I do not think any writer should be given the right to present a living or historical individual in a ficticious manner, at least not in a way that would bring the memory of that person into disrepute. (For example, Shakespear's presentation of King Henry VIII, though fictitious by and large, did not really bring the King's image into disrepute. Then again, the librals might ask, what is so disreputable about marrying - in fact, is it not an honourable act to marry a prostitute and give her social security?) If it is an honest presentation of an image in another light on the basis of controversial opinions or evidences, then such presentations should go under the category of scholastic pursuits restricted to the domain of the university and library. But to fictionalise an historical personality and seek to make a quick buck out of it is simply immoral. So as to act as a deterent in future, I would support the ban on both the book and the cinema.
Of course, it might be asked whether the Church itself has not presented Christ in mythical proportions and whether a myth is not in fact a fiction. A myth per se may seem to be fiction but it is not fiction just as fiction is not actually a lie, though it might seem to be so.
No comments:
Post a Comment