it should say everything

I found what I wrote here that day

along with a bunch of other things that were way more cynical

The problem with making anyone a saint is they then lose the right to be human. The opportunity to be wrong, learn they’re wrong, and grow, to make mistakes. No one is perfect, everyone has room to improve. And finding flaws, finding mistakes, this “saint” made, just ruins this rose-tinted image of them, and is just brushed away, ignored, covered up, so they can be revered, and elevated to god status. History is rewritten as if it’s a fictional story’s second draft being more fleshed out with ideas exchanged. Ignorance is shared so that someone can believe that something that brought so much good was started by someone who was so perfect

Is anyone truly, only good, will anyone ever be? No

A religion started by a single human or revering any human as a god will never work. No one ever knows everything

 

[litc]

oh wait nvm that wasn't a book it was a class

yeah if it's a biography it should say everything

I found what I wrote here that day

along with a bunch of other things that were way more cynical

but then about it not being a book I was also pissed when in the textbook it made no mention of him abandoning his baby when it talked about him

so yes

it's annoying

unless it's about a particular good thing

if it's supposed to be broad be truly broad

 

[Ahsoka]

oh wait nvm that wasn't a book it was a class

yeah if it's a biography it should say everything

I found what I wrote here that day

along with a bunch of other things that were way more cynical

What if it's not a biography? For example the book I thought about is undoubtedly considered fiction (at least to some extent), but supposed to be very heavily based on real events and people.

 

[litc]

What if it's not a biography? For example the book I thought about is undoubtedly considered fiction (at least to some extent), but supposed to be very heavily based on real events and people.

oh then that's different I suppose

historical sci-fi was one of my fav genres as a kid

I read a book abt 12 year old edgar allen poe

if he happened to have done smth bad in most cases I wouldn't care to read it in the book, it's not neccessary

also recently reread abt richard III - who's accussed of killing his nephews who were 9 and 12

started a whole "killing sleeping children to become king is bad"

but it's not known if they died who killed them or anything

so the book had that be the main thing, that he attempted

but it was also more open

but either way it was about famous historical kids who died being saved and brought to the future to be adopted by unwitting 21st century parents

what's the book and what's it about

 

[litc]

oh then that's different I suppose

historical sci-fi was one of my fav genres as a kid

I read a book abt 12 year old edgar allen poe

if he happened to have done smth bad in most cases I wouldn't care to read it in the book, it's not neccessary

also recently reread abt richard III - who's accussed of killing his nephews who were 9 and 12

started a whole "killing sleeping children to become king is bad"

but it's not known if they died who killed them or anything

so the book had that be the main thing, that he attempted

but it was also more open

but either way it was about famous historical kids who died being saved and brought to the future to be adopted by unwitting 21st century parents

what's the book and what's it about

I just noticed smth - I swear I don't only read books about orphans (edgar allen poe was an orphan too)

I read this time traveling on in elementary school and am rereading

the edgar allen poe one in middle school

oliver twist I read when I was 8

harry potter 7

and that other book I mentioned was the first (non reread bc of this series) book about an orphan I'd started in like 4 years since I started and couldn't finish Kidnapped cuz it's so boring

 

[Ahsoka]

oh then that's different I suppose

historical sci-fi was one of my fav genres as a kid

I read a book abt 12 year old edgar allen poe

if he happened to have done smth bad in most cases I wouldn't care to read it in the book, it's not neccessary

also recently reread abt richard III - who's accussed of killing his nephews who were 9 and 12

started a whole "killing sleeping children to become king is bad"

but it's not known if they died who killed them or anything

so the book had that be the main thing, that he attempted

but it was also more open

but either way it was about famous historical kids who died being saved and brought to the future to be adopted by unwitting 21st century parents

what's the book and what's it about

Schindler’s List. It’s about a person in the Holocaust who protected Jews from concentration camps by employing them in his factory and using info from high ranking officers to save more when he could basically. But I’m not super far in yet so I don’t know all those details for sure.

 

[dark_tranquility]

Well I'd rather have a bit of both.
Since no one is perfect.

Like edgar allen poe with his first cousin

Virginia Clemm was 13 and Poe was 27.

