Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Jon wrote: "That's exactly what I've been babbling on about, thanks Bryn ;-)"Amazing. I mean, that I did understand you. :)
Can I tell a story? On how much say women might have in the home, I found Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale eye-opening. It's been years, but: A knight who's raped a girl is sentenced by a court of ladies to go about the world, come back in a year and tell them 'what women most desire'. At year's end his answer is, 'women desire to have sovereignty, as well over her husband as her love, and to be in maistrie (mastery) him above.' The entire court of ladies agree that this is the right answer. Once he puts this new-learnt knowledge into practice and gives himself into the 'governance' of an ugly crone who demands he marry her -- he's rewarded, she turns into a fair damsel and they live happily ever after.
Bryn wrote: "Can I tell a story? On how much say women might have in the home, I found Chaucer's Wife of Bath's Tale eye-opening. It's been years, but: A knight who's raped a girl is sentenced by a court of l..."
Perhaps an early example of "writing what you know"? Chaucer stood trail for rape in 1380 and was fined about £10 (half a year's salary to him at the time).
So did Malory, with the same debates. Malory was charged twice with rape of the one married woman. Was he running off with her? Were these political charges? Or rape in our sense? We can't tell much.
Terri wrote: "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 Ba..."
Well, Eleanor was more than just the pawn of her husbands or father, as so many other medieval women were. She was unique in her time for initiating her divorce from Louis of France - I have to say I am unaware or cannot recall any other woman who did that during the Middle Ages. She also initiated a revolt against Henry, her 2nd husband. I do not think she would be a feminist in our times, but for her time, she had more guts and intelligence than many men did, and she knew what she wanted.. It also helped that she was incredibly wealthy and well educated.
Bryn wrote: "So did Malory, with the same debates. Malory was charged twice with rape of the one married woman. Was he running off with her? Were these political charges? Or rape in our sense? We can't tell much."But if it wasn't Malory or Chaucer would we even question it? In Chaucer's case he stands accused (and released rather than acquitted) by the victim herself. I feel its slightly like those dreamy wistful celts Terri spoke of. Its telling that in ancient Irish Law tracts the unit used to measure wealth is a "cumal" - a female slave. I think we tend to look at the past through rose tinted, modern-distorted lenses. HF is like SF - its not really about then, its about now.
Tim wrote: "But if it wasn't Malory or Chaucer would we even question it?"Oh, I've got to say I hope so, Tim, since we're in the dark. But I never took much interest in these writers' bios and can't discuss. I know what you mean. If they were both guilty as charged, I'm sweet with that. I can only talk about how they wrote of rape in their fiction. For Chaucer see above, and Malory's out to dissuade bad knights from sexual violence. :)
We don't have to rely on historical fiction to find powerful women in the Middle Ages. The documents and historical chronicles are full of them. Though I absolutely agree with the Celts have been way over-romanticized, it is a fact that by looking at things like epigraphy from Celtic areas, we can see things like matriliny (which still isn't matriarchy) and women inheriting.What bothers me more than errors in fact in HF are errors in feel. An author can get every "fact" more or less correct and still be unable to create an authentic feeling of what it was to live in that time.
Eileen wrote: " It also helped that she was incredibly wealthy and well educated. ..."How very, very true.
:)
Lucy wrote: "What bothers me more than errors in fact in HF are errors in feel. An author can get every "fact" more or less correct and still be unable to create an authentic feeling of what it was to live in that time.."
Oh, I absolutely agree. I have read so many books that nail the factual evidence and yet can't grasp what authentic feel is.
I mean, how many HF do we read that have atmosphere missing. Everything seems accurate, but when an author cannot feel the place and time you will have a story without historical atmosphere.
This is one of the reasons I love C.J. Sansom's Tudor series. he is the absolute king of atmosphere.
To some it is over detailed, but to me, well, I just lap that atmosphere up.
The written word as regards stories, tales, fables, poetry and legends etc.. (ie Chaucer) may have stories to tell about cultures in their day, (as does Geoffery Monmouth I am sure) but should we consider archaeological evidence and official records that reveal much on societal norms? (am I starting to sound like a Marxist? lol).This is going to be hard to condense into a short message. It is a topic that deserves a thesis more than a quick message. :)
In the middle ages (I shall stick with Europe) - and earlier than the middle ages to I suppose - when dealing with grave evidence as opposed to written word, it is not common to see women buried with weapons. Nor were they buried in as many high status burials as were males.
