Quote:
Originally Posted by pilotbob
The def I have is:
present information about (something) in a way that provokes public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy
Which is what it sounds like you are saying. But, it may not be what you mean.
BOb
|
From Random House Dictionary at dictionary.com:
"
To cast and present in a manner intended to arouse strong interest, especially through inclusion of exaggerated or lurid details"
That was the way I understood "sensationalized" (even before looking it up). So no, that's not what I meant. I meant that the author embellishes fact, and write them down so it reads like fiction. I mean, you don't believe someone actually wrote down a dialogue word for word in their diary? He would have to make it up. Also descriptions of scenes have a lot of detail and uis described in a manner that is usually found in fiction. I don't think I can describe it better than this.
I assume he's doing it this to make it more palatable and easier to read. As I mentioned, I've seen the same trend in historical TV programmes. It's just not my cup of tea. If the facts are interesting enough, they don't need to be presented as if they were fiction. Perhaps it's because I like facts and are able to 'embellish' and imagine on my own - I don't need to have it pre-digested as I feel this trend is doing.
Edit: Sparrow's "imaginitive interpretation" is another way of saying it.