Was there an especially concerted effort to "whitewash" Qianlong?
Asking this question out of curiosity at why Qianlong's cultural figure as a "Patron of the Arts" is much stronger than his reputation as an ambitious military leader, or as the head of a corrupt court in his later years. While he was (probably undoubtedly) a good emperor, the historical impression I have of similar emperors (capable emperors presiding over golden ages) are fierce, severe men ruling harshly but fairly, while Qianlong's reputation is more of an affable eccentric who liked putting his own name on artworks, engaged in witty banter with his officials and spent his free time either playing with his grandchildren or scheming of ways to arrange another Jiangnan tour.
Obviously these impressions are mostly created by folklore and novels, but is there any reason why these stories all have him as a subject/similar stories were not written about other Chinese emperors?