Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One of my all-time favorite writers, Flannery O'Connor, appeared as a character in a book I just read called "A Good Hard Look" by Ann Napolitano. It was very engaging and I liked it very much until towards the end when one of Flannery's peacocks accidently crushed an infant girl, killing her.
I looked it up, and yes, she had 40 peacocks, so that part is true. But no mention of one of them killing a child. This is a pretty serious scene to attribute to a real person. To make it worse, the character Flannery exhibits NO sense of guilt or remorse at all. Like she bears no responsibility for this heinous event.
Is this accepting writing practice? To invent something horrible about a real person that never happened?
For what it's worth, all the book reviews, even Oprah (lol) lauded this book and didn't mention that.
Is this accepting writing practice? To invent something horrible about a real person that never happened?
Interesting question. I immediately thought of the book & subsequent movie Girl With A Pearl Earring, a novel written about a famous painting by Johannes Vermeer circa 1665. While some history might be known about Vermeer and his family/social circle, I'd guess the majority of the story is made up. Several characters in the book who were actual people were not portrayed in a positive light - we have no way of knowing one way or the other.
I had to look up Flannery O'Connor, she's been dead for 60 years and has no descendants, so maybe that's one criteria used in the book you read. If the actual person and everyone close to them is long gone, maybe it's okay to alter or embellish facts in a work of fiction.
Interesting question. I immediately thought of the book & subsequent movie Girl With A Pearl Earring, a novel written about a famous painting by Johannes Vermeer circa 1665. While some history might be known about Vermeer and his family/social circle, I'd guess the majority of the story is made up. Several characters in the book who were actual people were not portrayed in a positive light - we have no way of knowing one way or the other.
I had to look up Flannery O'Connor, she's been dead for 60 years and has no descendants, so maybe that's one criteria used in the book you read. If the actual person and everyone close to them is long gone, maybe it's okay to alter or embellish facts in a work of fiction.
Yeah, I read that book too but seeing as it was set in the 1600s, there's more "leeway" about historical characters than someone who lived in modern times and is as famous as O'Connor.
I just cannot imagine the temerity of making serious (crimes?) up about a real, well-known person. Who was another writer, lol.
Yeah, I read that book too but seeing as it was set in the 1600s, there's more "leeway" about historical characters than someone who lived in modern times and is as famous as O'Connor.
I just cannot imagine the temerity of making serious (crimes?) up about a real, well-known person. Who was another writer, lol.
Well, "accidentally" is not a crime. I think this falls under the "Well, it COULD have happened" umbrella. Ken Follett and Nelson Demille both write novels about real events, though not necessarily real people. But the late Caleb Carr had real historical people in The Alienist, such as Teddy Roosevelt and J. P. Morgan.
A baby crushed by a peacock is pretty imaginative. I admire the creativity.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.