1) you forgot the 's'. I'm a "she". Minor irritant.
2) I don't recall the one book or many books being relevant to its historical accuracy. Take it line by line for all I care. Discussing it as one book is a convenient way to reference everything listed in it. I'm not even discussing it as a linear narrative - if I were to take just certain stories and discuss their accuracy or relevancy, it would be the same.
3) Call it what you fucking want, it doesn't change the fact that he has a valid point for questioning belief and finding it severely lacking based on the inaccuracies, mythologies, lies and bullshit found within it.
We can play semantics all you want. If it's discovered that someone wrote a biography of George Washington that wasn't based in reality and included deliberate fabrication, I call that "a fiction". Or at least, as Robert Wuhl is fond of saying "based on a true story."
2) I don't recall the one book or many books being relevant to its historical accuracy. Take it line by line for all I care. Discussing it as one book is a convenient way to reference everything listed in it. I'm not even discussing it as a linear narrative - if I were to take just certain stories and discuss their accuracy or relevancy, it would be the same.
3) Call it what you fucking want, it doesn't change the fact that he has a valid point for questioning belief and finding it severely lacking based on the inaccuracies, mythologies, lies and bullshit found within it.
We can play semantics all you want. If it's discovered that someone wrote a biography of George Washington that wasn't based in reality and included deliberate fabrication, I call that "a fiction". Or at least, as Robert Wuhl is fond of saying "based on a true story."
![[Image: Untitled2_zpswaosccbr.png]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i1140.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fn569%2Fthesummerqueen%2FUntitled2_zpswaosccbr.png)
