Historical Accuracy in Fiction

[Margaret]

I haven't watched the TV shows mentioned, but I think that the issue of our modern sensibilities and the writing of HF is a very important one. Ian Mortimer who is both a serious historian and a novelist (see Time Traveller's Guide to Elizabethan England) certainly feels that a writer of HF must consider modern sensibilities so as not to alienate the reader. While I see where he is coming from I feel that to do so is to do a disservice to the reader. My personal pov is that an historical writer should strive to write as authentically about the period as they can in order to give the reader as true as possible an appreciation of what it may have been like to live in that era / setting. If we alter gender roles to suit modern sensibilities do we also alter our presentation of any other features of society that might offend? To give one example - in late 16th c in Scotland you would be fined if you were found to have butchered a cow for food without baiting it first. (presumably they were labouring under some mis-apprehension that stressing an animal improved the quality of the meat?) Whatever the reasoning it is an horrific idea to us - but as a writer I would not be giving a true picture of the period if I had a cow humanely killed. There are lots of things in the past which may give offence in our era, but we don't learn from history if we don't view it honestly and in the context of its own time, not ours. (Off my soapbox now!)

[Darcy]

My preferences tends toward Margaret's for the most part. Sometimes I'd rather just read for the entertainment though, so I think each approach has value and a market. Sometimes I just want to read and not be taught at, but that has a lot to do with my research and my job.

[Margaret]

@ Darcy - agree with you - I read for pleasure / relaxation / entertainment, but I don't see authenticity as being 'taught at' - if it feels like that it wouldn't imo be well written fiction - if I want to be 'taught' I'll read non-fiction. But authenticity for me is all about being taken to a different time / setting and feeling I am there, living it with the characters.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Paul Doherty has a reputation for that, Margaret.

I remember a review of one of his books saying something like "With Paul Doherty you can see and feel medieval times, but, thank God, not smell them."

[Margaret]

@ Margaret Two 'museum' visits with our kids - one was in Strathclyde Park (I think) in Glasgow and one was the Yorvik centre - in both one of the striking features of what are very well done exhibitions was that you COULD smell them. Not pleasant, but so, so real. Must check out Paul Doherty - haven't read him.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Margaret wrote: "@ Margaret Two 'museum' visits with our kids - one was in Strathclyde Park (I think) in Glasgow and one was the Yorvik centre - in both one of the striking features of what are very well done exhib..."

He writes historical mysteries, mostly. He is however Dr Paul Doherty, Ph.D in Medieval British History. His doctoral thesis was on Edward II and Isabella.

[Margaret]

Thanks, Margaret I could just go an historical mystery just now...

[Tim]

Margaret wrote: "I haven't watched the TV shows mentioned, but I think that the issue of our modern sensibilities and the writing of HF is a very important one. Ian Mortimer who is both a serious historian and a no..."

Hello Margeret, how are you? I can see where you are coming from but I think the real minefield in HF is not so much the social mores but the political (with a small p) and social attitudes, mindsets and bigotries of the past. to give an example, say a novelist had a character living in the reign of Edward the First during the time of the massacre and expulsion of the Jews from England. If he or she wanted to be authentic, the hero of that tale would be much more likely to join in the pogrom with a certain degree of enthusiasm than oppose it. That's probably not going to endear them too much to modern readers.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Margaret wrote: "Thanks, Margaret I could just go an historical mystery just now..."

I suggest the Brother Athelstan series, set during the regency of John of Gaunt. It's my personal favourite.

[Portia]

He's also a darling interview subject. He sent me a detailed answer to my question, "Why do readers enjoy religious sleuths?" for an article for a historical fiction magazine which, tragically, died with its originator. Thank The You-Know-Whoms that Dr. Doherty is still on this side of the veil.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Portia wrote: "He's also a darling interview subject. He sent me a detailed answer to my question, "Why do readers enjoy religious sleuths?" for an article for a historical fiction magazine which, tragically, di..."

He's a darling, full stop. We corresponded for a short while. I actually have copies of some of his books that the autographed and sent to me. I didn't ask for them, they were gifts. Also, when I had to have surgery, he asked his priest to say a Mass for me. I was extremely touched by that.

[happy]

Margaret - Dr. Doherty is very prolific - at one point he was writing 3-4 books/yr. He, along with Ellis Peters were my introduction to mediveal mysteries. He has several series out ranging from ancient Egypt to Mediveal England. My personal favorite is his Hugh Corbet series set in the reign of Edward I.

