124 replies to this topic

[mariusj]

Bearing all that in mind, who is to say that Luo Guanzhong's only reference was the Records of the Three Kingdoms and that everything else was his imagination?"

Because of the word 'Romance' and its largely different accounts on individuals actions during that period. Also, the Mao family's change made it even more romancing.

People make real persons into heroes by embellishing the events not inventing events.

Making them historical fiction.

Shakespeare wrote about Julius Caesar 1600+ years after his death but the play is fairly accurate, so if people performed operas who is to say those operas are not based on reality?

Like what? Did Anthony really run almost naked across Rome and let people touch his penis? Did someone really walk up to Caesar and tell him, beware of Idles of March? Did Caesar really say Et Tu, Brutus? We know Anthony DID NOT make that speech at Caesar's funeral, etc.

Fact is, that period of history have been much obscure by Octavius' correction on history, so we honestly don't even know our sources are correct, let alone some romancing of Shakespeare's retell.

People often say that there is no proof that certain events happened so they most not have happened. That is an illogical statement. If there is no proof that an event happened that means nothing if there is no proof that it didn't happen.

Actually, no proof of something means there is no proof. Anything could of happen, including aliens or divine ones making them happen, and its as likely as your scenarios, thus your scenarios is pretty much invalid as the probability of it occur is 1/a very large number.

The fact that a folktale exists regarding the event is in fact closer to actual evidence then some academic saying it didn't happen because he or she doesn't think that it did, because folktales are often based on truths. If you look at the folktales of Vlad Tepes, you understand why Stoker chose him as the reference for his vampire. Was Vlad undead? No. Was Vlad responsible for the murders of thousands of people by impaling? Yes. Did Vlad drink blood? Maybe, but there is no evidence that he didn't, and some evidence that he did (wooden carvings for printing blocks for German pamphlets exist that warn people that he did drink blood). In this case the folktales are very close to the truth. It is only because other evidence exists that we know these events actually happened, but the folktales agree with a lot of what actually happened. So the operas and folktales would have at least some truth to them and therefore a fair amount of RTK could easily be true.

Again, folk tale are often use to damage people's reputation. To say just because the common peasants of that time believe something making them somewhat true is pretty stupid.

They say a baroness bath in blood of hundreds of virgins, and peasants swore them. Does it make it true? Probably not.

[jamjoh]

"Because of the word 'Romance' and its largely different accounts on individuals actions during that period. Also, the Mao family's change made it even more romancing."

So "romance" means fiction? I should tell my wife that.


"Making them historical fiction."

Embellish vs invent....look up the difference.

"Like what? Did Anthony really run almost naked across Rome and let people touch his penis? Did someone really walk up to Caesar and tell him, beware of Idles of March? Did Caesar really say Et Tu, Brutus? We know Anthony DID NOT make that speech at Caesar's funeral, etc.

Fact is, that period of history have been much obscure by Octavius' correction on history, so we honestly don't even know our sources are correct, let alone some romancing of Shakespeare's retell. "

The persons involved, the battles the events...all happened just not exactly the same as Shakespeare depicted them. And it hardly matters what someone's words were. Just because we don't know exactly what words Lu Bu said before he killed Dong Zhuo doesn't mean he didn't kill him.

"Again, folk tale are often use to damage people's reputation. To say just because the common peasants of that time believe something making them somewhat true is pretty stupid.

They say a baroness bath in blood of hundreds of virgins, and peasants swore them. Does it make it true? Probably not. "

I take extra exception to this. I specifically said folktales are based on fact....BASED. To say that it is "pretty stupid" to say that because some peasants believe that Baroness Bathory bathed in the blood of her victim that it makes it at least partially true. Guess what...it does. The true part is the fact that Bathory killed or had killed over 500 women. That is what based on fact means. If you want to damage someones reputation you take something that is true and embellish it. So now instead of impaling people we hear stories of blood drinking....but guess what? THE IMPALING STILL HAPPENED!!!!

