"A lot of the arguments about Kanell's book said that because it is fiction, the story could do whatever it needed to do to create the best narrative. Which is ideologically a stance I find troubling; I don't think fiction can stand outside of the world in which it exists, using art as a justification for potential harm."
I don't want to derail your post from its original topic, but this is a concern of mine and I'd like to know your thoughts, perhaps in the future. Monica Edinger has posted about the dangers she sees in confusing "historical fiction" with "history." The standards of accuracy for one are much higher than the other. Fiction gets used in the classroom to the detriment of history, or fiction gets held to impossible standards of accuracy. Both suffer. How much leeway should a book be given because it is fiction? Should books on certain subjects be given less leeway? For example, if a subject has been treated very rarely in mainstream fiction, should it be held to higher standards of accuracy? When Catherine called Birdy won the Newbery, people pointed out its inaccuracies, but I think there would have been a much stronger outcry if the book had had a more unusual setting than medieval Europe. For my part, I find that the further a topic is from the main stream, the higher my expectations of accuracy are, but I am not sure that is justified.
Creators do play fast and loose with their source material, some more than others. I know that Peter Dickinson felt strongly that Lloyd Alexander's first Prydain book shouldn't be published. He saw it as inauthentic. I think he felt that Alexander had pillaged a culture to get the makings of a good story. I think the Prydain Chronicles are wonderful and find that I am willing to cut Alexander all kinds of slack because I like the results. To use your words: an ideological stance I find troubling.
I'm not a member of child_lit, but I've lurked through various discussions in archives and I've watched the recent discussion in fandom. In the recent discussion of Kanell, Reese seems to be holding fiction to the standards of non-fiction. I've read her posts and her review as well as Slapin's and get the impression that the problem with Kanell's book is less about accuracy and more about . . . writing. I think maybe the book sucks. If the book had been powerful, beautiful, and moving, would the inaccuracy be as important to Reese? I can't tell.
no subject
I don't want to derail your post from its original topic, but this is a concern of mine and I'd like to know your thoughts, perhaps in the future. Monica Edinger has posted about the dangers she sees in confusing "historical fiction" with "history." The standards of accuracy for one are much higher than the other. Fiction gets used in the classroom to the detriment of history, or fiction gets held to impossible standards of accuracy. Both suffer. How much leeway should a book be given because it is fiction? Should books on certain subjects be given less leeway? For example, if a subject has been treated very rarely in mainstream fiction, should it be held to higher standards of accuracy? When Catherine called Birdy won the Newbery, people pointed out its inaccuracies, but I think there would have been a much stronger outcry if the book had had a more unusual setting than medieval Europe. For my part, I find that the further a topic is from the main stream, the higher my expectations of accuracy are, but I am not sure that is justified.
Creators do play fast and loose with their source material, some more than others. I know that Peter Dickinson felt strongly that Lloyd Alexander's first Prydain book shouldn't be published. He saw it as inauthentic. I think he felt that Alexander had pillaged a culture to get the makings of a good story. I think the Prydain Chronicles are wonderful and find that I am willing to cut Alexander all kinds of slack because I like the results. To use your words: an ideological stance I find troubling.
I'm not a member of child_lit, but I've lurked through various discussions in archives and I've watched the recent discussion in fandom. In the recent discussion of Kanell, Reese seems to be holding fiction to the standards of non-fiction. I've read her posts and her review as well as Slapin's and get the impression that the problem with Kanell's book is less about accuracy and more about . . . writing. I think maybe the book sucks. If the book had been powerful, beautiful, and moving, would the inaccuracy be as important to Reese? I can't tell.