This Friday we’re keeping it simple & short as Ana asks, “Drunk History – Yea or Nay?”

Katie begins with a “Yes, but the early episodes, where the narrators are legit experts about the person/event they are discussing.

The episodes where the drunk interviewee is a celebrity who has an interest in a person, or has read a biography are not as interesting because they don’t have the passion and vocabulary to contextualize. Part of why I enjoy it is because all historical fiction is interpretive in some way. Drunk History is a way to make these events more relatable to the general public. I’m on board.”

C.V. says, “Nay. Maybe I don’t have much of a sense of humor, but I’m not one to sit around and watch YouTube videos unless I’m seeking information on a topic. No cat videos for me!”

Ana adds “I’m very uncomfortable watching people drink to drunkness. I get so worried about their safety!

But I do like the informal, loose storytelling on Drunk History. I’ve watched a couple of episodes and have said “Yep! That might be just how it happened.”

Kathryn shares “I’ve only watched it a few times and the appeal escaped me. But maybe that’s because I’m a tee-totaler, myself.”

Linda concludes with “Personally, I have never seen the appeal in listening to drunk people tell a story even though my son absolutely loves the show.

The narrators are celebrities who are inebriated to the point of fuzziness but not yet incapacitated. The dates and people are historically accurate, but the narrator makes up the dialogue. Isn’t that what historical fiction authors do? Drunk History might be where historical fiction authors begin…or end up. The episodes are funny, as are most stories told by drunk people. Maybe writing historical fiction would be more fun if I was drunk?”