Poul Anderson
Neil Gaiman
L. Sprague de Camp
SM Stirling
In 1989, DC Comics refused to publish "Morning of the Magician" by Rick Veitch, a Swamp Thing story in which the time travelling title character meets Jesus who is a powerful white magician. This month, that story has been very belatedly published. Last night, at the Gregson, John the farmer lent me a copy. Among its surprises are the revelations, so to say, that the DC character, the Golden Gladiator, who claims to have been a galley slave in the Roman navy, was a customer of Mary Magdelene and was also the Roman captain who said, "...truly...this man was the Son of God."
Authors insert their fictional characters into historical events.
8 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
Except the Romans did not have or use slaves in their navy. All serving personnel, as Stirling explained, had to be free men (albeit some might have been freedmen). Writers of historical fiction should respect known facts. So I would dismiss this story.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I remember what was said recently in the combox. That was why I quoted the character saying what he did! I would not dismiss an entire story for a single error. Do you dismiss BEN HUR or Anderson's Maurai short stories?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
No, I would not, at least not all of them. But I get frustrated by needless, easily avoided errors. One huge reason I detest movies like BRAVEHEART is because of the outrageous liberties taken with known historical facts/plausibilities. One gross example: Edward I of England allegedly throwing one of his son's friends out the window of a high tower. That, and many other bloopers in the movie, outraged me.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean: Yeah, that would have produced all sorts of legal problems -- not to mention a feud with his family.
Sean: Not to mention that medieval Scots didn't paint their faces blue...
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Absolutely! Because the future Edward II's friends would come mostly from the baronial families. For Edward I to unjustifiably kill one of their own like that would arouse fury. And many of the barons were not shy about arguing with or even quarreling with Edward I. That king could be tough and rough, but he was too intelligent to needlessly make trouble for himself.
I remember that irritating blooper, Mel Gibson making a civilized and Christian people like the Scots look like the painted savages of 3000 years ago.
Yet another galling idiocy was Gibson having Sir William Wallace having a fling with Edward II's wife Isabel of France. Never mind that the French princess didn't even arrive in England till 1308, a year after Wallace was executed in 1307!
Ad astra! Sean
People don't appreciate that feudal monarchs were not -absolute- monarchs. They needed the support of the aristocracy, and if it was withdrawn they were in serious trouble.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
Because we live in a historically illiterate age corrupted by the shibboleths of PCness.
We have parliaments, estates generals, cortes, etc., because they arose in the feudal era as a means for the barons making their views and wishes known to the king. And that expanded as time passed.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment