Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
message 651:
by
Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd
(new)
Jan 07, 2014 06:29PM
lol. It was like a show about nothing.
reply
|
flag
Uh? Sound and fury signifying nothing? Is that the phrase you all are looking for? I didn't even read it and I'm thinking it sounds boring. Shall we all dig into something juicy--like some HF?!
Several years ago, I started to see the classification of speculative history. I believe this where historical books whose authors take liberties should be classified. I believe that some of these authors are trying to put forth their theories as factual.
Judith wrote: "Uh? Sound and fury signifying nothing? Is that the phrase you all are looking for? I didn't even read it and I'm thinking it sounds boring. Shall we all dig into something juicy--like some HF?!"LOL! Sound and fury signifying nothing is a phrase that appeals to me. that will do. ;)
Jaime wrote: "Several years ago, I started to see the classification of speculative history. I believe this where historical books whose authors take liberties should be classified. I believe that some of thes..."For me personally, it has to be extreme inaccuracy to make it to the speculative column. By extreme I mean really messing with known history.
If an author tweaks with known history to where they are rewriting history, yes, definitely speculative.
Terri wrote: "Sound and fury signifying nothing is a phrase that appeals to me. that will do. ;) ..."You left out the first half of that quote: "a tale told by an idiot...."
Tim wrote: "Terri wrote: "Sound and fury signifying nothing is a phrase that appeals to me. that will do. ;) ..."You left out the first half of that quote: "a tale told by an idiot....""
Haha!! That fits perfectly!
The poor guy. I mean no disrespect to him for not liking his work, but basically, (for anybody who didn't read it), to me it seems like a lot of over hypothesising because someone said one thing to him that i don't even think is right.Someone said to him that something is historical fiction only if it has a real historical reference points.
Such as: a real King or Queen is in it, or a real battle. Things like that.
I find that complete codswallop.
To me a historical fiction is made an historical fiction purely through environmental context.
A book could be the story of one person living alone in his cave in 11th century Wales. never seeing another person of any particular note.
As long as the environmental context is historically accurate (wearing the right clothes, eating the right food, using the right utensils or weapons) it is an historical fiction.
As long as the reader is given, through description of time and place, an idea of what the time and place is.
For me, the whole opinion the blog post is based on is flawed anyway and the blogger gave it too much of an airing.
Hello HG! I'm a newb to the community, and wanted to jump into the conversation...I'm a junkie for reading books with great worlds. For a lot of people reading is pure escapism. (I even went so far as to start a history degree in that pursuit). The problem with straight history (facts no flavor), is that the world becomes dry. It's seen by only what the researcher can prove. A good author becomes a part detective, part analyst, and (hopefully) great story teller. It's a difficult combo to nail.
I started out as a fantasy lover, and when I picked up my first HF book (a Wilbur Smith one, I think), I was surprised how much it made me thirst to learn more. With fantasy, you can't do that. Its a great genre!
Wilbur Smith is an excellent action writer.
Jaq wrote: "Revisiting this thread as I'm nearing the end of Stonehenge which is of course set in pre-history where we have a lot more theory than fact, so the author has little choice but to man..."I agree that we have more theory than fact in prehistory, but a lot has been learned over the past few years as more and more discoveries are made. We may never really know exactly how people lived in the stone or bronze ages but we can plug in many of the holes in our knowledge and, when coupled with what we do know of more recent history, we can come up with reasonably accurate pictures of prehistoric life. That assumes that the writer is willing to do due diligence when it comes to research.
The danger here is to not cross over into the realm of fantasy. Not that there is anything wrong with fantasy. I enjoy it myself at times. The problem is when fantasy becomes confused with history, or prehistory as it were. If you want to write a novel involving humans interacting with Wooly Mammoths or Smilodons, that's great because there is paleontological evidence that this happened. If you have the same humans interacting with dinosaurs or dragons, that's something else altogether.
David wrote: "Jaq wrote: "Revisiting this thread as I'm nearing the end of Stonehenge which is of course set in pre-history where we have a lot more theory than fact, so the author has little choic..."In other words: logical or at least plausible...
