from nz.general

> Is there such a thing as "true" fiction versus fictitious fiction?

My reply:


Yes, I think so.

There is historical fiction about real people, like the Tudors.

Then there is historical fiction about characters like Sharpe and
Hornblower, where the main characters are imaginary but the events are
mainly true. (Napoleonic Wars).

I would say historical fiction, if well researched, is "true" fiction.

All this Vampire stuff popular today is fictitious fiction and usually
ridiculous,
though the original "Dracula" by Bram Stoker (1897) is probably still the
best ever written, and well worth reading.

And then there is fiction that creates whole new worlds, like "Lord of the
Rings" and much Science Fiction.
It can be totally believable or utter rubbish, depending on the author's
skill.
Fictitious fiction at its best or worst.

"The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" seems to be "true" fiction, from the
amount of research, but I wonder.
I suppose it could be considered as "true" as Velikovsky's space theories.
("Worlds in Collision" etc.")
Plausible but unlikely?

I wonder what "Revelation" would be considered.
Today that probably wouldn't be taken literally by most people.