I personally think that is because women and male roles were, what we would call, traditional.
I think the fact that women's utilitarian items and baubles being buried with women and traditional 'male' items being buried with men, reveals much about women's role within society.
Yes, there are some graves found where women are buried with swords or spears. It is extremely rare however.
Other examples. Men buried with women slaves. Northern European races had female thralls sacrificed upon their death and burned (or buried) with them. This to me indicates how women were perceived in these times. After all, they specifically chose women to take to Valhalla (or the Christian afterlife if they were morphing religions) for their pleasure and to serve them. Horses, livestock to eat and women to serve you and pleasure you.
If women lived with the freedoms and respects that are being suggested here, I am sure that women would not feature throughout archaeological timelines in a subservient role. They are wives keeping the hearth warm for their husbands. Expected to birth him male heirs or sons to help work the fields. As vessels for pleasure. As bargaining chips.
I am fairly sure I read once that there were even twice as many women slaves as there were male.
In times around the Norman Conquest, women were not even allowed to own land without the King's consent. I believe (I am probably off on my numbers) that there was only one Norman woman allowed to hold her own lands in Norman England.
Harems. Why harems? Why more than one wife? Even those dwelling in poverty in many countries, had more than one wife. It was their right as a man to take as many wives as they can support.
The whole point of having harems or more than one wives is for two reason alone. To service a man's lust and to give him sons (not daughters mind, but sons).
Male children, for many reasons, have always been more desireable throughout history. The fact that Elizabeth I even scored the throne is a miracle unto itself.
Then there is also the bible. A written word that is hard to ignore as it has been around a lonnnnnng time. ;)
Where women are supposed to be revered, yes, but they are also supposed to obey their husbands and be obliging of her husbands choices. She must not cuckold him and make his life difficult.
Why would a Christian Faith, which has been the most prominent Faith in Britain since it first reached their shores, not be supported in the homes of the populace.
Obviously they weren't puritanical until some time later in the Middle Ages, but they were still strongly connected to their Christian God and his wishes.
Revering women, as the Romans did with women such as Boudica, Cleopatra, does not always translate as wanting them to have the same rights and freedoms as men.
If women throughout ancient and medieval history were allowed to determine their own fates and have societal freedoms different to, for example, Victorians, then archaeological evidence and land ownership records would reflect this.
I could go on and on with what I regard to be examples of women being less liberated throughout history than is being suggested..but goodness...isn't this message long enough?? I would not burden you anymore. :D
Addendum: This is all just my personal opinion and viewpoint. I do not think I am right or wrong. It is just how I view the world. :)
It gives me hope that the most sumptuous Norse burial found yet is the Oseberg ship, with two women.Because I like to think archaeology has a way to go. That we don't know enough yet, and we've distorted the record:
"Since archaeology was established as a science in the first half of the 19th century, it has been common practice to look primarily at the grave goods when seeking to determine the sex of a buried individual. Traditionally archaeologists have had a very rigid perception of the division of labour between women and men. A consequence of this is ascribing certain artefacts to male individuals and other artefacts to female individuals. Thus the presence of jewellery, sewing needles etc. in a grave makes it a female burial whereas the presence of weapons and/or tools indicates a male burial. This method is called archaeological sex determination.
...Today it is possible to determine the sex of a buried individual by osteological investigations... However the archaeological sex determination is still the most common method used. This is partly due to the lack of well-preserved bone material, and partly due to conservatism. And, in terms of expensive DNA-testing, due to the ubiquitous lack of money, of course." http://www.idavallen.org/artiklar/tra...
I met this problem first with steppe burials. When they tested they discovered the weapons = male assumption had been wrong: stats discounted.
Here's a report on research 'Viking women: a reinterpretation of the bones': http://bonesdontlie.wordpress.com/201...
And as Terri said, this is just how I like to view the world, or what I like to look for.