Hi Jaq,In regards to prehistory. I would love to read more too, but alas, books set in prehistory that have no fantasy and/or no romance/love story are few and far between. There are some out there, but it is no treasure trove.
I wish there were more to choose from.
David wrote: The problem is when fantasy becomes confused with history, or prehistory as it were. If you want to write a novel involving humans interacting with Wooly Mammoths or Smilodons, that's great because there is paleontological evidence that this happened. If you have the same humans interacting with dinosaurs or dragons, that's something else altogether. This is so true.
As a reader, I yearn for good, intelligent, well written prehistory novels that don't rely on sex or romance to drive the plot, and don't include fantasy (as I don't think fantastical when I think history, I think in reality).
Books such as The Inheritors by William Golding. The premise is so promising. And yet it is ruined (in my opinion) by Neanderthals being telepathic.
I hate it when authors start thinking in the fantastical when the setting is outside written history.
That lack of indepth knowledge of a time in history triggers people to start thinking that 'magic happened'. ie Stonehenge, King Arthur, Neanderthal, early Americans...
If we don't know a lot about things in our world, humans tend to let their imaginations fly.
Call it my Ocean theory if you will. History in parallel with the ocean.
In the shallows of the ocean are the creatures we know. That science knows about. We know about their biology, what they look like, how they interact with their environment.
Get beyond the shallows of the ocean, out into the depth of the ocean where science is still discovering new things and the worlds are so secret and untouchable due to our mortal limitations, and humans start thinking about sea monsters and wild ocean creatures that can do magical things.
Sea monsters that apparently swallow ships or drag them to the ocean depths. Women with fish tails that sing men to their deaths. Giant sharks like we have never seen that mean you "will have to get a bigger boat".
Even now when a creature washes up half rotten on the beach the newspapers will say 'sea monster washes up on beach'.
But in actuality it is just a big dumb squid that bumped into a whale and died, or it is a decomposed Orca.
I suppose my Ocean theory could also be called the Bump in the Night theory. My bump in the night theory goes along similar lines to my ocean theory. :)
Humans will attach magical fantasy to whatever they don't know about and I wish they didn't when it comes to historical fiction novels. The fantasy genre is there for that stuff. Where imaginations are supposed to fly.
I prefer books that research the historical fact and then stick within the realms of possibility for the rest.
Well said, and I agree wholeheartedly. I enjoy a good fantasy as much as anyone, but I want to know before I read it that it is fantasy and not fantasy trying to pass itself off as history or science fiction. Almost all historical fiction has fictional characters and sometimes fictional events interspersed with actual persons and events and that is okay as long as the fictional aspects are believable. The difference between fantasy and science fiction is that science fiction contains at least some aspects that could become reality (having something that can be considered actual science). Star Wars is fantasy while Close Encounters of the Third Kind is closer to science fiction. We don't really know for what purpose Stonehenge was erected but there is plenty of speculation based on what we do know of the people and the events of the time. We can be pretty certain, however, that Stonehenge was not a landing site for UFOs, a portal for the teleportation of fairies into our realm or a stone age time machine. Now that I think about it, any one of those ideas would make a helluva good read.
David wrote: "We can be pretty certain, however, that Stonehenge was not a landing site for UFOs, a portal for the teleportation of fairies into our realm or a stone age time machine. Now that I think about it, any one of those ideas would make a helluva good read. ..."LOL! Some good visuals there. I think the teleportation of faeries is my personal favourite.
Unfortunately I cannot edit people's posts. If they break the group rules I have to delete the post and re-post it with the offending part taken out.this is what I have had to do here.
Authors must refrain from plugging their books and/or series' when they post in conversations.
As you can see below, the post reads perfectly fine with the not so subtle promotion removed from the post.
John wrote: Personally for me, if an author is going to write a novel that he or she says is historical fiction, then they have to do their level best to make sure it's as accurate as possible. I spent years researching material before I started *plug edited here* even contemplating putting pen to paper, or finger to keyboard.
What I do think is acceptable, is where for example, a character from history has vanished from the historical record or the real events are hazy concerning the outcome of a particular thing that happened. In that case the author can produce a credible tale for what happened to that individual or during that incident.
