Welcome to the Historical Fiction Online forums: a friendly place to discuss, review and discover historical fiction.
If this is your first visit, please be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You will have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing posts, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Should Anne Frank's life be novelised? With added steam?

A place to debate issues or to rant about what's on your mind. In addition to discussions about historical fiction, books, the publishing industry, and history, discussions about current political, social, and religious issues and other topics are allowed, so those who are easily offended by certain topics may want to avoid such threads. Members are expected to keep the discussions friendly and polite and to avoid personal attacks on other members. The moderators reserve the right to shut down a thread without warning if they believe it necessary.
User avatar
boswellbaxter
Bibliomaniac
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Postby boswellbaxter » Sun October 10th, 2010, 12:44 am

"Margaret" wrote:Since I posted, I saw an article online that suggested Sharon Dogar may have trimmed the scene and toned it down from the first, unpublished version, which may indeed have been a sex scene (though from the section in the published version, I can't believe it would have been anything but tasteful). In any case, the published version is the one that counts.

I've just posted a guest article from Sharon Dogar on my website, titled Peter van Pels, in which she addresses the question of whether, and to what extent, a novelist has the right or should exercise it to create fiction around the life of a person who really existed. I found it quite interesting. She doesn't dismiss the concerns of people who think this should not be done, but of course, her own conclusion is that the benefits outweigh the concerns.

We wouldn't have very many historical novels, if it was forbidden to write fiction about people who really lived - of course, the sensitivity is bound to be greater around people who lived more recently, especially within living memory.


That was a good article. I'm interested in reading the novel now.
Susan Higginbotham
Coming in October: The Woodvilles


http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/
http://www.susanhigginbotham.com/blog/

User avatar
sweetpotatoboy
Bibliophile
Location: London, UK

Postby sweetpotatoboy » Wed November 17th, 2010, 11:25 am

Just to add that I recently finished viewing the BBC's five-part dramatisation of the Anne Frank story that was broadcast almost two years ago but never got round to seeing at the time.
It was really quite wonderful - seemed very respectful but didn't attempt to paint Anne or any of the other characters as anything other than human.

User avatar
N. Gemini Sasson
Reader
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Postby N. Gemini Sasson » Wed November 17th, 2010, 2:43 pm

"Michy" wrote:I tend to agree with you. Anne's diary has been such an icon for so long -- and is so powerful -- that I think any attempt to further "flesh out" her story will only cheapen it, no matter how good the writer may be. I, for one, am not interested in reading this new book.


I agree with you, Michy. This is one of those classics of history/literature that should be left to speak for itself. When I was in 8th grade we read the book and then performed the play. I remember it vividly to this day.


Return to “Debate/Rant Forum”