With regards to women's roles in history and how to depict them accurately, there was a good panel discussion at the last Historical Novel Society Conference called "The Feisty Medieval Heroine Sold Into Marriage Who Hates Bear-Baiting." There can be a tendency for heroines in badly written HF to be dressed head to toe in period-accurate, faithfully-researched clothing, but to ACT as though they've come straight from a 21st century consciousness-raising workshop: they show a modern-era outrage for things like, say, bear-baiting and arranged marriages, that a woman of their time would have taken for granted. If women in historical novels are going to be more brave or adventurous or outlandish than the historical norm, that's fine - but they need to face era-appropriate attitudes and consequences for breaking the rules. A good medieval example is Judith Merkle Riley's In Pursuit of the Green Lion, where her medieval heroine sets off on a determined quest to rescue her knight husband when he is captured by the French - she has to continually side-step the men and the priests who shake their heads disapprovingly at her behavior and try to stop her from leaving hearth and home. And she doesn't question that they act this way, because it's the norm.
Kate wrote: "With regards to women's roles in history and how to depict them accurately, there was a good panel discussion at the last Historical Novel Society Conference called "The Feisty Medieval Heroine Sol..."So true, Kate! It is easy for us to look back and question why on earth these women would have gone along with an arranged marriage, or being sent to a convent, or whatever. Generally speaking, few of them questioned it or disagreed with it, or were unhappy about it. It was part of their culture, just as today it is part of our culture that women get an education and pursue a career, or that men do not have to be in the same profession as their father's were, or that people can move up and down the economic and social ladder.
Lucy wrote: "Though I absolutely agree with the Celts have been way over-romanticized, it is a fact that by looking at things like epigraphy from Celtic areas, we can see things like matriliny (which still isn't matriarchy) and women inheriting..."I believe that with Celts, as with other times/cultures, the problem may also lie in veering too much to one side. Just because one culture is less repressive towards women than its neighbour, it doesn't mean it looks at men and women as equal. Women may be supposed to obey their husbands but, once a widow, they may be forced to submit to their father, son, brother or other male relative, or they may be allowed to stand for themselves.
I can give you an example from Portuguese history: in the hinterland communities, the so called pagan habit of divorce was kept until the 13th and 14th century when the church finally got it out of the cultural system. And according to the priests' complaints, both men and women could decide to walk out on the marriage. Also, it wasn't till the 14th or 15th century that law decided to cut women out of their inheritances, a time when their freedoms and rights suffered other supressions.
So, I do believe that Celtic women had more power and freedom than Roman women, but that doesn't mean I think they were seen as equals; it meant that they were allowed more maneuvering space than the Roman women. I doubt a Celtic woman would be allowed to walk about holding a sword and a shield... unless there weas a war going on and their side was losing. I can't imagine a Roman woman doing so no matter how bad the situation.
Kate wrote: "There can be a tendency for heroines in badly written HF to be dressed head to toe in period-accurate, faithfully-researched clothing, but to ACT as though they've come straight from a 21st century consciousness-raising workshop: they show a modern-era outrage for things like, say, bear-baiting and arranged marriages, that a woman of their time would have taken for granted.If women in historical novels are going to be more brave or adventurous or outlandish than the historical norm, that's fine - but they need to face era-appropriate attitudes and consequences for breaking the rules..."
Kate this is exactly what I have been trying to say. thankyou. :)
It isn't as if I don't believe a woman won't pick up a spear. I believe that, as you say, that attitudes to what we see as the norm were not the same.
Women today seem insulted and offended by the thought that women weren't living life to a standard we think they should be.
It was perfectly acceptable for woman to be just wives, farm workers and childbearers and not want much else in life.
In fact, there wasn't much else in life for them to have.
Authors have female characters being strong willed and aspiring to 'be more in life', to have adventure, to have the freedoms men had, to make choices for themselves.
I think the reality of life in those times did not nurture those kinds of attitudes. Life was short. Most of it was spent having children, most of which did not survive. Health complications that we don't have to deal with much would have made life difficult, from worms to lice, from plague to appendicitis, from rotten teeth to vitamin and mineral deficiencies.
The brutalities of life make people a lot less involved in the trivial stuff.