SO the duel between Lu Bu and the three brothers probably did happen in some form...because people just don't invent things they embellish them.

GET IT NOW?

[mariusj]

"Because of the word 'Romance' and its largely different accounts on individuals actions during that period. Also, the Mao family's change made it even more romancing."

So "romance" means fiction? I should tell my wife that.

Well, there is no proper word for 演義 that translates it directly. But in this case, the Romance of ______ literately tells you something.
So yes, go tell your wife that Yan Yi literately suggests fictional.

"Making them historical fiction."

Embellish vs invent....look up the difference.

You should look up historical fiction.

"Like what? Did Anthony really run almost naked across Rome and let people touch his penis? Did someone really walk up to Caesar and tell him, beware of Idles of March? Did Caesar really say Et Tu, Brutus? We know Anthony DID NOT make that speech at Caesar's funeral, etc.

Fact is, that period of history have been much obscure by Octavius' correction on history, so we honestly don't even know our sources are correct, let alone some romancing of Shakespeare's retell. "

The persons involved, the battles the events...all happened just not exactly the same as Shakespeare depicted them. And it hardly matters what someone's words were. Just because we don't know exactly what words Lu Bu said before he killed Dong Zhuo doesn't mean he didn't kill him.

Historical fiction. It suggests that DUE TO THE FACT we don't know exactly what happen, we use FIBER OF OUR IMAGINATION to fill in what could of possibly happen, thus suggesting it is NOT HISTORY and historical fiction. The event occur IS NOT HOW IT ACTUALLY HAPPEN BUT HOW WE THINK IT HAPPEN.

I take extra exception to this. I specifically said folktales are based on fact....BASED. To say that it is "pretty stupid" to say that because some peasants believe that Baroness Bathory bathed in the blood of her victim that it makes it at least partially true. Guess what...it does. The true part is the fact that Bathory killed or had killed over 500 women. That is what based on fact means. If you want to damage someones reputation you take something that is true and embellish it. So now instead of impaling people we hear stories of blood drinking....but guess what? THE IMPALING STILL HAPPENED!!!!

So we differ in our guidance on the seriousness of history. Keep on believing tooth faires I suppose, or woman who drank blood AND BECAME YOUTHFUL.

SO the duel between Lu Bu and the three brothers probably did happen in some form...because people just don't invent things they embellish them.

If embellishment means filling the blank with our imagination without any regards to actual historical trends, or how war was fought during 3K period, or that people don't duel anymore generals v general, then I guess they embellished the hell out of that story.


GET IT NOW?

[jamjoh]

I see the problem here. You are one of those people that thinks only in absolutes. So even though I clear say things like "based on", you think that means that the whole thing is true. Well to say that a folktale is entirely truth is more foolish than saying that it is entirely false...both are foolish though.

I'll try a different way with an example that you brought up so I assume that you will understand. The folktale is Elizabeth Bathory killed over 500 women and ate their flesh and bathing in their blood to try and stay young. Alright now what I am saying is that all folktales have a basis of truth. In this case, Elizabeth Bathory did kill or have killed over 500 women, so that is a fact. The trial of the women that aided Bathory (she herself was never brought to trial) brought some other facts to light, namely torture including biting the flesh of of the faces of the victims. So the tale of her eating the flesh of her victims is not far from the truth. So in the folktale we can see that more of it is true than is false.

Historical fiction is obvious something I understand and you do not, since I am clear describing historical fiction. To demonstrate I cut a little passage from a description of historical fiction..."Historical figures are also often shown dealing with these events (historical) while depicting them in a way that has not been previously recorded." That clearly states that as I have been saying there is a basis of truth.

In order to make myself clear I will say the word BASIS again.

