As a wise man once said, there are THREE sides to every story. There is your side of the story, their side of the story, and the truth. Through these perspectives, people can fully glance at the extent of an argument and figure out how to resolve them. They can even learn something from looking at a conflict with these three perspectives, so a similar situation can never occur again. With that in mind, a burning question flares in my mind. That question is simple; why are so many examples of historical fiction stories so one sided?
For those who don't know, history is not meant to be retold from one perspective. The purpose of history is to observe the events of the past in an open matter. By studying these events, preferably in the three sided structure, people are educated to not redo the mistakes of the past and to create a better future. Therefore, only showing one side of the story, especially on the hero's side, is a bad way to handle historical fiction stories. Not only do the authors of these pieces seem conceited for only showing one side of the battle, but it is cliche to the core.
The only way to fix these stories is to show all sides of the conflict. That way, people can learn a thing or two from these fictional accounts of historical accounts and create stories people will remember.
YOU ARE READING
A Hundred Cliches That Really Need To Die
De TodoEver watched or read something, and felt annoying that a certain plot device was used for the thousandth time? Well, I certainly have. Here are a hundred of some of the worst cliche's ever, which hopefully none of you will use any time soon in you...