 

[litc]

Schindler’s List. It’s about a person in the Holocaust who protected Jews from concentration camps by employing them in his factory and using info from high ranking officers to save more when he could basically. But I’m not super far in yet so I don’t know all those details for sure.

well the author did consult a real person saved by him so it would be pretty accurate I think

and I know nothing about the book but the movie is very famous and DOES say he started out a member of the Nazi Party so I doubt they withheld that

but if it's just based on the person and a particular good thing he did, if the bad things he did or wtv aren't necessary to include in the story I don't see a problem

if it's something that contradicts or some huge changeof character and behavior like that then ig they could but as far as I know he didn't actually imprison or capture or anything to any Jews so it's not like

and as it was written from eyewitness accounts, he's portrayed as an anti-hero characteristically, not a complete role model, and the movie based on it shows he was a part of the nazi party and was greedy at first, I don't think this book has that problem

 

[Ahsoka]

well the author did consult a real person saved by him so it would be pretty accurate I think

and I know nothing about the book but the movie is very famous and DOES say he started out a member of the Nazi Party so I doubt they withheld that

but if it's just based on the person and a particular good thing he did, if the bad things he did or wtv aren't necessary to include in the story I don't see a problem

if it's something that contradicts or some huge changeof character and behavior like that then ig they could but as far as I know he didn't actually imprison or capture or anything to any Jews so it's not like

and as it was written from eyewitness accounts, he's portrayed as an anti-hero characteristically, not a complete role model, and the movie based on it shows he was a part of the nazi party and was greedy at first, I don't think this book has that problem

Yes but there's obviously still probably many inaccuracies, the part I've read has been backstory about his past which none of the people he saved would know anything about. And even parts more relevant to them they wouldn't know details about either, just their singular experience and the overall idea. The movie is famous sure but that doesn't make it more accurate and it's an adaptation of a fictional book based on the event that happened so it's obviously most likely even less accurate than the book. And the part that people claimed was glossing over negatives had nothing to do with the Nazi party, they did talk about that in both the book and movie I think. That wasn't the downside I was thinking of, it was more mild and less related stuff. Sure it's character flaws and stuff that isn't super closely tied to the event, if it was I wouldn't be asking people if it was something they should have included or not because that obviously would be something they should include. But the question is just should they be more realistic and add the negative flaws more in line with how he actually was.

 

[litc]

Yes but there's obviously still probably many inaccuracies, the part I've read has been backstory about his past which none of the people he saved would know anything about. And even parts more relevant to them they wouldn't know details about either, just their singular experience and the overall idea. The movie is famous sure but that doesn't make it more accurate and it's an adaptation of a fictional book based on the event that happened so it's obviously most likely even less accurate than the book. And the part that people claimed was glossing over negatives had nothing to do with the Nazi party, they did talk about that in both the book and movie I think. That wasn't the downside I was thinking of, it was more mild and less related stuff. Sure it's character flaws and stuff that isn't super closely tied to the event, if it was I wouldn't be asking people if it was something they should have included or not because that obviously would be something they should include. But the question is just should they be more realistic and add the negative flaws more in line with how he actually was.

Then no, bc it was from the perspective of people he saved so if they didn’t know about it it doesn’t make sense to include it

they were trying to get a book and movie for him and this was the result

 

[litc]

Oh if it’s just character flaws ofc it doesn’t matter to a fictional story

they already made him a drunk and a womanizer apparently if it’s that

if it’s more mile than the nazi party it’s prob not relevant to th part of his story that was fictionalized

 

[ani07]

no one is perfect and to write a book to make it seem like that (be it intentional or not) is not good.

 

[Ahsoka]

Then no, bc it was from the perspective of people he saved so if they didn’t know about it it doesn’t make sense to include it

they were trying to get a book and movie for him and this was the result

Not really. It was written because some people he saved convinced the author to write it, and I'm sure they were also interviewed as a part of it but the story wasn't written from their perspective at all. So far I have yet to reach a part directly relating to someone he's saved, at least not knowingly, and I'm far enough in that if it was from their perspective I'd realize. I also wouldn't have made this thread had it been from their perspective. Much of the information was gained through people with him at all points of his life, including those who probably knew and talked about the other character flaws (at least they talked about it at some point enough to get it onto the internet). I can't imagine no one would have even said it offhand when asked about the kind of person he was. And while it's true it doesn't matter when so much is fictional, the fact that it's based on a true story means that many many people treat it as a true story. And it's not about those either, I am aware he wasn't a perfect character in the book and never claimed he was, but I'm also not dumb enough to not realize that obvious parts of the book are in the book, like every negative you're listing. If it had anything to do with something portrayed in the book I wouldn't say it wasn't in the book because it's no longer something not mentioned by the author.