TO summarize my points:

-Historically we have examples of written works citing things that are no long extant (see Persica and Epitome)

-it is clear that historical fiction has a basis of truth

-folktales are also based on truth

-we know which things are fact from the novel Romance of the Three Kingdoms but we do not know which things are not fact since much of it is based on local folklore

Something else to consider, that you had mentioned earlier. Yes it is possible that aliens were involved in the events of 2nd century China, but the odds of that are probably around 1 in 10,000,000 (we could use Drake's equation and come up with an actual number but then we would have to agree on variables, and we haven't got a real good history of agreeing on things) where as the odds that the duel between Lu Bu and the three brothers occurred is more like 1 in 5 (that's just a guess so don't assume anything).


Now, the communication here has become rather hostile in my opinion, and that does not help good discussion so I'll make you a deal. I will not call you foolish (etc.etc.)if you don't call me stupid (etc.etc.). Respect leads to respect and I believe that you possess the ability to argue respectfully just as I do.

[mariusj]

Again, a HISTORY BOOK is a book based NOT ON IMAGINATION, while a historical fiction USED FABRIC OF IMAGINATION for the story, while certain historical settings and etc. That is the general definition of a historical fiction.

I am not arguing with you on any other point except for
1) Romance of 3K is a story that MANY TIMES used author's fabric of imagination RATHER THAN a historical record.


Thus, making it a historical fiction

To further strengthen my point, you said

Historical figures are also often shown dealing with these events (historical) while depicting them in a way that has not been previously recorded.

WHICH PART OF THE d**** DUEL WAS THE HISTORICAL EVENTS THAT WAS DEPICTED THAT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY RECORDED?


So, if your argument is based on the fact that the duel MIGHT OF HAPPEN, that is, it is in the realm of probabilities, then you are dealing with fiction, because in history we deal in CERTAINTIES.

[Ma Su]

Mariusj, your coming across as rather angry.

-it is clear that historical fiction has a basis of truth

In so much that there was a Guan Yu who fought for Shu, true. Not so much in that he killed Wen Chou. Though to be fair, at least that guy actually existed.

-folktales are also based on truth

No they aren't. They are tales. Like if I told you a tale where Washington slept with a French lady at the Palace of Versailles, she committed suicide when he left... that is simply me telling a tale with a historical figure in it. It has no basis on fact other then the Palace, France and Washington existed. I would hope I would be a tad more accurate then LGZ on weapons mind.

SO the duel between Lu Bu and the three brothers probably did happen in some form...because people just don't invent things they embellish them.

Lu Bu fought in the south rather then against the rather pathetic efforts in the north which is where Liu Bei (even if he was there) might have been. Duels were also very rare events by the three kingdom era.

LGZ hardly seems to have been writing for history purposes to supplement the SGZ, more propaganda and to entertain. Now admittedly, the shenanigans on both sides of the Coalition are entertaining but which suits LGZ's agenda more? The northern front being pathetic, Sun Jian romping home in the south or Liu Bei and brothers coming to the alliances rescue including a heroic 3-1 duel against the greatest warrior of the time? It's a scene people remember, it makes the three brothers look awesome, it entertains. It's great entertainment but it isn't historical.

People do invent things. Quite a lot. Try listening to the gossips. In terms of historical fiction/folklore, sometimes it is embellishing a tale, adding a few (hundred) thousand men, adding a bit of colour or what have you. Sometimes, people rewrite history for their own purposes, that is essentially what LGZ did or make tales up about those they like to make them seem better. Or those they dislike to be a lot worse.

Edited by Ma Su, 06 June 2011 - 12:32 PM.

[jamjoh]

I would argue that history deals in certainties. Why have historians spent so much time and money trying to find the lost city of Atlantis? Or Troy? or El Dorado? Oak Island? etc. etc. The fact is Atlantis may not have existed, Troy may not have existed, El Dorado may not have existed and Oak Island maybe just a swampy island.

