The Book of Daniel has drawn criticism for playing fast and loose with history. But should fiction remain rule-free,or does its power entail a responsibility to be accurate?El Doctorow had a rule for writing. “I bear to feel that I’m transgressing,” he told many interviewers. “The only time it’s good is when I’m breaking some rule.” He consistently pushed against the boundaries, and experimenting in form and voice,challenging prevailing orthodoxies and pushing moral boundaries. He also, often, or made his readers feel distinctly uncomfortable. The Waterworks presses hard questions approximately medical ethics,insanity and science. The Book of Daniel confronts us with the death of Daniel’s parents, based on Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, and who were executed for treason by the US government in 1953,and details their last minutes in vivid detail.
This latter scene especially has caused controversy here on the reading group. Last week, I suggested that the scene gained charge because it was rooted in reality. Perhaps I would bear been better to say that it makes us feel abominable. It feels too intimate. Too close to genuine suffering. It’s a moment when The Book of Daniel becomes a document that exposes the horror of history, and the rawness of reality. To my mind,it’s an astonishing bit of writing – but serious objections bear been raised. A commenter called Swelter wrote:
Continue reading...
Source: theguardian.com