We need only look at isolated tribes in, for example, Afghanistan. Why would tribes of history be any different to these tribes where women fulfil traditional female roles. They may pick up a weapon as a last resort, but they aren't riding the hills with their husbands looking to raid neighbouring tribes, or running off in the night to travel the seven seas.
They do cower in huts with their children if in danger.
They don't feel the need to talk a lot and have girls nights out.
Life is about existing and surviving against adversity and illness. And about doing what is expected of you by those that are in control of you. Your father and then after marriage, your husband.
Sara wrote: "I can give you an example from Portuguese history: in the hinterland communities, the so called pagan habit of divorce was kept until the 13th and 14th century when the church finally got it out of the cultural system. ..."yes, where Christianity got a foothold womens rights definitely went into decline.
(no offense meant to Christians of today.I mean Christians in a historical context)
Bryn wrote: "Because I like to think archaeology has a way to go. That we don't know enough yet, and we've d..."
I can't find a date on that blog post. Their reports on grave goods defining the sex of bones is very out dated.
The bibliogrpahy shows books that are over 20 years old and one near to 20.
I know in the UK and Australia no archaeological project where human skeletal remains are involved, would be without on Osteoarchaeologist consultant.
I understand, however, that where there are no intact human remains or the remains give no definitive answer on sex, that the archaeologist has to use grave goods to define sex.
But archaeologists do have records of what grave goods have been matched to 'sexed' bones in other sites and I imagine when they find graves with no identifiable remains, they can go off the grave goods based on what sexes have been found with them in the past.
That research on Norse invasion of Britain. I don't know why they are surprised that there would be some swords buried with Norse women. There were indeed Shieldmaidens.
It is my understanding though that they are not the norm in Norse or Anglo saxon culture. And they will never know if being a shield maiden means the woman gets the same freedoms as men.
As mentioned earlier. I don't believe that a woman knowing her way around weapons and using them when they need to equates to women having the same societal freedoms as men.
Terri wrote: "Kate this is exactly what I have been trying to say. thankyou. :)"You're welcome, Terri! It's something to struggle with, whenever you write historical women. I remember getting some push-back in reviews when I had, say, a teenage slave girl in ancient Rome who periodically has to have sex with her master, and she doesn't really bat an eyelash about it. "This is rape! Why isn't she more traumatized by this experience?" Because she's a slave, and periodic unwished-for sex with your owner is a standard expectation of the job. An unpleasant part of the job, to be sure, but it never occurs to her to weep and wring her hands about it and think that this is unfair. She knows this is just the way the world is, and shrugs, and gets on with her day.
For a great example of a realistic historical woman who broke all the rules: Aethelflaed from our ever-popular Uhtred series. The girl is a serious bad-ass who leads armies, lives apart from her husband, and takes part in battles (and historically, she did all these things). But Cornwell shows us how hard she has to fight to be able to break the rules; how she has to circumvent priests and family members who try to get her under control by any means necessary. And in the end she wouldn't be able to do what she does without the help of some powerful men who give her some leniency.
The article I took a quote from is 2003 but expresses how we make "ethnocentric interpretations" with sex assignment. I think it asks the right questions. Covers the Norse case. Titled 'Travestite Vikings': http://www.idavallen.org/artiklar/tra... May be old, but the hf can be fairly traditionalist, with this stuff slow to percolate in.
On tribal women. I was trying to stay in Europe, even though I haven't paid serious attention to Europe for donkey's years. But I can conceive of a Rome/tribal (Germanic or other) divide on women that might be analogous to the north/south value divide most conveniently put in this book: Women of the Conquest Dynasties: Gender and Identity in Liao and Jin China. The book description or my review gives the gist. Time is 10th-12th centuries.It matters to me because I don't want us to lose sight of the fact that these differences have been possible in human history.
Kate wrote: " I had, say, a teenage slave girl in ancient Rome who periodically has to have sex with her master, and she doesn't really bat an eyelash about it. "This is rape! Why isn't she more traumatized by this experience?" Because she's a slave, and periodic unwished-for sex with your owner is a standard expectation of the job. An unpleasant part of the job, to be sure, but it never occurs to her to weep and wring her hands about it and think that this is unfair...."By coincidence, the book I am reading right now (Viking HF, male author) has a similar thing going on.