If however, on the other hand, a writer has produced an alternate history story, such as Spartacus was never defeated and went onto....then the book should be identified as such.
Hello Terri, it wasn't my intention to 'unsubtely plug' anything. However, as you think I did, I will prostrate myself before you for a damn good thrashing. Please though bear in mind my honest intent, I was merely writing as factually as possible and explaining a case in point and wasn't aware of the rules. Thank you, regards, John ;-)
No genuflection or prostration required, John. Your post was interesting and I valued your opinion. (Didn't need the name of your series to be interested in your thoughts though..;)..).
As I say, I wish that mods could edit posts. If we could we would never have to drag authors out into the open and point out that they have broken the rules. Then go on to expound on why the post was removed and what parts were taken out and why.
I don't want to do that. It feels like overkill and most of the time it is indeed overkill.
I would much rather just edit the name of your series out of the post and then send you a message to tell you what I had done and why.
Apologies if I made you feel uncomfortable. Your plug was unsubtle to me, that is true, but I wish there were another way to do tell you that (the way mentioned above). :\
Marina wrote: "When I first started reading historical fiction years ago, I couldn't care less for accuracy - Dumas himself admitted that he "raped history" and besides, there were no computers and no way for a k..."As you say, must be plausible. I think as hist fic fans, that is all we ask.
I have an example too.
There is a book by, ah, Phillipa Gregory or Sharon Kay Penman (add book not working) that deals with Richard III. Despite a lot of written evidence, the author did not make him a 'crookback'. it did not suit her love story driven plot.
Turns out now - that they have found his bones - that he was truly a hunchback.
But what she wrote was plausible at the time.
I would never NOT read a book if the author makes Richard straight backed...if the book was written before they discovered his remains..
Now of course we know the truth. Any book written NOW would have to have him with a crooked back or I would call it 'historically inaccurate' and frown on it.
Terri wrote: "No genuflection or prostration required, John. Your post was interesting and I valued your opinion. (Didn't need the name of your series to be interested in your thoughts though..;)..).
As I say..."
No worries Terri, thanks ;-)
Could it be that Richard III was slightly bent but the heavy load he carried mentally caused him to fold over as time went by. Troubles and heartaches can cause a tall man to stoop under his load.It is a physical manisfestation of a heavy heart.
If I am not mistaken, Ms. Penman was painting a picture of Richard III that showed the good sides of him. Has anyone asked her about the bone proof and whether she has changed her mind about his character?
I have been a student of history since childhood, at university and continuing today. The main thing I've picked up and had re-enforced over the years is that many things we call historical facts, may not actually be true. Of course there are verified records and artifacts which we can accept without reservation. However, much else, such as what was said, how things were accomplished, the process and participation, are often of questionable merit or supported by scanty evidence.New evidence or information may emerge from some long lost trove [finding Richard III's bones is a perfect example]. Revisionist writers examining materials using new methodology and criteria may come to quite different conclusions from what was accepted or questioned in the past. Bias, selective memory, missing or new evidence and what many call "the winner's version" of events, can truly slant historical recollection.
Given all this, I'm usually forgiving when historical fiction plays a bit loose with "facts", as long as the novel is plausible, with appropriate settings, language usage and period mind set and behaviors.
I'm impatient with authors applying modern sensibilities to the past, whether historical or fictional. This happens too often when some authors write about females. Like it or not, the idea that women and girls were free thinking, free acting and behaved as our modern sisters and selves do, too often just doesn't wash. We may love reading about women bucking the old systems and expectations, but authors need to treat these personal rebellions within the proper context for time and place, or they're not believable, at least to me.
Marilee wrote: "I have been a student of history since childhood, at university and continuing today. The main thing I've picked up and had re-enforced over the years is that many things we call historical facts..."Very good!
What I see as a problem is that poetic license gets re-inforced until it is accepted as fact.
I agree… that happens with film and books that are so compelling, their fictional "reality" becomes accepted as if it's historic fact. But this can also happen due to the influence of books and authors purporting to write non-fiction history, when they're actually writing theoretical opinion.
