Historical Accuracy in Fiction

[Bryn]

I was thinking similar in the 'do we idealise the past?' section of this debate the other day. It's a matter of temperament, or your outlook on the world, or the way you see people in general. As to what you find a believable depiction of the past, or an unbelievable depiction. I'll swear to this as a truth, if nothing else.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I agree wholeheartedly.
And you have to throw into the pot the fact that we are basing our opinions on whatever we have learned of history. Unless we have all seen the same documentaries, read the same research documents, spoken to the same archaeologists, read the same books, have the same outlook and instincts about life, how could we ever have the same opinion in something like this?

Goodness, even the scientists, the archaeologists, don't agree on things like this.

[Bryn]

Also true. Hey, if the history books won't agree...? I am convinced the historians (and 'the scientists, the archaeologists') operate on temperament/instincts & experiences, wherewith to judge, as much as the rest of us. And we don't want less of them of course. We don't want only one school.

[Jon]

Terri wrote: "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 d..."

I think you've summed it up nicely. Each generation views the past differently, depending on the ideas and discoveries that are popular at the time. Even in our lifetime the humble Brontosaurus has disappeared, there are now only eight planets in our solar system and for some reason everyone insists on calling Boadicea - Boudica!

[Portia]

Jaq wrote: "Portia wrote: "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."

I'll rephrase it: I think that the mi..."

I see your point, Jaq. And I also understand your rant :-)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Jaq wrote: " (and I suspect Terri would also be in this group) ..."


yep, I'm in that group. :)

[Portia]

Attended a lecture on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exhumati...

last night. Matthew Morris, (many letters following), the archeologist who found the bones and Turi King, (even more letters following) the geneticist who confirmed the identity of the bones, were there to present the lecture. Their professionalism (and self preservation!!) came out when they were asked how they felt, Morris when he saw the bones with the twisted spine and King when the DNA test results came back positive. Both said at "the" moment they were focused on "crossing all the i's and dotting all the t's" because this was too important a find for them to allow anything to be called into question. Dr. King did tell us to look at the sweat on the tiny part of her face that could be seen peeking out of her anti-contamination-suit (even the photographer's camera had to be wrapped to prevent contamination) that indicates how very much getting this one right was to her. Naturally, bad jokes about Dr. Morris holding the skull and pronouncing, "Alas, poor Richard!" floated across the stage. I've searched GR to find The King under the Car Park, the book that accompanies this lecture, but I wasn't able to find it. I know it exists because it's on its way to me as I type. Perhaps someone else in A&M can find the link.

My initial interest in Richard began with The Daughter of Time. It was solidified when I saw Stacey Keach play him in the tiny Folger Theatre, where the audience is so close to the stage that Keach really did look into the eyes of the audience and make us co-conspirators. But a part of me always believed that Richard III was no more real than Hamlet. No longer. And now there is a chance that I may actually see him in person.

[Darcy]

Here's the link Portia The Richard III Brief: The Hunchback King Buried under a Car Park

:)

[Portia]

Sorry, Darcy. The book that is attached to this lecture has a full-color picture with a backhoe over the grave and a red-brick building in the background.

[Portia]

And the title is The King Under the Car Park.

[Darcy]

Who is the author?

ETA: Nevermind. Looks like the ISBN 9780957479227 has not been added to GR. I was able to find it a Leicester shopping site haha

[Portia]

Morris, Mathew (one "t") and one of the lecturers, Buckley, Richard

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Wow, fascinating. Thanks for sharing your day out/evening out with us. I would loved to have been there. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I added the book to GR.

Richard III: The King Under the Carpark

EDIT: Had added it to GR as William III instead of Richard. Now fixed. :]

[Mark]

its richard not william lol

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

omg. haha. My memory is so crap with that sort of thing. William, Richard, John, its basically just guess and type with me. :) I know their histories to certain extents, but that doesn't stop me from screwing up their names. ;)

[Mark]

Terri wrote: "omg. haha. My memory is so crap with that sort of thing. William, Richard, John, its basically just guess and type with me. :) I know their histories to certain extents, but that doesn't stop me fr..."

totally the right thread to get something wrong about history Terri, well played ;)

[Darcy]

William III died at the hands of a rodent. Probably there's a car park there now too, but I'm pretty sure he's not. While tragic his death makes laugh every time I hear about it.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Darcy wrote: "William III died at the hands of a rodent. Probably there's a car park there now too, but I'm pretty sure he's not. While tragic his death makes laugh every time I hear about it."