 

[litc]

Not really. It was written because some people he saved convinced the author to write it, and I'm sure they were also interviewed as a part of it but the story wasn't written from their perspective at all. So far I have yet to reach a part directly relating to someone he's saved, at least not knowingly, and I'm far enough in that if it was from their perspective I'd realize. I also wouldn't have made this thread had it been from their perspective. Much of the information was gained through people with him at all points of his life, including those who probably knew and talked about the other character flaws (at least they talked about it at some point enough to get it onto the internet). I can't imagine no one would have even said it offhand when asked about the kind of person he was. And while it's true it doesn't matter when so much is fictional, the fact that it's based on a true story means that many many people treat it as a true story. And it's not about those either, I am aware he wasn't a perfect character in the book and never claimed he was, but I'm also not dumb enough to not realize that obvious parts of the book are in the book, like every negative you're listing. If it had anything to do with something portrayed in the book I wouldn't say it wasn't in the book because it's no longer something not mentioned by the author.

I'm confused then, what it is it if it's less mild than the nazi party but not those? You never said what his character flaw that wasn't included was, maybe then I'd understand more to have an opinion on if it should have been included

Ah yeah that's what I meant, since you said people he saved probably wouldn't have known about it, and their accounts were most of the research for the book, and since it's fictional and mostly about the particular event than an overall biography of him, it doesn't seem necessary to include it to me? But that's all the information I have so that's all I could base my opinion off of

Maybe I'll be able to have a better opinion if you said what you think they should've included and didn't in this fictional account

it is different cuz it's still him but a fictional story based on the true one, rather than a character inspired by him or smth but I rlly can't have an opinion without knowing what

Like the Darkest Hour about Churchill left out basically all the bad stuff he did, for example, but since you said it's milder than being part of the Nazi party I don't know what to think or have any clue what it could be

but then again I never thought of the Darkest Hour as fiction but more like a historical dramaticization or wtv

Sorry if I was insensitive with my opinion earlier, I really don't have enough information to understand what was left out or why it was relevant to the story or how bad it was, nor was I implying you were dumb or anything

 

[Sanumi]

I don't read enough history books in order to answer this

 

[Ahsoka]

I'm confused then, what it is it if it's less mild than the nazi party but not those? You never said what his character flaw that wasn't included was, maybe then I'd understand more to have an opinion on if it should have been included

Ah yeah that's what I meant, since you said people he saved probably wouldn't have known about it, and their accounts were most of the research for the book, and since it's fictional and mostly about the particular event than an overall biography of him, it doesn't seem necessary to include it to me? But that's all the information I have so that's all I could base my opinion off of

Maybe I'll be able to have a better opinion if you said what you think they should've included and didn't in this fictional account

it is different cuz it's still him but a fictional story based on the true one, rather than a character inspired by him or smth but I rlly can't have an opinion without knowing what

Like the Darkest Hour about Churchill left out basically all the bad stuff he did, for example, but since you said it's milder than being part of the Nazi party I don't know what to think or have any clue what it could be

but then again I never thought of the Darkest Hour as fiction but more like a historical dramaticization or wtv

Sorry if I was insensitive with my opinion earlier, I really don't have enough information to understand what was left out or why it was relevant to the story or how bad it was, nor was I implying you were dumb or anything

The article said he was more selfish than portrayed and I think something else I forget too. I skimmed the article and didn’t think much about it at first. So yeah not things that are majorly blatantly misleading. If they were I would probably have said it was weird to exclude them. Because it’s more minor is why I wondered what people would think about a question like this.

I think I’m about a third of the way in and have just reached the first case of him employing a Jew to protect them. So the first third of the story was all backstory from his younger years that had none of the Jews would know or care about. So either the author made up a bunch of random stuff or they did research and talked with people from his childhood and young adult years. From the way the author talks about the book I would assume it has to be the second. And I think anyone who knew him well and for that long would be a person who’d probably know about any blatant character flaws. I don’t think it’s necessary to include them in the sense that it completely ruins it for me, but I can see why people would want based on true stories books and movies to portray the characters as accurately as they can because people see “based on a true story” and eliminate the based from it so much of the time.