[Margaret]

Hi Tim,

I can see where you're coming from too, but if I was to write about a character with views such as you've mentioned I would hope that by depicting him truthfully readers would both understand him within his own context and why he might have acted as he did, and at the same time see the evils of that context / behaviour. Not exactly the 'easy' job of depicting a protagonist with whom readers can readily empathise, but I believe just as vital.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Tim wrote: " If he or she wanted to be authentic, the hero of that tale would be more likely to join in with a certain degree of enthusiasm with the pogrom than oppose it. That's probably not going to endear them too much to modern readers. .."

This is a problem in HF I feel. Hard for publishers to gauge what they should be releasing, I suppose, when you have some readers of HF with no knowledge of history and no care to learn..they just want to be entertained. Then there are the readers who read HF because they do like history and they want the authentic feel. But are they ready for real authenticity?? To me authentic feel and authentic reality are different when it comes to HF and good authors can get the doses of both correctly measured.

I know I am ready for real authenticity. I have realistic expectations on how women and children and animals were treated. How certain minorities and cultures were treated. How distinctly disparate the lifestyles of the poor were from the lifestyles of the well heeled. How vastly different the realities of the rural citizen are from the realities of the town dweller.
Some people don't want the cold reality to seep into their fiction. Which is a constant disappointment to me.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

To a degree, Terri. I like reality in my HF. What I don't like is sexual violence in HF. Yes, it is often accurate history, it is also a trigger for me. That in a book will see said book returned to library/donated to charity unfinished.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I don't like sexual violence included in books..not described sexual violence anyway.
Rape, violent sexual assault was reality and I can deal with its presence, but I don't want to read about the nitty gritty. That simply isn't necessary. Sexual assault described in intimate manners, like a soft porn sex scene, is never acceptable in my opinion.

[Margaret, Sherlockian Sheila]

Terri wrote: "I don't like sexual violence included in books..not described sexual violence anyway.
Rape, violent sexual assault was reality and I can deal with its presence, but I don't want to read about the ..."

Exactly!

[Mary]

It's interesting how facts are formed by one historian thinking something happened at one time without any hard evidence. Then others agree to the supposition and suddenly it's a fact. Sometimes historical fiction writers get a chance to challenge these suppositions.

[Jon]

Interesting article. By the author of Heresy.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/book...

[Shelley]

Jon wrote: "Interesting article. By the author of Heresy.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/book..."

Very interesting. Thanks for posting. Interesting what she said about Ackroyd's books (which I have not read), which have an historical basis enlivened by magic and fantasy. I enjoy this element as used by authors such as Guy Gavriel Kay, who actually 'transposes' a recognizable period into a fantasy novel.

[Jane]

Shelley said: I enjoy this element as used by authors such as Guy Gavriel Kay, who actually 'transposes' a recognizable period into a fantasy novel.

Agreed. Right now I'm reading one by Lois McMaster Bujold that does the same thing as Kay.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I get a little fed up with authors (or readers) using the argument that is found in this article: quote from article;

"But novelists are not history teachers. It's not our job to educate people, and if we start using words like "duty" and "responsibility" about historical fiction – or any fiction – we're in danger of leaching all the vigour out of it with a sense of worthiness.

When people say they expect a HF to be historically accurate, they aren't saying 'be a history teacher' or 'educate the reader', they are saying 'do your job'. They are saying 'Be a professional and don't take obvious short cuts because you can't be bothered to do the leg work or you want to get your book published as quickly as possible'.

I am on the Sarah Dunant team on this one. Who says: quote from artcile "authors have a responsibility to not present readers with deliberately false information about a historical character or period, and to make clear how much they have invented."

I personally think that authors who don't want to be as historically accurate as possible, who don't think it is important, or who just want to publish a book and legwork is not a priority, will always create reasons why they don't have to be historically accurate.

A good author will not leech anything out of their writing by being as authentic as possible with their historical context. If this were true then we wouldn't have all the great books we have today, being loved by fans who have no interest in historical accuracy.
Historically accurate books already exist and are loved in the thousands.
And in regards to that part of the article that says " we're in danger of leaching all the vigour out of it with a sense of worthiness.
How exactly does that make sense? All that is happening is that untruth is being replaced by truth. Telling the truth about history, getting it right to the best of your ability, creates a story that is no different in vigour than a story that is full of complacent fabrication or lack of historical truth.