And I am not arguing the fact that ROT3K does not have a good dose of imagination, but I am arguing that just because an event in the novel isn't covered in the Records of the Three Kingdoms does not mean that the event didn't happen. I have heard many academics say the the peach orchard oath never took place, without any proof other than it only appears in the novel. That is why I say, if we don't where Luo Guanzhong got the information then we don't know that the event didn't happen.

When discussing probabilities you can't just say everything that isn't 100% probable is fiction. Mechanical animals? Less than .01% probable based on the technology of the times. The peach orchard oath? Well since all three men were together at the time, and they were all friends, and they were all capable of making such an oath, and oaths were something that people of that time frame and location did...I would say at least 50% probability that it happened. The duel? Since the battle took place, all 4 men were at the battle, Lu BU was recorded dueling Guo Si, Zhang Fei was recorded as challenge anyone to a duel at Changban, Guan Yu was recorded as personally killing Yan Liang. So we have evidence that at least 3 of the 4 men had or tried to duel at other times. That makes the odds of the duel occurring fairly good in my mind.

[jamjoh]

Another good example from history would be the Battle of Thermopylae. 1,000,000 Persians stopped by 300 Spartans.

Fact 1...Xerses probably only fielded about 300,000 men.

Fact 2...There were 300 Spartans but around 7,000 Greeks.

Fact 3...Leonidas was not even the leader of the Greeks.


All true....but what was also true was that a relatively puny army stopped a Juggernaut, and the Spartans were the ones that blocked the pass and they were led by Leonidas.

So sure the stories have some facts that are not 100% true, but the event still happened.

[jamjoh]

Ma Su

Don't confuse gossip with Folktales. You making up a story is gossip. Folktales are a kind of oral history. Look at the examples I gave of Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Tepes....those are folktales. Your example is gossip since Americans and French in the 18th century did not have a tradition of oral history and it takes more than just some names to make a folktale, it takes at least some events that are accurate (Vlad did impale thousands of people, he just didn't drink their blood)(I hope).

[Ma Su]

I would argue that history deals in certainties.

As much as it can yes. If one has a theory, one has to back it up with credible sources which range from the records, letters, archaeological evidence and so on. Folktales and novels don't count as evidence though we might wish certain tales to be true.

And I am not arguing the fact that ROT3K does not have a good dose of imagination, but I am arguing that just because an event in the novel isn't covered in the Records of the Three Kingdoms does not mean that the event didn't happen. I have heard many academics say the the peach orchard oath never took place, without any proof other than it only appears in the novel. That is why I say, if we don't where Luo Guanzhong got the information then we don't know that the event didn't happen. When discussing probabilities you can't just say everything that isn't 100% probable is fiction. Mechanical animals? Less than .01% probable based on the technology of the times. The peach orchard oath? Well since all three men were together at the time, and they were all friends, and they were all capable of making such an oath, and oaths were something that people of that time frame and location did...I would say at least 50% probability that it happened.

So if I write a novel where Liu Bei and Cao Cao were lovers, and I did so with a clear agenda, it becomes history? I could make up anything then. With history, one has to prove something happened or something existed or else people could claim anything. As much as I would love the oath to be true, we have no evidence of it and why LGZ would add such a thing is clear.

The duel? Since the battle took place, all 4 men were at the battle, Lu BU was recorded dueling Guo Si, Zhang Fei was recorded as challenge anyone to a duel at Changban, Guan Yu was recorded as personally killing Yan Liang. So we have evidence that at least 3 of the 4 men had or tried to duel at other times. That makes the odds of the duel occurring fairly good in my mind.

When did Guan Yu killing Yan Liang count as a duel? The battle at Hu Lou gate never happened, the campaign against Dong did but the fights were elsewhere. We can assume Guan Yu and Zhang Fei were there if Liu Bei was but the evidence we have of Lu Bu is on an entirely different front of the camapign. So the evidence we have is that at one point, one of the four duelled, while another did so at the moment of desperation while across a river which made it difficult for anybody to accept said challenge. We also have evidence of several battles that were fought in that camapign and it would be bizarre for a major event involving a future emperor to completely missing from the records we have and turn up in a novel whereas other battles in that camapign were recorded so well.

