 David Bushnell , writing in The Hispanic American Historical Review , points out that the work is less a pure historical account than others suggest . García Márquez 's Bolívar is a man " who wanders naked through the house , suffers <unk> , uses foul language , and much more besides . " He argues that documentation does not support many of these details . Bushnell suggests , however , that the fact that the novel is not entirely historically accurate does not necessarily distinguish it from the work of professional historians . The main difference , Bushnell believes , is that García Márquez 's work " is far more readable " than a pure history . 
