What is more accurate, a history book, or a play? Seems like a simple question. But then you stop and think again and realize it isn't. A history book covers concrete facts, while a play may not be factual, but is a close look into the time period. Something that makes it even harder to decide is that they both have a lot of bias. A play can be represented or written in any way the writer feels like, and history books can be changed by things like word choice or chapters. They are both, at their core, just interpretations of a time and place.
I believe that a play is more "accurate". It may not have concrete facts, with dates and times, but what a play does that a history book can't is explore the emotions of the time. Plays tend to focus on the psychological things. How people where feeling and going through and struggling with in their minds when a historical event was happening. These emotions, I believe, have a lot more importance than just a certain battle. How people are feeling at these times has bigger sway on how future events turn out, and a play gives you an amazing insight into a character, therefore into a time.
Some people believe that history books are more accurate because they provide true facts, but that wont ever give you the big picture. You could read chapters of battle descriptions and body counts but it will never make you understand the emotions of the people and how they handle the events, (which I believe is the real history) like a great play can.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I understand your frustration in trying to determine which is more accurate, a history book or a play. I believe that in a play, there is more room for freedom and interpretation where as a history book is straight to the facts; but which is more accurate? I think that plays are more detailed, but as we see in the current play script we are reading in class, the Crucible, some of the facts are altered and changed. In contrast, when we performed an activity in the beginning of the year we discovered that a history book my only have twenty words on an event, or they might not even make a reference to it. Is this really enough information to be accurate with their data? Maybe their facts are true, but from this source you are not able to draw out much information.
I think that both of these sources are accurate. When reading either, the reader should be questioning at all times. In a play, they should question if the information is slightly altered, and in a history book, they should question if important pieces of the story are being left out.
Post a Comment