What's the future of WW2 historical writing?

[tcolvin]

Originally Posted by Ruy Horta

There is a difference between drama and docudrama, the former is less bound by facts and realism. Atonement is a drama set in wartime, not a reenactment of the Dunkirk campaign. 99% of the audience won't give a damn if the bomber they see on the big screen actually flew in that exact time period, as long as it matches / represents the general era in the popular mind.

Surely 'Atonement' would be docudrama if McEwan suggested the protagonists were real people. He doesn't, but he does claim that its drama of a special kind in which the background events are historically accurate. This genre is typified by C.S. Forester's 'Hornblower', Bernard Cornwell's 'Sharpe' and Patrick O'Brien's 'Aubrey/Maturin' series. Here fictional protagonists, who are an amalgam of real people, operate in real or at least realistic events. Details are researched and historically accurate, including language and attitudes. Everything is historically kosha; except in 'Atonement' it isn't.

I also like Pride and Prejudice, and not least because it's historically accurate. But Keira Knightley is not in the same league as Jennifer Ehle, and the same goes for Matthew Macfadyen and Colin Firth!

Tony