It is no noble death. :D

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

haha! Good one, Mark!

[Darcy]

Terri wrote: "Darcy wrote: "William III died at the hands of a rodent. Probably there's a car park there now too, but I'm pretty sure he's not. While tragic his death makes laugh every time I hear about it."

I..."

Indeed not

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Will we be saying likewise about you one day? Bitten by a Guinea Pig??

[Darcy]

Hahah. Possibly. Though I've found those to not be overly lethal.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Ahh...the little cuties!

[Portia]

Terri, you remind me of a joke we have over here. "I know what I know, so don't confuse me with a lot of facts." ;-)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I like that, Ms Portia.

[Portia]

I like you, Lady Terri

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Feelings mutual. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I believe the carparks come about because houses are built where houses are demolished, whereas open land in towns and built up areas is usually there because something of significance stood there once or something of significance happened there.
Which prevented houses being built there in the first place. As time goes on the significance is forgotten and the ground becomes common land for grazing animals, burning witches, holding markets, and then in turn - as cars were invented - they fulfilled a modern role as a carpark.

But then what would I know. I'm no expert. :D

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Yes, I imagine it must be easier to get a permit to dig a carpark. :D

[rzells]

It's so annoying when books are historically inaccurate. Anachronisms are even more disturbing.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

erg. Anachronisms are the worst. Sometimes if they are small and insignificant enough it is forgivable, but when they are glaring, it can ruin a book.

[Portia]

Or a TV show or movie.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Ha. yes, those too. :)

[Michael]

I very much appreciate historical accuracy in historical fiction. I prefer the dramatization of real characters and real events as they unfolded and I think artistic license should bring the characters to life and shape a cohesive story that is consistent with that history. Romola by George Eliot is a classic in this vein. I enjoyed it far more than The Birth of Venus, though I can understand why some might prefer the latter.

by George Eliot
by Sarah Dunant

[Francis]

I agree with many of the above - any historical fiction should have some basis in historical facts, but it is the creativity of the storyteller which weaves the facts into a story which grabs the attention of the reader. I've just published my first e-book about ancient Rome and spent months researching fine details of the religious beliefs, the plebeian and patrician debates of the period and the characters who made up the early Roman Republic. But at the end of the day the story is king and it outweighs total accuracy in my view. I've read many many historical fiction books and to be honest I remember only a few of the time lines, but I do remember the characters and what they do in the story. If I am then interested I will happily spend an hour or two googling to find out more about the period or the person. As an example I bought a stephen dando-collins factual book on Roman Legions simply because I enjoyed one of Scarrow's early works and wanted to know more.
I also agree that historicl fiction notes are extremely useful and should be used by every author.

[Michael]

Yes, investigative research can be some of the most rewarding prep for a good history novel. One can find wonderful gems about relationships between characters, themes, etc. across both space and time. I wrote a dramatized history of the Savonarolan period in Florence because I was inspired by the parallels to the Iranian revolution of 1979/80. Almost the same story, different names. I also saw the parallels to Dante's Divine Comedy and structured the novel accordingly.

[Tim]

Portia wrote: "Or a TV show or movie."

I recently found out that the famous Ben Hur wristwatch thing was an urban legend, which was quite disappointing.

[Dawn]

Marina wrote: "Here's historical accuracy for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5wFS..."

That was pretty funny, all the more disturbing when sung in Disney Princess voice!

[Portia]

I think this is the correct thread to pose this question/make this comment, since we discuss women's roles in fiction here. (This might also be appropriate in the TV thread.)

Spouse and I have belatedly begun watching "24", the TV show starring Keiffer Sutherland. The first episode was broadcast on November 6, 2001. I have been willing enough to watch the show, especially since the writers have a great way of making me wonder why the heck happens next, but it is not my first choice when we are deciding what to watch.

