Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 10 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
These are all questions I've been battling with as I finish up my paper. Is it possible to write a version of history that remains objective, or, if not objective, gives a view of a battle (or a person, or other event) that goes against the grain of common history while still remaining realistic and credible? I think the biggest issue we have is popular culture's effect on a battle as well-known as Gettysburg. Once you add Martin Sheen and Tom Berenger, you're basically set with national perception, I think. --Cash | These are all questions I've been battling with as I finish up my paper. Is it possible to write a version of history that remains objective, or, if not objective, gives a view of a battle (or a person, or other event) that goes against the grain of common history while still remaining realistic and credible? I think the biggest issue we have is popular culture's effect on a battle as well-known as Gettysburg. Once you add Martin Sheen and Tom Berenger, you're basically set with national perception, I think. --Cash | ||
| + | |||
| + | How has the film industry influenced popular perceptions of the war? Has the visceral presentation of film versus literature done something new to the way Americans think about the war? Would children who care little about a battle's history put up memorials on battlefields without characters to relate to on a screen? -GStan. | ||
