I don't find it offensive, per se, I'm just sort of bewildered why, when they have a story about someone with rather an exceptional lot of history, being aged 90 and change, they would focus on what to me seem like the parts that are less interesting to an audience in 2018, rather than the parts that have what seem, again to me, to have more universal appeal. It's not that I want them to change Philip's character, but they've got 60+ years of character to work with. Of necessity they have to leave things out. I'd rather they left these things out rather than what they have left out. YMMV.
If a writer thinks history has to be changed to make it a "better story," maybe that writer should turn to straight fiction.
no subject
Date: 2018-09-01 12:42 am (UTC)If a writer thinks history has to be changed to make it a "better story," maybe that writer should turn to straight fiction.
I feel like they've done this with Churchill! :)