Spouse finally asked me why it seemed that I didn't like the show and it got me thinking. The answer I came up with is that I don't dislike the show, but I have gotten used to the way women's characters are portrayed currently as opposed to the way they were portrayed as recently as a decade ago. In shows such as "Person of Interest" (Ms. Shaw, Root, Detective Carter), "The Following" (the FBI agents), "The Good Wife" (Kalinda), "The Mentalist" (Teresa Lisbon,) and the one and only Lucy Liu as Dr. Joan Watson on "Elementary", the female characters are independent, can shoot straight, can change a tire, live alone, etc., etc., etc. Going back to 2001 and seeing that Jack's wife was able to kill a kidnapper but then fainted and lost her memory from the stress of it made my eyes cross. And the daughter keeps calling the guy who helped her once to help her again.

So what is my point? I think that historical accuracy in fiction could very possibly be offensive to our current sensibilities.

I realize that not everyone in A&M watches TV, but I hope I've given clear enough examples.

What does everyone (anyone?) think.

[Sara]

Portia wrote: "I think this is the correct thread to pose this question/make this comment, since we discuss women's roles in fiction here. (This might also be appropriate in the TV thread.)

Spouse and I have be..."

When I first saw those shows (they premiered in Portuguese TV about 6 months after the US premier), I rolled my eyes at those same women. I simply assumed that that is how 'men' saw women's behaviour. Men write those shows, right?

In medieval times, men would probably imagine women easy to seduce and general weaklings. However, I believe at least some women would say 'let them think like that'.

I mean just think about Huckleberry Finn, when he's mascarading as a woman and gets discovered because he behaves the way he thinks a woman should behave.

I think this can very easily be connected to female writers writing male characters and vice-versa in current times. Do they really know the gender they are talking about? Or is it just the way they think the gender behaves?

[Sara]

Portia wrote: " I think that historical accuracy in fiction could very possibly be offensive to our current sensibilities."

I'd swap the 'could' for a 'definitely was'. :)

[Michael]

I think the problem is that history was written by men about men. Women were relegated to the background of hearth and home. This is why women as protagonists in historical fiction can be so malleable, to fit the needs of the author's story. To say nothing of the fact that since women were so ignored, there is a thirst for modern readers to access their stories. So we probably get too many to make up for lost time.

I suspect women in the middle ages were as strong or dominant in their way as they were/are in any time period. Just because they were denied access to the formal institutions of power doesn't mean they didn't exert power in their own way. Lorenzo de Medici's Roman wife sounds as if she was quite assertive within the Medici household.

Yeah, they usually ended up in convents, but one has to marvel at the life story of Caterina Sforza...

[Michael]

I always get a laugh out of that sexist line in "As Good As It Gets" :
Female fan: "How do you write female characters so well?"
Writer Jack Nicholson: "I start with a man, then take away all reason and accountability."

[Sara]

Michael wrote: "Yeah, they usually ended up in convents,"

They still fought for power: who got to order everyone around in the convent. Getting their hands on money and lands belonging to the families of the women there. Oh, and organising their lives with their lovers. ; )

[Portia]

"The Good Wife" was created by Michelle King and Robert King. One of each.

[Portia]

For "Person of Interest," the five Executive Producers are male; three of the five Producers are female. So, the money "men" are men and the "get things done" people are majority female. ;-)

[Portia]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York... gave Lucy Liu their Best actress Award in 2012.

Ok, now I am in dangerous territory, bringing up "Elementary", so I will step back and listen.

[Shelley]

Michael wrote: "I always get a laugh out of that sexist line in "As Good As It Gets" :
Female fan: "How do you write female characters so well?"
Writer Jack Nicholson: "I start with a man, then take away all reason and accountability..."

Thanks for reminding me of that great line!

[Shelley]

Michael wrote: "I think the problem is that history was written by men about men. Women were relegated to the background of hearth and home..."

You may have heard of the controversy around Wendy Doniger's book, The Hindus an alternative history (read her editorial here: http://nyti.ms/1njXp1X ). She wrote the book trying to reconstruct history from the viewpoint of the disenfranchised, in particular women, outcastes, other outsiders in the society. One of the fascinating things about the history and mythology of India for me is how strong the Devi is in all her manifestations (Kali, Durga, Chinnamasta, even domestic goddess Lakshmi among many others). There is a history of strong wise women in Indian legends, both Buddhist and pre-Hindu. And yet the status of women declined over time.