Marilee wrote: "I'm impatient with authors applying modern sensibilities to the past, whether historical or fictional. This happens too often when some authors write about females. Like it or not, the idea that women and girls were free thinking, free acting and behaved as our modern sisters and selves do, too often just doesn't wash. We may love reading about women bucking the old systems and expectations, but authors need to treat these personal rebellions within the proper context for time and place, or they're not believable, at least to me. "Hi Marilee
Are Authors applying modern traits to historical women or are we applying modern perceptions to historic female characters? After all Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart and Boudica were not exactly shrinking violets. :-)
Linda wrote: "Could it be that Richard III was slightly bent but the heavy load he carried mentally caused him to fold over as time went by. Troubles and heartaches can cause a tall man to stoop under his load...."haha. No. He developed severe scoliosis as a young teen. :)
Jon wrote: "After all Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart and Boudica were not exactly shrinking violets. :-) ..."Spot the odd
Boudica and Joan of Arc.
One can be a shrinking violet, oppressed by stereotypical female roles and prejudices and yet still lead men.
Boudica may have lead a rebellion, but her husband may still have beaten her if she overstepped her boundaries as a wife.
Joan of Arc may have led men also as a voice of God, but men still told her what to do and, because she was a woman, manipulated her and condemned her.
Having a voice loud enough to lead, does not indicate a woman who has social freedoms and commands sexual equality. :)
Just sayin'. ;)
Actually, Terri, from what we do know of Iceni culture, Boudicca's husbands own warriors would quite probably disposed him if he'd beaten his wife! Wife beating was considered a low and cowardly act.It is also one of the reasons that the Roman attempt to cow the Iceni by beating Boudicca and raping her daughters backfired so spectacularly. It reinforced the Iceni view that the Romans were nothing but weak and gutless.
I didn't know that about the Iceni. No wonder I chose a half-Brit for a spouse. I feel that Joan of Arc was used -- starting with those voices. Those in heaven have only souls so they have to get SOMEBODY to do their work. Used and dispensed with then thrown on a pyre was Joanie.
I came across it in a non-fiction work about the revolt. Wish I could remember what it was called and who wrote it!Same book covered why the writer believed the revolt failed. Different battle tactics favoured the out numbered Romans.
Margaret wrote: "Actually, Terri, from what we do know of Iceni culture, Boudicca's husbands own warriors would quite probably disposed him if he'd beaten his wife! Wife beating was considered a low and cowardly a..."Playing devil's advocate, isn't this an example of where Historical Fiction has become historical fact? (e.g. see my other post on Harold Godwinson's "tattoos").
We actually know pretty much next to nothing about the culture of the Iceni, and the very little we do comes to us through Roman writers who were biased against them. The idea that a man would see a woman as his equal in any way to them was a sign of barbarism.
We've a few of the iceni coins and know a bit about ancient celtic culture but I believe we think we know a lot more than we actually do about the Iceni because of all the fiction that has been written about Boudicca.
Terri wrote: "Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart and Boudica were not exactly shrinking violets. :-) ..."..."
Don't forget Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, daughter of Alfred - led troops into battle many times. Also in fiction was courted by Uhtred of Bebbanburg.
Tim wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Actually, Terri, from what we do know of Iceni culture, Boudicca's husbands own warriors would quite probably disposed him if he'd beaten his wife! Wife beating was considered a l..."I don't know about the beating argument, but we do know that the Romans wrote about several Celtic women, which is more than they wrote about women in other non-Roman groups with maybe the exception of Cleopatra. I reckon that bears some weight on how respected Celtic were amongst their own people. What that means exactly, I couldn't say.
Terri wrote: "Hi Jaq,In regards to prehistory. I would love to read more too, but alas, books set in prehistory that have no fantasy and/or no romance/love story are few and far between. "
As Barry Cunliffe, emeritus head of European archaeology at Oxford, has pointed out, it is logically impossible for us [whether archaeologist, or author/reader] to get it right. This is Now and we attempt to write about Then.
It seems the commercial bestsellers know this and cater to the lowest common denominator for the readers who want "history" to be wallpaper rather than the driving force or the inherent logic in the novel. There are a few exceptions -- author M. Renault is one.
