Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Sara wrote: "Four examples of flowery covers:
It's not th..."
Thanks for that Sara! It is really interesting to see what covers feature around the world.
Tim wrote: "Clearly there is some untold cultural significance going on here. Can anyone enlighten me?"There's only one I can think of: your neighbours on the train won't be scandalised by the hidden innuendoes of innocent flowers. lol.
Seriously now, I had never thought about it. Let's see some possibilities...
People are generally very conservative here, but also very tolerant. You can be on the train reading the most sexually scandalous book, but for as long as it isn't obvious (meaning the cover doesn't give it away) for everyone around you then it doesn't offend anyone's sensibilities. Not that anyone would voice their annoyance to you, but you'd be the topic of their conversations for the rest of the day.
Also, life already piles lots of awful things, and there's always something peaceful and idyllic about a flowery cover.
Or perhaps there's a national love for flowers that has never infected me. Come to think of it, balconies and front/backyards will always have flowers.
I'll make my bet on a conjunction of those three factors.
And this reminds me of Juliette Benzoni's covers, as mentioned in another discussion. Portuguese ones are perfectly innocent: women from more or less period paintings. But those I've seen in the English language version were way too crude. No one would be caught dead in public with such a book here.
What about where you live? Do readers worry about what their fellow train passengers will think about them based on the book cover? Would you hide the original covers in 'mobile' covers, with the excuse of protection?
The recent exchanges about historical novel covers has caused me to make a comment on a related issue. Up until the last 10-12 years, the artists tended to present Anglo-ized characters in different skin tones without an eye for ethnic differences. I have seen it improve in the last decade. Does anyone else have a comment about this?
Jaime wrote: "The recent exchanges about historical novel covers has caused me to make a comment on a related issue. Up until the last 10-12 years, the artists tended to present Anglo-ized characters in differen..."Since the trend in Portugal(ever since I started keeping track) is to go with paintings, I can't really relate. Could you post some examples?
Jaime wrote: "Up until the last 10-12 years, the artists tended to present Anglo-ized characters in different skin tones without an eye for ethnic differences."I couldn't work out which character this was meant to be, on 'Hannibal: Enemy of Rome', and wished we had a picture of Hanno, whose ethnic descriptors were African -- though not as heavily as in Pride of Carthage, where the Carthaginians are very African.
Sara wrote: "What about where you live? Do readers worry about what their fellow train passengers will think about them based on the book cover? Would you hide the original covers in 'mobile' covers, with the excuse of protection? ..."I can't answer this as I am in the country and don't catch trains.
But if in public with a book I don't hide the covers as I don't read romance. If I read romance I might. Especially if it were erotica. :)
Jaime wrote: "The recent exchanges about historical novel covers has caused me to make a comment on a related issue. Up until the last 10-12 years, the artists tended to present Anglo-ized characters in differen..."I would like to see ethnicity represented more on covers. Definitely. And I do agree that so many images are anglocized and shouldn't be.
I agree, other stereotypes I hate on book covers are 'celtic' ones where everyone has red hair (in fact only 10% of 'celtic' people do!) and Native Americans with very European features. I have also noticed all the period books with a detail of dress/back of dress/ or a modern-looking model girl's face under a period hat. Yuck. Also, the ones in general that are a primary red, blue or green, with some object (boat,sword etc) on the front and then again, someone's back, as they gaze into the remote distance!
It's one big reason I went indie; I write in a much-neglected and not well known period, with a lot of misconceptions about what the people were like. That last thing I wanted to see were my characters depicted as shaggy cavemen or worse (like the book I saw titled 'The Beginning of the Neolithic' which had a bunch of neanderthals on the front!
J.P. wrote: "like the book I saw titled 'The Beginning of the Neolithic' which had a bunch of neanderthals on the front! "That would be laughable if it weren't so sad. I wish authors could have a say on choosing a cover for their book. At least veto power.
I have heard that most authors are not asked about the cover. Does anyone know if this is true?
We're asked, and we can do such things as submit pictures of historically authentic costumes or landscapes so that the cover artist has accurate images to use as a starting point. And if we want some changes - "The bodice isn't time-accurate; can I get a square neckline instead, and laced sleeves instead of puffed?" - then we can quite often get some tweaks. But no; unless you are waaaaaaay up the food chain of bestsellers, you don't get veto power or total control over your cover.
Kate wrote: "We're asked, and we can do such things as submit pictures of historically authentic costumes or landscapes so that the cover artist has accurate images to use as a starting point. And if we want s..."I wonder. If someone has been picked up for one book to see how it goes, would they have less say than that even? Are they told, this is it, this is what we are doing. Or are they allowed to submit and make suggestions as to period accuracy.
Didn't Ben say it was his weapon on the cover of, I think, Hannibal (might be Spartacus)? If, sounds like he had some input. Might it have to do with the publisher and tenure I wonder?Or maybe if they being in their own artist? Seems complicated no matter the arrangement though.