I'm afraid I don't understand your point about the Sparta/Greek stand against Persia?

Don't confuse gossip with Folktales. You making up a story is gossip.

Unless I write it down, at which point it becomes historical fiction.

Folktales are a kind of oral history. Look at the examples I gave of Elizabeth Bathory or Vlad Tepes....those are folktales. Your example is gossip since Americans and French in the 18th century did not have a tradition of oral history and it takes more than just some names to make a folktale, it takes at least some events that are accurate (Vlad did impale thousands of people, he just didn't drink their blood)(I hope).

Folktales are folktales. Entertaining (hopefully), an intresting glimpse into the mindset of the people and can tell something of the time said tales were told from. This doesn't give them any degree of legitimacy about the era they claim to be about, even if said folktales manage to avoid having magic/al creatures in them.

[Loong]

MaSu is right.

What baffles me is why would someone take analogy from a different civilization and impose on this forum. I would strongly urge all parties to only discuss on SGZ / ROTK and do not bring in Xerxes or any other war which has nothing to do with this part of the world during that period of time.

[jamjoh]

Loong

It's not Xerses or the battle of Thermopylae that I am bringing up. Maybe you should go back a few pages and get yourself caught up. The point is the historical works of Persica and Epitome. If you had read earlier then you would realize that the point I was making was Epitome cites a work (Persica) that no long exists. If it wasn't for the fact that Photius cites that he referenced Persica we would not know that Persica was a real work.

That means that a work (Epitome) of events that happened 1,000 yrs before (Battle of Thermopylae), becomes historical accurate because the author was citing a work (Persica) of an author (Ctesias) who was actually there. The hypothesis I raised was like Epitome, maybe Romance of the Three Kingdoms was citing a work like Persica that has been lost, in which case maybe more of the novel is accurate than just those parts that are cover in the Records of the Three Kingdoms. The time frame involved is also rather interesting, since there is about 1,100 yrs between when Persica was written and Epitome was written...the time frame between the novel and the end of the Three Kingdoms era is approximately 1,100 years as well which I think makes the comparison even more pertinent.

The fact that this is the absolute best comparison to the point I am trying to make is the reason I brought it up...if you were not aware this isn't just a Chinese form but also a history forum. If you are so stuck on Chinese history that you cannot look past it at the rest of the world to see how China fits into the world history, well then you are not a historian.

I hope you are not baffled anymore. I would appreciate if you refrain from attempting to discipline me or anyone else on a public forum.

Ma Su

Folktales are commonly recognized as a source of historical information, albeit not the preferred form since oral history often loses much of the facts.

It also takes more than a clear agenda to make something a viable historical source.

The amount of truth in a piece of historical fiction is exactly my point. If your bit of gossip about Washington was written down, how can we just wave it off as false unless we do a bit of research and actually prove it was a false rumor. I am not aware if you intended this or not, but you actually made a mistake in your attempt at gossip in that it was Thomas Jefferson that went to France.

IMHO...the difference between gossip and folktales is that gossip does not stand the test of time, but folktales can last for hundreds and even thousands of years. And the difference between folktales and fairy tales is that fairy tales lack any truth and people don't believe them.

My mind remains unchanged, there maybe more in the novel that is true than just those things found in the Records.

[Ma Su]

Correct me if I'm wrong but historians tend to cite their sources and that is how we know of sources (along with biographies that list a person's work) that a source has gone missing? LGZ wasn't a historian, he was a writer of a novel so doesn't need to bother with sources at all.

I hope you are not baffled anymore. I would appreciate if you refrain from attempting to discipline me or anyone else on a public forum.

overreacting? At least to Loong.

Folktales are commonly recognized as a source of historical information, albeit not the preferred form since oral history often loses much of the facts.