If an author wants to write historical fiction and they want to be taken seriously in the genre, want to sell books, they need to stop coming up with excuses for wanting to write without educating 'themselves' about history.

Authors shouldn't just be writing for those that know nothing about history. They need to write for those who know about history too. And in the genre of historical fiction, there are going to be more readers who know something of the history, than readers who don't.
Just like sci fi. You would expect an author to have good understanding of the science they are writing about. Otherwise the sci fi reader is going to trash your book for being amateurish with the subject matter.

[``Laurie]

Terri wrote: "I get a little fed up with authors (or readers) using the argument that is found in this article: quote from article;

"But novelists are not history teachers. It's not our job to educate people, a..."

Great comments Terri and I agree.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Thanks!
Some of the comments in that article got me into a bit of a lather. :D

[``Laurie]

It just drives me crazy when authors start making things up that never happened and I rarely finish the book when that they do this. Novelists are not history teachers indeed! What a cop out.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

There are readers who won't notice many historical inaccuracies, (heck, if I don't know the historical period I won't notice either) but I think for authors to insist that readers should not care if a HF is historically inaccurate is just the wrong attitude to have as a writer.

[``Laurie]

I guess it all boils down to what sells the most books so historical accuracy be damned.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Yep. Sad but true.

[Sanne]

Terri wrote: "I get a little fed up with authors (or readers) using the argument that is found in this article: quote from article;

"But novelists are not history teachers. It's not our job to educate people, a..."

Some really great comments!
I agree with you that saying that authors do not have a responsibility for historical accuracy is a cop-out. Also, it's completely denying the dynamics that are created the moment you catagorize a book as "historical fiction".

I don't mind writers writing and publishing books that are willfully historically inaccurate. There's plenty of subgenres which play with history, like alternative history or historical fantasy. However, I do have a problem with books being labeled "historical fiction" when the author has written deliberately historically inaccurate, or sloppily researched books.

Placing something in the genre "historical fiction" creates expectations. It claims there is an historical truth at the heart of the story, and that the events portrayed are according to what we know has happened. And, most importantly, that the author wrote the book with the intention of being "as accurate as possible" while still telling an exciting story.

A book that claims historical accuracy by saying it's "historical fiction" but which obviously crosses over into inaccurate portrayal of historical settings and events isn't holding up to that expectation of historical truth. As a writer, you can explain your artistic choices in author's notes, epilogues, etc. Or you can market the book as a different genre. Or perhaps make it clear from the get-go that your book isn't "historical fiction", but "fiction inspired by history". What you really can't do - in my humble opinion - is saying that readers "shouldn't expect historical accuracy in fiction". Because that's exactly what readers expect when they pick up a book that's shelved and marketed as "historical fiction".

[Darcy]

In some authors' defence, it is not always their choice as to how a book is marketed. They may have written a book with a particular category/sub-category in mind but then the publisher sets it out as something different.
This is generally seen in the way bookshops are set up. Historical fiction is, for most bookshops, simply put in literature so that no expectation should be set. Or, as my local bookshop has now taken to doing - setting up a sample 'historical fiction' shelf with books that would fall into historical fantasy, historical fiction, historical mystery or alternative/speculative history.
So...whilst the author may have just said, it's just plain old fiction with elements of history, the publisher and the bookshops, possibly also some readers have labeled it otherwise.

Now, as for the argument that authors need not be teachers; while I agree this is true to some degree, as others have said - if your aim is to write an historical fiction and you want to play around with it, then ad an authors note explaining why. These tend to work well and act as the 'asking forgiveness business'. Which I think most readers accept as the author's way of saying, 'hey, I know it's not right, but for story sake....'

What I found most funny about the article, is that it's author, who is also the person who wrote Heresy touts the whole, historical note bit, but didn't add one to that book.

[Victor]

Terri wrote: "I get a little fed up with authors (or readers) using the argument that is found in this article: quote from article;

"But novelists are not history teachers. It's not our job to educate people, a..."

While I agree that authors could bend historical facts to help move their story along, it foolish to think that it's not in their job description to be faithful to historical fact. Most people who read historical fiction thirst for knowledge from that time period. Willfully changing facts would just annoy your reader. If something is changed it is easily solved by providing an author's note.