So we have a theater of the absurd, sanctioned by editors in the trade publishing houses who want X sex scenes every X pages and other formulaic elements. Example: when Auel's heroine marries in a spectacle designed to resemble what current readers will recognize as a "wedding". But there is no reason to suppose that in that era, adults celebrated a monogamous union. Indeed the record in mythology suggests they did not. Their public celebration of a sexual union was probably something else, but it is easier to just use the (Victorian) symbolism that modern readers recognize. This is unfortunate, of course, since the reader is not challenged to think about that era.
It also makes it harder for those who do write researched historical fiction to find an audience, rather like the difference between Hollywood film fans and those who prefer an indie film.
Tim wrote: ".We've a few of the iceni coins and know a bit about ancient celtic culture but I believe we think we know a lot more than we actually do about the Iceni because of all the fiction that has been written about Boudicca.."AH! You beat me to it. :)
I just read Margaret's post about the Boudica book she had read and i was going to post the same thing as you have Tim.
We know very little about Boudica or the Iceni. Any books that are written on her or the Iceni are only surmising. They are reading into what the Romans have said and the rest, well, their guess is as good as mine. :)
Even today, the word Celtic is synonymous with free spirits and people of the earth and wind. Beautiful songs as mystical as the ancient hills and creeping mists of the country they were written about.
This kind of modern impression of the ancient Celts doesn't necessarily mean they treated women and their girl children any better than other cultures.
I think the Romans wrote about these infamous women of their time because they were fascinated by other cultures anyway (even as they dominated them or wiped them out).
Maybe that is one way where an author can include our modernisms in their hist fic. The Romans probably regarded forthright and assertive women as 'ballbusters' just as much as modern men do. ;D
I don't know how much we know about Celts. But from the visibility of women in the Roman histories, and with other tribal cultures to see the range of possibilities -- eg. we have Tacitus on the high status (to Roman eyes) of Germanic women -- I don't think the Boudica fiction is wish-fulfilment, but fair speculation. Why assume her culture was as down on women as the Roman? I think that's a hangover of the fact the Romans have swamped history. We've lost sight of the range. I'll add Zenobia for famous women the Romans met.
But that's my point, we don't know how women were treated or respected in these times. It's our perception that has them cowering in the background darning their husbands socks. The little we do know has been recorded by men and monks at that! (Possibility not the most reliable source for feminist issues)
Jon wrote: "Are Authors applying modern traits to historical women or are we applying modern perceptions to historic female characters? After all Joan of Arc, Amelia Earhart and Boudica were not exactly shrinking violets. :-)"In fact, Jon, I think a lot of this goes on. Our assumptions written back.
I must admit though. When Jon mentioned Boudica and I responded, it was in a discussion where we were talking about authors putting out modern ways on women in historical fiction.I think since Barbarians(using the all encompassing Roman generalisation)/barbarian women are written about so rarely, it isn't really a bug bear. Not with me.
I don't actually think that Boudica was beaten by her husband, i was trying to say that just because a woman is famous in history for leading men, that doesn't mean she did not have restrictions on her that a modern woman would not.
So many authors build female characters in post Roman history that have freedoms and attitudes that modern women have.
Some may say look at Eleanor D'Acquitaine as an example of how women were allowed to be strong and assertive.
I do believe she is even regarded as an early example of a feminist.
I am not a believer in that at all. I think she was just famous for being married to Kings and being a good 'birther' of Kings. A good bit of livestock. :)
Actually, to be fair, I may have misinterpreted Marilee's original comments. Rereading, it's not so much that rebellious women in history are unrealistic, but the context in which they are portrayed.
I just think that there's another kind of 'modernisation' that Jon, if I understand him, is pointing to. I think it can be hard for us to lose from our heads the high medieval age, the Victorian age... and see women, who have been through none of that, as truly different from us or from what we know. It's my belief that this is also a problem in histfic.
That's what she was trying to say, Jon, and what I was responding to. :)Authors creating females who are allowed to determine their own fates. As if their lives are like those in the movie Clueless.
That's exactly what I've been babbling on about, thanks Bryn ;-)
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...