A harem is taken captive with the Vikings planning on selling them on into the slave trade when they reach the right destination for such human trafficking.
The Norse are caught on land for some time (a few weeks or something like that) and from the moment of their first nights camp, they split up the women and the lucky ones wrangle a girl and make her his. they kind of all partner up and many of the women had a say in who they would go with (avoiding the smelly ones and the ugliest ones..:)..as you do..)
The author has these women (muslim women) mostly accepting of their fate and bonding with their 'protector' even though their 'protector' is also their rapist.
At first I was cynical about all this. I had to do some deep thinking on whether these women would accept rape so easily, and then go on to bond with the man...or would they fight and rather die than be demeaned in such a manner.
In the end, I decided I was judging these female characters the way I would judge modern women. I reconciled that the author was onto something. That perhaps rape was just sex for many women. A part of life. And they would be willing to give up their bodies in exchange for protection.
Rape would perhaps not be the psychological torment that it is in a modern world.
Just because we, as modern women, would bite and scratch and then run off as soon as they were drunk and passed out, does that mean that women would have always been this urgent to avoid being violated?
I think women of ancient and medieval history were fully capable of doing what they needed to do and then moving on once it was done.
Bryn wrote: "On tribal women. I was trying to stay in Europe, even though I haven't paid serious attention to Europe for donkey's years. But I can conceive of a Rome/tribal (Germanic or other) divide on women t..."It certainly is hard for us to express our selves on what we think of male/female roles when we are all talking about a vast period of history and a vast array of cultures and countries. :)
Very difficult not to make sweeping statements. lol.
I tried to stick with Europe too, but man, that is a long history with so many different cultures. I see myself generalising sometimes, but it is hard not to when we have to keep it short. ;)
It is hard. Thank God we're not trying to write a book on the whole shebang. :)
This is a wonderful discussion. I have a question. I know we don't deal with romance novels here, but I remember when that genre began to change because women readers began to change. No longer could the heroine be Sleeping Beauty waiting for Prince Charming to save her. Now she must be an independent woman who just happens to fall for an independent man.SO, my question is, do writers, in order to sell books, (which is their livelihood, after all) need to be sure that they write women characters who aren't beaten and subject to their husband and fathers, and brothers, and sons. Unless, of course, we are talking Fifty Shades of Grey, which we aren't.
I am curious to learn what other think.
Kate wrote: "For a great example of a realistic historical woman who broke all the rules: Aethelflaed from our ever-popular Uhtred series. The girl is a serious bad-ass who leads armies, lives apart from her husband, and takes part in battles (and historically, she did all these things). But Cornwell shows us how hard she has to fight to be able to break the rules; how she has to circumvent priests and family members who try to get her under control by any means necessary. And in the end she wouldn't be able to do what she does without the help of some powerful men who give her some leniency. "Before reigniting this debate, let me first say that Aethelflaed is an excellent character and a much needed chink in Uhtred's armour. However, to me she's exactly the type of women who goes against the grain of everything that has been discussed.
(view spoiler)
From what's been written so far, some of us would prefer to see her burnt at the stake and buried at her husband's feet.
If I may interject - while were not discussing a particular book, there are examples being used that for those of is who haven't read, say all of Bernard Cornwell's books is verging on spoilers. If we could just be a little more mindful of that and using spoiler tags? As for the discussion itself, I've got a bit to say but time and situation has prevented me. I hope to be able to say something on this subject within the next couple of days.
Portia wrote: "SO, my question is, do writers, in order to sell books, (which is their livelihood, after all) need to be sure that they write women characters who aren't beaten and subject to their husband and fathers, and brothers, and sons. Unless, of course, we are talking Fifty Shades of Grey, which we aren't..."A literary agent (who has represented some of the "big names" in HF) told me a couple of years ago that HF books these days need to have a strong, independent-minded female character in them, "because women read HF too". So writers aside, it seems to be what agents and publishers expect.
That wasn't my question, Jaq. I was asking if present-day authors of HF feel they need to present women in present-day terms to ensure sales.