Whatever they do, they need to keep doing it and they need to keep tryign to do it better. I think images on covers need to match the content.ie..if a Cowboy in a book drives a Ford Pickup, they wouldn't want to have him driving a Trans Am on the cover. :)
We were speaking in this thread recently of historical accuracy in tv shows such as Borgias and The White Quen.Here is a great blog post on a blog I follow:
Game of Thrones - historical roots of fantasy by Eve Edwards
http://the-history-girls.blogspot.com...
The author of the post is this author: Eve Edwards (obviously not the kind of books we cater to here..lol..but I know some of you straddle the genres of Historical Fiction and Romance)
(I think I shall post this in the fantasy thread too. For those that follow the goings on in that thread this blog post may interest them also).
Apparently, crime writers face the same profanity and violence issues as historical fiction authors. So, one of them came up with this list (which was included in an email (I tried to find it on their website, but it doesn't seem to be included there - so I'm not even sure who wrote it). I thought how smart is this, maybe HF writers could come up with their own genre appropriate list.*****************************************************
Unlike films, there is no certification system for books. Yet crime novels, thanks to their subject matter, have a fair amount of choice stuff contained within.
I’ve received enough shocked emails about my own books to know not every reader is comfortable with swearing and violence.
Always eager to please, I’ve invented a unique scoring system (patents pending, of course) for the two categories.
The Profano-Meter lets you know how many expletives to expect
Harmless – As clean as a nun’s conscience
Mild – The odd naughty word here and there
Spicy – I say, the language is a bit strong
Oh! - This’ll make a fish-wife blush
The Platelet-Counter lets you know how much of the red-stuff gets spilled
Spotless – Not a drop is shed
Eek – Nothing a plaster couldn’t fix
Ugh – Some parts get pretty squishy
Whoah! – You’ll need a raincoat to read this
Each book is scored accordingly!
haha. That's funny. :D
Darcy wrote: "Apparently, crime writers face the same profanity and violence issues as historical fiction authors. So, one of them came up with this list (which was included in an email (I tried to find it on th..."This is good though I think you need to add a third "naughtiness" dimension to get the full spectrum. I suggest a range from "Asexual" to "coy" to "oo-er missus" finishing with "50 shades of bodices ripped (with 'backwards shouting sex' - whatever that was)"
Yeah, backwards shouting sex would definitely need its own rating in the naughtiness scale. If there is to be some backwards shouting sex in any book I am going to read I would like to know about it. So that I can find out what it is. :)
Terri wrote: "Yeah, backwards shouting sex would definitely need its own rating in the naughtiness scale. If there is to be some backwards shouting sex in any book I am going to read I would like to know about ..."
Yeah, really!
Historical fiction is like creative nonfiction. The author has a contract with the reader not to twist facts or change history. However he also has to make his story attractive, that is interesting, by compelling language, expanding personality and scenes, and showing not telling. Anyone can read history, but the historical fiction should bring it alive. That's what I tried to do in my novel Requiem for Athens.
This maybe belongs on the TV/movies thread but someone on another forum pointed out the new series about Mary Queen of Scots that is coming up on US TV: Check out the trailer for a laugh http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reeEul...As we are discussing Historical accuracy here, you may notice just 1 or 2 little inaccuracies there...:-)
I knew this was coming, but I wasn't aware it was about to come out. wow.
Tim wrote: "This maybe belongs on the TV/movies thread but someone on another forum pointed out the new series about Mary Queen of Scots that is coming up on US TV: Check out the trailer for a laugh http://www..."1 or 2? From what I could see, I would estimate that aside from the names, not much else was accurate. Well, they did get it right that Mary was from Scotland and Francis was French. It is kind of like a merger of The Game of Thrones and The Tudors. And about as realistic.
Eileen wrote: "Tim wrote: "This maybe belongs on the TV/movies thread but someone on another forum pointed out the new series about Mary Queen of Scots that is coming up on US TV: Check out the trailer for a laug..."I was impressed by the way the nuns live in an actual ruined church with no roof. Also that the King lives in a "castle" clearly built in the 1800s and the costumes seem to come from Alice in wonderland. Its also got Nostradamus in it.
I doubt the CW will ever worry about being accused of historical accuracy. They're primary goal is to tell a fun story, with very attractive young people for a younger audience. This time, they chose to do it with Tudor-ish fashion. ;)
Oh good grief. It's The Princess Diaries. They sure all were beautiful people in those times...without a Scottish accent to be seen anywhere.I hope those that watch it know that Mary Queen of Scots ends up losing her head and it took the executioner three blows to get it chopped off.
So, not really like the Princess Diaries in reality.
What does CW stand for anyway? Comedy watch?
I have no idea what it really means, but my mates and I lovingly refer to it as Canada West, since most of their shows are filmed here, and there is usually a generous sprinkling of Canadian actors and crews involved.