[Jon]

Hi Terri, glad you're back and firing on all cylinders :-)

Personally I think Stephanie Merritt has a point, despite the rather unfortunate way in which she has expressed it. While I believe HF authors do have a responsibility to place history back where they found it, for me, an authors only duty is to make their stories realistic. Historical Fiction is after all fiction and stories and plots should never be suffocated by fact.

As SJ Parris, Merritt has taken an interesting character from history and manipulated his life to suit her storyline. In Sarah Dunant's terms, portraying Giordano Bruno as a spy is deliberately false information about a historical character and yet without it the stories are worthless.

[Jesse]

Well said Jon. I must agree.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Sanne wrote: "Some really great comments!
I agree with you that saying that authors do not have a responsibility for historical accuracy is a cop-out. Also, it's completely denying the dynamics that are created the moment you catagorize a book as "historical fiction"...
.."

Well said, Sanne. exactly my thoughts on it.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Darcy wrote: "What I found most funny about the article, is that it's author, who is also the person who wrote Heresy touts the whole, historical note bit, but didn't add one to that book. ..."

really!? Ha! That's funny! :D

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Jon wrote: " Historical Fiction is after all fiction and stories and plots should never be suffocated by fact. ..."

But why would historical fact suffocate a story and plot?
We are talking as readers here, not as writers. Historical fact may suffocate the plot and story for a writer who doesn't want to go out and do the research, but it would never suffocate a plot or story for a reader.
The truth is as vivid and colourful as a lie.

[Sara]

Jon wrote: "Historical Fiction is after all fiction and stories and plots should never be suffocated by fact."

Stories and plots can be suffocated by lots of things. Facts can do so, when the author takes more time writing about them rather than the story (i.e., when you get paragraphs better suited for a school textbook than a novel). And yet, I've read authors who follow the 'school textbook' approach even when they are eschewing facts. So IMO accurate facts don't suffocate the story; badly writing does.

[Tim]

Terri wrote: "lets not go down that path, J.S. There is as much historical inaccuracy in Indie and self Pub as there is in Trad Pub...."

More, I would venture, simply because "traditionally" published authors are more likely to have had their manuscripts checked by an editor, proof reader etc which all helps in the identification of inaccuracies. From what I can see in interviews etc with some of the "big" names in HF - e.g. Ben Kane, Bernard Cornwell, Robert Low, Manda Scott and people like that- getting historical facts correct, without overwhelming the reader with dry data, appears to be a point of professional pride for them.

[Tim]

Sara wrote: "Stories and plots can be suffocated by lots of things. Facts can do so..."

When I went to see Bernard Cornwell talk last year (did I mention that before :-) ) he mentioned reading a book set in ancient Rome which opened with a slave girl walking past the Colosseum in Rome, musing how "construction of the building had begun under the emperor Vespasian in 70 AD and was completed in 80 AD under his successor and heir Titus...".

He's not an HF authour, but I find Dan Brown is particularly guilty of that sort of thing. Sometimes whole paragraphs of his exposition looks like it was copied/pasted directly from wikipedia.

[Jon]

Terri wrote: "Jon wrote: " Historical Fiction is after all fiction and stories and plots should never be suffocated by fact. ..."

But why would historical fact suffocate a story and plot?"

A recent Tweet by an author I follow provides an excellent example of what I'm talking about. He was contemplating using a character who had inconveniently died 4-5 years prior to the events he was describing. The character was obviously critical to the story, so should he stifle the plot for the sake of historical fact? Or should he pursue the story, continue with the character past his use-by date and risk an accusation of historical inaccuracy even though he is always meticulous in his research?

Admittedly, I have taken the Author's perspective but only because that's the PoV of the original article. As a reader of HF, I believe people simply have different tolerances to historical accuracy based upon their knowledge of the subject. Often I find I'm blissfully ignorant of events and characters that enrage other members of the group. Returning to the article, I think Stephanie Merritt is simply pointing out that HF is meant for entertainment not education.

[Eileen]

Tim wrote: "Sara wrote: "Stories and plots can be suffocated by lots of things. Facts can do so..."

When I went to see Bernard Cornwell talk last year (did I mention that before :-) ) he mentioned reading a b..."

Wow! I wonder if that book was self published? I suppose something like that might get past a mainstream publisher, but seems less likely.

[Tim]

Eileen wrote: "Wow! I wonder if that book was self published? I suppose something like that might get past a mainstream publisher, but seems less likely..."

to be honest I've no idea. He was using it as an illustration of what Sara is talking about above.