You do want to keep a modern audience's attention and interest to ensure sales - so I would say yes, to some degree when writing female-dircted historical fiction, writers do have the motivation to make their historical ladies go against the norm, because it is more interesting to a modern audience. The writers on the bad end of the scale end up with all these spunky heroines we despise, flouncing around in petticoats with 21st century manners and morals. The better writers find ways for their heroines to break the rules of the time they live in, but face period-appropriate consequences and fallout for doing so.
Terri wrote: "The Norse are caught on land for some time (a few weeks or something like that) and from the moment of their first nights camp, they split up the women and the lucky ones wrangle a girl and make her his. they kind of all partner up and many of the women had a say in who they would go with (avoiding the smelly ones and the ugliest ones..:)..as you do..)"Terri, this reminded me of another Cornwell situation that popped up more than once in his Sharpe books, where the guys are going through a city being ravaged, and Harper saves a girl from being raped and she comes along with them for protection. Yes, he saves her - but it's fairly clear that her gratitude is going to take the form of sex for Harper. Girl goes along with this, no problem. It's the kind of situation where in modern day, we would say it's just a subtler form of intimidation and rape. But for women living in a war-torn country where rape is always just around the corner, I can understand the motivation to look around you and choose a protector, sex being part of that protection, than risk being on your own and getting gang-raped and possibly murdered by many.
Tim wrote: "Portia wrote: "SO, my question is, do writers, in order to sell books, (which is their livelihood, after all) need to be sure that they write women characters who aren't beaten and subject to their..."Because "women read historical fiction too"? I think they tend to be the majority of historical fiction readers, based on what I have seen in surveys. Or maybe the writers have just done such a good job at targeting women, so that is how it has ended up. Not to say there aren't some great books out there targeted towards men, but perhaps writers haven't realized the opportunities available in that market.
I think Scarlett O'Hara is a good example of the woman who pays the price of acting outside the accepted norms. In her determination to save Tara, she chooses the be a businesswoman rather than one of the gentile poor and is ostracized by the proper ladies of Atlanta.
You make an interesting point, Eileen. IMHO, writers such as Cornwell are writing more for men, whereas writers such as Allison Weir are writing about women for women readers. What I am wondering is why women poll higher as HF readers. In our house, Spouse prefers thrillers (Steiger Larssen, James Lee Burke, Michael Connelly) whereas I more often read HF. I wonder how typical we are?
I think it's not that women read more HF, it's that women buy more books, period. (That's what my editor says has been proven over and over, studies-wise.) So publishers market toward women because women BUY more.
Jaq wrote: "Portia wrote: "This is a wonderful discussion. I have a question. I know we don't deal with romance novels here, but I remember when that genre began to change because women readers began to chan..."I agree with Jaq. I understand that romance fiction is very popular and sells well, but I'd like to keep it differentiated from historical fiction for the very reasons mentioned… certainly including the unrealistic portrayal of women in their societies.
It's not that historical fiction shouldn't ever have romantic entanglements, it's just that a "Historical Romance" [good phrase… appropriate and descriptive, not meant to be pejorative] is something different and can have it's own expectations. I think we can agree that romance novels in general appeal more to female readers.
I'd prefer to consider Historical Fiction as being gender neutral, attracting all of us on a book by book basis, whether the authors or protagonists are male or female. And with that general neutrality, I'd prefer that gender roles be historically accurate to the period. This isn't to say that female characters all have to be mere hearth warmers and pawns in the midst of male dominated society. I just hope that they aren't given those inappropriate modern sensibilities and mind sets that we've mentioned, and this applies to the male characters too.
There's plenty of room for interesting female characters to be interacting with men in an appropriate way in Historical Fiction. Women have always been capable, inventive, intelligent and survivors. Let's just have them exercise those traits within context.
The treatment of women - and children for that matter - in the aftermath of war began to change a little with Charlemagne. It had been customary practice for conquerors to enslave women and particularly female children. Whilst there was no sea change at this point, attitudes did begin to change slightly with the rise of "chivalry."
Maybe a little. But I read The Quest of the Holy Grail last Fall and got my knickers in a twist about the author(s)' attitudes toward women and Jews.