The C stands for CBS & the W Warner Brothers. It is YA type network. At least that's the audience they seem to be targeting. They show those goofy vampire romance sitcoms & the like.
Ah. Okay that makes sense. Does that mean this Mary Queen of Scots series will be sex and nudity free with low level violence?
Lots of shirtless young men, but yeah - no nudity and the sex scenes will be noted but not explicit. You know, going to bed, or waking up in bed, but not much of the between. They do like the complicated but obvious love stories on that channel too.I think the most violent show they have is Supernatural. But I mean, they are monsters.
LOl. I try & avoid that network, but the way TV in this country has become, I wouldn't count on it.
I'm going to stick with my Vikings series on The History Channel. :) It rocks my socks like no other series can do.
I wish they would replay Vikings here. I didn't give it a chance initially.
I hope you get a chance to have another go. The historical context is fantastic.
The series on TV have been very good, if not exactly historically accurate. Game of Thrones is fantasy and doesn't count. Spartacus could have had a better Julius Caesar. DaVinci could be a little less of a young wild man. The Borgias could have Caesare more manly. He was a larger man. The Vikings are pure fiction but very entertaining.
You can also try here for media related conversation David: http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/8...
Terry wrote: "If the King is historically killed on the field he should still be killed on the field....and William Wallace shouldn't have an affair with the Queen. :)"
That movie "Brave Heart" took to one of the greatest heroic tales in history, The Scots War Of Independence, and turned it into a bad episode of Bay Watch with Dudes in armour, or some soccer fans on the way to a rock concert getting into a sledging match with English soccer hooligans. That film should be banned! I mean it! Banned!
James wrote: "Terry wrote: "If the King is historically killed on the field he should still be killed on the field....and William Wallace shouldn't have an affair with the Queen. :)"
That movie "Brave Heart"..."
And ripped to shreds!!!
Paula wrote: "That movie "Brave Heart"...""And ripped to shreds!!!"
Right on!!! Who could Robert The Bruce into a cowardly schemer, only, a complete ... expletive cut out to maintain propriety.
Every writer of historical fiction has to fudge the truth a bit to get the story he/she wants, but no one does it better - or with as much riotous good fun - as George MacDonald Fraser in his Flashman series. "Flashman at the Charge" (of the Light Brigade) is a mad retelling full of what only historical fiction can do - put flesh on a writer's opinion of what happened in an historical event.
Steven wrote: "Every writer of historical fiction has to fudge the truth a bit to get the story he/she wants, but no one does it better - or with as much riotous good fun - as George MacDonald Fraser in his Flash..."I dont agree with you there Steven, you dont have to fudge the truth to make a good story. Plenty of authors do it.
Kate wrote: "Sure, but it's not as fun. :D"It's not as fun to read, either. :)
Gee, maybe I should try one of Fraser's Flashman er, Flashmen. I just finished Quartered Safe Out Here: A Harrowing Tale of World War II, his nonfiction WWII memoir and did enjoy it. I loved his style, so I imagine his fiction writing style is good also.
I find it more fun to read something that isn't half bullsh#t. We wouldn't want the truth pushed aside for fact if it were modern fiction.If Operation Annaconda was made to take place in Iraq when it took place in Afghan people would frown on that. It would be an alternative fiction.
If the Airforce scrambled jets in WW1 we'd all be, wtf??
If someone in1984 was carrying an ipad or talking on her LG mobile phone on WallStreet, readers would toss the book aside.
And yet I don't understand why an author attempting to be historically accurate is not valued by some readers in historical fiction.
It is history. Why is it less important for an author to do the research and get details about history right than it would be for a modern history or modern fiction writer to?
It doesn't matter if the reader knows the author has got it right, but the author should want to do a professional job and get it as right as they can.
And then, on those occasions where history is toyed with to make things fit better or more fun or in the case where information is limited, let the reader know in the historical note.
To all those authors, traditional or Indie, who put their heart into learning about the history they write about, and want to get as much right as possible..and create good reads because you take the time. Good on you. I am a reader who really appreciates the work you put into your craft.
It's a myth that you have to change history to make it dramatic. History, especially ancient and medieval history, is often quite dramatic enough, if the writer makes an effort to understand it.I have occasionally written something that, so far as we know, did not happen. That's what historical notes are for: to alert readers that X is speculation or invention, not fact. But I never knowingly write something that could not have happened. If the writer can't be bothered to do the research to find out what was possible in that time and place, why call it historical fiction?
Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
The Lion at Bay (other topics)The Lion Rampant (other topics)
The Lion Wakes (other topics)
The Water Thief (other topics)
Imperial Governor: The Great Novel of Boudicca's Revolt (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Daphne du Maurier (other topics)Robert Low (other topics)
Robert Low (other topics)
C.J. Sansom (other topics)
Anthony Riches (other topics)
More...
hahaha!