[Tim]

Eileen wrote: "The covers are for attracting readers and have no link to what was written inside. ..."

Are you suggesting we shouldn't judge a book by it's cover?
:-)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Tim wrote: "When I went to see Bernard Cornwell talk last year (did I mention that before :-) )..."

Yes. ;) lol

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Jon wrote: "Admittedly, I have taken the Author's perspective but only because that's the PoV of the original article..."

yes, the article is from the POV of an author, but this is a readers group and when posted here, the discussion is supposed to be readers discussing with each other, their likes and dislikes regarding historical accuracy.

[C.P.]

The problem, I think, is that "historical accuracy" means different things to different people. To historians, pretty much all historical fiction is more or less inaccurate, because by definition it contains elements (characters, dialogue, descriptions, emotional states) that are made up—and even must be made up—because of gaps in the sources. If nothing is invented, it is history, not fiction.

That said, as a reader, I want the authors I read to be as authentic as possible to the worlds they create. I am happy to accept Uhtred, to cite one example, even though he is at best a wholly imagined ancestor of Bernard Cornwell. But if Uhtred dons a business suit, lights up a cigar, or starts talking modern smack (rather than something that sounds like it could be 10th-century smack), I will be howling about historical inauthenticity just like everyone else. If that happened—and Cornwell is too much of a pro to let it happen—the writer would have destroyed my illusion that I could safely navigate to Uhtred's world and follow him on his journey, experiencing events I absolutely would not want to experience in real life.

And the only way to avoid such anachronisms, like it or not, is for the writer to do his/her research....

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Great example, C.P. Since so many have read one or more of that series it is a good example to use.

The fiction thing..I think Sanne mentioned this same point earlier, and you have phrased some similar thoughts C.P.. so sorry if I am just reiterating what ypu have all already said..
Yes, as you say, it is fiction and if it did not contain fiction then it would be a non fiction. To me, the setting and context, atmosphere and cultural fabric, is the 'historical'. This, in my opinion, should be as authentic and historically accurate as possible.
The 'fiction' is found in the story, plots, sub plots, the characters (if the author wants) and the character interaction.

HF books can have as much fiction in them as the author wants to put in it...historical accuracy does not stop them from creating a fictitious story to excite and delight the reader. Then to make it an historical fiction it should be laid over some well researched historical truth. To help make the story feel real and authentic.
It can only work in a books favour to be historically accurate. It can only work against the book to be historically inaccurate.
When a book needs all the help it can get to be read and liked, it should include as many things that work in its favour as possible.

[C.P.]

One area where I wish that Bernard Cornwell (and James Aitcheson) would be less accurate, actually, is names. Not people's names, so much (although I still have no idea how to pronounce Uhtred—I'm guessing it's Oo-tred, not Uh-tred, because someone spells it phonetically as Ootred in The Last Kingdom), or even place names if the places no longer exist. But referring to Eoferwic and Dunholm, however accurate, chucks me out of the story every time as I stop to remember that he means York and Durham. Often I have to go look it up in the front, which really breaks the flow. I appreciate the effort that went into researching all those old forms, and it's a small irritation in what are generally great series, but it acts as a constant reminder that the needs of the story really do take precedence.

[Jane]

I think we all have different tolerances as far as names go, Carolyn. I personally don't mind such things as York/Eoferwic/Eburacum, depending on time period in which the novel is set. But, to me, it has to fit in with the time period. I just deplore using English translations for names set in ancient Roman days, e.g., Anthony Riches 'Empire' series or using modern names for places, where the novel's set in Roman Britain, e.g., Imperial Governor: The Great Novel of Boudicca's Revolt.

[Tim]

Jane wrote: "I think we all have different tolerances as far as names go, Carolyn. I personally don't mind such things as York/Eoferwic/Eburacum, depending on time period in which the novel is set. But, to me..."

I'm with you on that Jane - in fact I think placenames are part of the historical accuracy - e.g. calling York "York" in a Roman novel is just plain wrong because the modern name derives from Jorvik, named by the vikings who arrived somewhat later than the Romans. That probably sounds ridiculously pedantic but the author could always include a map (as cornwell often does). The map (and the glossary) are 2 things I worry may disappear in the age of kindle and etexts where it's harder to flip to the back to check where the characters actually are.
However, I know from experience that readers are also not happy with hard to pronounce, "foreign" sounding old names. There must be some sort of middle ground but I'm not sure where it lies.