In “Constructing Anne Frank” Spector and Jones argue that historical fiction, while engaging, threatens to distort students’ perception of real events. As an alternative, they suggest that teachers supplement interpretive works like the Goodrich and Hackett play, with primary sources and real life accounts of the historical events, so that students can recognize the optimistic slant of the play. I agree with the authors’ teaching tips, and think it’s a great way to teach students to critically analyze any movie, play, or book that claims to be “based on true events.” Rather than choosing to exclude these works of historical fiction, teachers should allow their students to confront these interpretations and learn to view them as inherently biased and one-sided. From Freedom Writers to Pearl Harbor, there is so much in the popular media that claims to depict real life events. If viewers are not taught to critically analyze the films as a works of art, they fall into the trap of forgetting that the work is an interpretation rather than a primary source.
As I was reading this piece, I was thinking that it might be interesting to ask students to write their own short plays that take on a particular slant and interpret the historical events in a way that promotes a narrow understanding. When students take on the roll playwright, they will discover the creative freedom that an artist has in creating a work of historical fiction. Because a play is technically artwork, there is no pressure to depict events exactly according to fact. I think such an assignment would help students view images, films, and plays in the popular media as interpretative works of art rather than historically accurate sources.
1 thought on “Emphasizing the fictional part of historical fiction”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I really like Emily’s suggestion that students create short plays to learn about the differences between historical fiction and actual events. I think that presenting students with a variety of sources – primary texts, biographies, novels, documentaries, etc. – which they are tasked with interpreting in a creative way, gives students agency in their learning of history. Emily’s suggestion, in light of Spector and Jones’ findings, made me consider the form that that these plays may take. I thought it was interesting that the students interviewed in the article tended to fixate on the positive and redemptive aspects of Anne Frank’s story, although there is ample textual evidence that contradicts this perspective. Because Spector and Jones attribute this interpretation to American cultural narratives, I wonder if students have been culturally conditioned to try to find a happy ending within a historical narrative. If students lean towards tying historical events up neatly with a bow, or reducing them to simple narratives, focusing on topics such as violence or romance, then the critical literacy questions should not only be employed to challenge the texts, but they should also be expanded to teach students to challenge their own reactions to the historical events and the cultural expectations that have shaped these responses. I want to expand on Emily’s idea of having student create short plays: once the students perform their plays, they should critically consider their own interpretations. I think that employing critical literacy in this way will make history lessons personally meaningful, thus promoting sustained engagement in the material and developing a lasting awareness of the influence of societal constructs.