A more accurate story

Fables and folk tales are a better history because of their blatant outlandishness, they obviously have not been molded to fit the world around them. And they are more full of the tradition and superstition of the age that gave birth to them. Most are handed down directly, with no threat or attempt to explain anything more. True relationships are preserved and yeild a more fascinating result than studying history books; not to say that fascination or entertainment ought to be our ultimate goal. Too often I have griped about pereption created by historical fiction, because it is more popular and suited for it's audience, one that will never look for the truth beyond what is presented specifically for their liking.

I could rant nearly forever on this topic. In my musicology class we were supposed to see the movie "Immortal Beloved", but because of the venue, and lack of desire to persue trying to see it, I just wrote about the movie Amadeus and used such to apply to all like historical fictions. I was the only "A" in the class and the only one who had never seen the film, ironically. But really, when did that ever stop a record keeper from sharing his thoughts? Likewise these are mine, that if we could truly learn from history why not turn to historical books which never had the intent of telling the reader how to suppose things went.

I like Folk lore and such books as the Bible (unaltered translations). It is from such sources I can extrapolate great truths and meanings, after all isn't that why we study the past? It's all been done, read all about it!