Darcy wrote: "The art of Medieval women in Europe https://twitter.com/sirthopas/status/..."If I'd read about it, even I would have poured scorn. :-D
Well put, Darcy. Er, that is, well said ;-)
Bryn wrote: "It is hard. Thank God we're not trying to write a book on the whole shebang. :)"ha! what a nightmare that would be. It would have to be a multi volume affair!
RE: women readers in HFIn my opinion, readers of HF are fairly equal as regards sex. I think there are definitely two different kinds of HF though. (disregarding those that Jaq was talking about earlier, fantasy masquerading as historical fiction, I agree, they don't count).
Covers are the dead giveaway as to what is marketed to whom. And there are as many covers marketed at male readers as covers marketed at female readers.
I agree that Bernard Cornwell writes, in principal, for men and Alison Weir (was it Weir that was mentioned in the discussion?) writes, in principal, for women.
And yet I also feel that as many women read Cornwell as men. Not as many men read Weir as women.
One is unisex, one is not.
You look at the membership list of this group and it is evident that there are as many male readers in this genre as women.
I see a big shift of the sexes coming in HF. Actually, with the advent of ereaders and men's greater attraction to devices over paper books, they are becoming a strong presence in the market place.
If you look at the kinds of HF books we cater to here (unisex or male marketed) I think men are holding their fair share of the purchasing power.
When the book retail sector was selling only audioooks and paperbooks, I believe women were the major customer by a long shot.
Now that ebooks are in the game, I honestly believe that men are reading as much HF as women, only men are reading the unisex and male marketed HF, whereas women are reading female marketed, unisex and male marketed.
Because women read one more 'type of HF than men, I expect it will always seem that women are the larger consumer of HF.
...and I think we all know that a lot of historical romance is marketed as historical fiction and shouldn't be. ;)
Darcy wrote: "The art of Medieval women in Europe https://twitter.com/sirthopas/status/..."I understand, due to someone mentioning them on that Twitter feed, that this is supposed to be a daughter and her mother taunting...
We can see one of the women standing by. The ones with bare arse look like men to me. Wearing the same clothes as the archers.
Is it not possible that the women are telling their guards to taunt the offenders in this way?
This is how I saw it until I read someone saying that it can't be men because it is this woman and her daughter.
That didn't mean the taunters are women though.
I think they are what you want them to be.
Since we are linking things from Twitter. I retweeted this rather funny Tweet to our group's twitter page the other day.Enjoy. :)
https://twitter.com/MedievalArchive/s...
NB* It is a little hard to see on the Medieval Archives page.
If you look at it on our group's feed, you can expand it and see it better.
https://twitter.com/AandMHistFic
No. It's the title of the painting. It was painted in circa 1430 by Azor Masters.Probably would help if I added the title: 'Astyages's wife and mother insult Persians by showing their bottoms'
Darcy wrote: "No. It's the title of the painting. It was painted in circa 1430 by Azor Masters.Probably would help if I added the title: 'Astyages's wife and mother insult Persians by showing their bottoms'"
Called thusly by the painter himself then. Who was there I assume and didn't hear about anything secondhand. lol
I concede then, they are not men. ;)
Reading through people's thoughts I think the discussion reveals this.Each individual will have her or his own view on what roles women played throughout history. And each era of history will be different and have its own set of opinions and viewpoints applied to it.
You can no more convince me that women were very much like us today, with our freedoms, being masters of our own fates, than I can convince others that I believe that women were not masters of their own fate and did not have the freedoms to act like the very modern freethinking women in, say, Sex in the City.
That is what it comes down to.
You have to also look at all the different ways we have been brought up and all the varying environments we live in.
I live in an environment that (I don't think) anybody else commenting here does. My environment as a worker of the land is hugely different to someone's who may live in suburbia.
So our outlooks on what women's roles throughout history may have been, and what freedoms they were afforded, are going to vary, because women's roles in my community are going to be different to women's roles in each of your individual communities.
Your outlook on life and women is different to mine.
A great deal of our own personal 'instincts' are involved in how we perceive the footprint of women throughout history.
This means the viewpoints are going to be diverse, and unwavering.
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...
Authors creating females who are allowed to determine their own fates and swan around like they do in the movie Clueless."
touché