I think an earlier response of mine was eaten by the blogosphere. I also come down on the side of higher expectations for less well known subjects. I am still considering the question of myths versus historical settings. I don't think there's a difference in expectations there for me. I love the Prydain books, but I know that I would feel very, very uncomfortable if Alexander had rummaged through the cultural framework of a First Nation to find the inspiration for his story. I'm leery of giving something a pass just because I like it; that's exactly why I doublecheck my love of the Prydain books.

I go back to your original post and the idea that you shouldn't do harm and justify it as "art." I can imagine the Dickinson was offended by Alexander's work, but I cannot see that he was "hurt." I have to believe that an Abenaki looking at his myths used in a similar way would have a different experience. I think the difference between mainstream and marginalized is more important than the difference between myth vs. history.

(And I *still* think that we shouldn't use fiction as a substitute for history in the classroom. As a supplement, yes. In place of non-fiction, no.)