Show me a spoofy historical comedy written seriously where the author defends it as historical fact.
The most seminal example is Orson Wells’s “War of the Worlds”, which set off a full panic across the Northeast Atlantic when it was broadcast. A more modern example is American Hustle a dramatic (ultimately falsely embellished) comic retelling of the Abscam scandal. But there’s an entire genre dedicated to falsified history from a comic perspective.
War of the Worlds doesn’t meet the criteria. The book is written in a fictional style (first person perspective of events that conflict with reality). Orson wells in his famous radio play acknowledged at the beginning that it is a work of fiction, as well as at the end. This does not meet the specified criteria as a supporting example.
American hustle is clearly a movie. Seeing how the director and screenwriters knew they were making a movie, advertised a movie, and ran the “this is a work of fiction…” disclaimer, I feel that this does not meet the criteria as a supporting example.
Historia Regium Brittanie seems like it might fit the criteria, but I suspect that it was either disinformation (no actual ancient Latin history, fabricated for clout) or not presented as entertainment.
Lying is impossible? Getting historical events wrong for the purpose of improving the entertainment value of a media product is impossible?
This is not what I was trying to convey. What I was trying to say is thst its impossible to have an author create a piece of fiction, written as factual, purely for entertainment purposes, while maintaining that it is factual.
Yes people can lie, I never said they couldn’t.
So far we have one possible example from 400 years ago, where were don’t know how the author presented or defended his work as factual or fictional.
I’m not convinced. In fact, 2 out of 3 of your sources pretty explicitly support my point, and the 3rd might support yours a tiny bit.
Are you joking?
Tone it back a bit. Get out of your own head and take another look at what is being presented. To use a phrase: “touch grass.”
It quite literally caused a national panic, because it was delivered in a believable manner to a gullible audience.
American hustle is clearly a movie.
It’s a biopic that presents itself as a historical account of real life events.
Historia Regium Brittanie seems like it might fit the criteria, but I suspect
You’re going to have to put more on the table than “it doesn’t count because I would have known better if I’d read it in 1163”.
What I was trying to say is thst its impossible to have an author create a piece of fiction, written as factual, purely for entertainment purposes, while maintaining that it is factual.
The most seminal example is Orson Wells’s “War of the Worlds”, which set off a full panic across the Northeast Atlantic when it was broadcast. A more modern example is American Hustle a dramatic (ultimately falsely embellished) comic retelling of the Abscam scandal. But there’s an entire genre dedicated to falsified history from a comic perspective.
Then there are much more sincere takes as well, some of them extremely old and compelling enough to be considered true for centuries. Case in point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_Regum_Britanniae
Lying is impossible? Getting historical events wrong for the purpose of improving the entertainment value of a media product is impossible?
Are you joking?
War of the Worlds doesn’t meet the criteria. The book is written in a fictional style (first person perspective of events that conflict with reality). Orson wells in his famous radio play acknowledged at the beginning that it is a work of fiction, as well as at the end. This does not meet the specified criteria as a supporting example.
American hustle is clearly a movie. Seeing how the director and screenwriters knew they were making a movie, advertised a movie, and ran the “this is a work of fiction…” disclaimer, I feel that this does not meet the criteria as a supporting example.
Historia Regium Brittanie seems like it might fit the criteria, but I suspect that it was either disinformation (no actual ancient Latin history, fabricated for clout) or not presented as entertainment.
This is not what I was trying to convey. What I was trying to say is thst its impossible to have an author create a piece of fiction, written as factual, purely for entertainment purposes, while maintaining that it is factual.
Yes people can lie, I never said they couldn’t.
So far we have one possible example from 400 years ago, where were don’t know how the author presented or defended his work as factual or fictional.
I’m not convinced. In fact, 2 out of 3 of your sources pretty explicitly support my point, and the 3rd might support yours a tiny bit.
Tone it back a bit. Get out of your own head and take another look at what is being presented. To use a phrase: “touch grass.”
It quite literally caused a national panic, because it was delivered in a believable manner to a gullible audience.
It’s a biopic that presents itself as a historical account of real life events.
You’re going to have to put more on the table than “it doesn’t count because I would have known better if I’d read it in 1163”.
It is incredibly easy.
It mostly did not. Ironically, that story is mostly fictitious.
Well, that’s impossible. I was told real life accounts couldn’t be faked or embellished.