Indeed. As I said, folklores are an intresting glimpse into the mindset of the people and can tell something of the time said tales were told from. That is valuable about that era. Not valuable about the era the folktales are about. If a folktale/book/movie is about the person's own time, like Dicken's work, then it can provide insight into what some people people felt was happening, what people feared/enjoyed and so on. Which is extremely valuable, I'm not denying that.

The amount of truth in a piece of historical fiction is exactly my point. If your bit of gossip about Washington was written down, how can we just wave it off as false unless we do a bit of research and actually prove it was a false rumor. I am not aware if you intended this or not, but you actually made a mistake in your attempt at gossip in that it was Thomas Jefferson that went to France.

Why must be blatant propaganda work by accurate enough as to the right person? If I want to say Washington was in France in a novel I write, I can. After all, LGZ used people who were dead at that set point for his novel so I don't see why I can't have Washington be in the wrong country and sideline Jefferson while I'm at it.

We could dismiss it becuase it was written as a piece of propaganda in a novel by someone (me) who is more then three centuries from the time these "events" happened. Chances are, there would probably be historical mistakes to go with the blatantly untrue stuff as well, further damaging my novel's credibility. I also cite no sources and there is no mention of stuff I say in any credible historical source.

IMHO...the difference between gossip and folktales is that gossip does not stand the test of time, but folktales can last for hundreds and even thousands of years. And the difference between folktales and fairy tales is that fairy tales lack any truth and people don't believe them.

Cao Rui's parentage has come under rumour and that has survived but I don't think that counts as folklore. Folktales can and do tend to lack any truth beyond things like "said person existed in said time period and said country".

Edited by Ma Su, 07 June 2011 - 10:29 AM.

[jamjoh]

Ma Su

Give me a folktale and I will give you the basis of truth in it.

You are not wrong, modern historians do cite their sources, whether or not he was a historian LGZ was not modern. The methods of citation of any culture at any time are difficult to be certain of. The Dark Ages are so named because of the lost knowledge, part of that is due to the fact that there was no citation during that age.

You can write what you want about Washington...the fact remains that he did not go to France and so it is not based on truth at all. ROTK is based on truth, we just do not know how much of it is based on truth.

Edited by jamjoh, 07 June 2011 - 10:43 AM.

[Ma Su]

Give me a folktale and I will give you the basis of truth in it.

Ok, one from my childhood: Witch of Wookey Hole, the relevant part being A man from Glastonbury is betrothed to a girl from Wookey. A witch living in Wookey Hole Caves curses the romance so that it fails. The man, now a monk, seeks revenge on this witch who—having been jilted herself—frequently spoils budding relationships. The monk stalks the witch into the cave and she hides in dark corner near one of the underground rivers. The monk blesses the water and splashes some of it at the dark parts of the cave. Catching the witch off guard, the monk splashes the water at the dark corner she is hiding in. The blessed water immediately petrifies the witch, and she remains in the cave to this day.

Or Robin Hood if that one is too mystical.

You are not wrong, modern historians do cite their sources, whether or not he was a historian LGZ was not modern. The methods of citation of any culture at any time are difficult to be certain of.

Yet is well known where Chen Shou get his records from, Pei and Sima Guang listed their sources. The three though were working on history, LGZ was working on a novel. True enough on the Dark Ages though.

You can write what you want about Washington...the fact remains that he did not go to France and so it is not based on truth at all. ROTK is based on truth, we just do not know how much of it is based on truth.

But there was a Washington and there was a France, there is no source that (as far as I know) contradicts such a tale. If there is, I can just change the person. Or ignore it like LGZ did.

LGZ is, like a lot of historical fiction novels or films, true in the era, followed the timeline and used historical characters. He however seems to have been quite willing to change everything else in-between for entertainment or propaganda reasons.

Edited by Ma Su, 07 June 2011 - 11:04 AM.