Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Agreed that tolerances are different. That was intended only as my two cents, as an example of how hard it is to balance accuracy against readability. Others may (and obviously do!) draw the line somewhere else.On e-readers, it's pretty easy to include maps and name charts and whatever other reference material you like. The reader can use bookmarks to flip back and forth. It's just not quite as simple as flipping a printed book, so the reader may be less motivated. I suppose in the long run less motivation might discourage publishers from including the material—if they are producing only e-books. If they're exporting the print files, though, they have no real reason to leave out parts of the book. It's just as simple to include them, maybe simpler.
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 too, Jane. I much prefer the names to correlate with the period in history. Authentic names pull me into a story.
I Enjoy learning the names of the ones I didn't know. And the ones I do know, well I think because we are a British colony, we learn a lot about the UK and Europe in history at school. A lot of the pronunciations are second nature to me because I learned about British history and Roman history in my schooling.
Just to stir the kettle a bit: When we write Eburacum, should we not also write Roma? And Lakedaimon instead of Sparta? But I have never seen anyone doing that, alas.
Essentially, I prefer historical novels to be written in such a way that they COULD have happened. I.e. that they do not wilfully conflict with established data. Where no date are available, they may take as much freedom as they like.
This may be a little off topic, but bear with me.I’ve been watching “Poldark” on PBS, but I am finally so fed up with its historical inaccuracies that I stormed out of the TV room last night and will not return to see any more of it. Long ago, I read one of Winston Graham’s novels, on which the series is based, but don’t remember it well; so I don’t know if the mistakes are his or the present screenwriter’s. What am I steamed up about? COPPER! The crux of the plot is that copper prices are depressed (for reasons never explained) and so the hero, Ross Poldark, and his friends can barely scratch a living from their Cornish copper mines. But this is completely BOGUS. The fact is, that in the late 18th century copper was in greater demand than it had ever been before or ever would be again until the 20th century. The reason? The British navy (which doubled its size during these years) and all the other major navies of the world decided to sheathe the hulls of their ships with copper to protect them from sea worms, which turned the hulls into Swiss cheese. This was an enormous undertaking of staggering expense, but they did it. (It took them something like thirty years to get it all done). Untold thousands of tons of copper were needed for this, and a lot of that came from Cornwall, whose mines continued to yield until well into the 19th century. So, if you owned a Cornish copper mine ca. 1790, when this story takes place, you were a millionaire, not a poor, struggling, marginal character as Poldark is portrayed. Stuff like this just drives me nuts! And where else can I vent but in these columns, since my wife doesn’t care (she thinks he's cute.)
Okay, I've been doing a little research into Copper mining in Cornwall and it looks like the big problem in the late eighteenth century was not that the copper wasn't being used but that there were other opencast mines in Wales producing at the same time for a much lower cost. In order to try and maintain the amount of money they all made, the Cornwall mines produced even more and made things worse by creating a glut in the market, driving prices down even farther. This would have been between the years 1775 and 1790, which is about when this series is set I believe.
Dawn wrote: "Okay, I've been doing a little research into Copper mining in Cornwall and it looks like the big problem in the late eighteenth century was not that the copper wasn't being used but that there were..."That's exactly what the problem was. I believe it was the 2nd or 3rd episode where this was explained. To make matters worse for the Poldark's is that they were in debt up the wazoo because of their ancestors' ability to live on credit, well beyond their means, and that the wheals owned by the Poldarks were originally mined for iron and didn't shut down as early as they probably should have.
In the midst of my reading, they also mentioned that cross country transportation was a big cost and at least one family on the Cornwall coast has bankrupted itself trying to create a feasible harbour. It was all very interesting actually.
I agree with Dawn, Bruce. I had a lot of trouble with the TV series. I absolutely loved the books and thought they reflected very well how business success doesn't just depend on the price of the commodity. Ross was a battler with a poor mining claim which was production poor. He had little financial backing, and had to fight for the little he obtained, to see if he could turn his fortunes. The TV series didn't impress me. Ross was badly cast and the extras had nothing about them that suggested authenticity. However, I did try to divorce it from my vision of the book, and did find it enjoyable as light entertainment at the end of a working day.
Huzzah, Bruce! Maybe all is not what it seems and you can return to Poldark again. Although, the Copper thing was only the tip of the iceberg wasn't it?
I haven't watched the series, but my parents do. They love it.
I must confess. While being a sucker for historiccal accuracy, I can understand your wife's simple pleasure in watching the show because of cuties. *cough* guilty as charged. I have done the same from time to time.
Talking of historical accuracy, Conn Iggulden's Emperor series is being made into a trilogy of films. I wonder what Hollywood will make of that? If anyone is interested, I wrote a blog post about accuracy in historical fiction a while back, which sets out my take on it. http://www.romanfiction.com/accuracy-...
Alex wrote: "Talking of historical accuracy, Conn Iggulden's Emperor series is being made into a trilogy of films. I wonder what Hollywood will make of that? If anyone is interested, I wrote a blog post about a..."I think there is enough wriggle room in history to create an interesting story without needing to change major events like where and how an emperor dies just for dramatic effect. I consider that kind of manipulation simply lazy writing.
It might be lazy but it's successful. Some historical fiction writers say the story is more important than the truth and I have some sympathy for that, but personally don't subscribe to it, especially given how unforgiving historical fiction readers can be to inaccurate authors. If you're a blockbuster like iggulden you can get away with it. If you are a small time indie like me you need not to alienate anyone!
I just don't see the necessity for deliberate inaccuracies. For instance, in one of my novels I needed a scene where there was a real physical threat to Queen Victoria. It didn't take much research to find an actual event where a trusted person actually got close enough to hit at her with a cane. Since little was ever disclosed about his motives, it was easy to incorporate the would be assassin into my story.
Gentlemen,You are stretching the rules a bit much, if you would like to discuss the positives and negatives of historical accuracy, please do. This must only be in relation to you as a reader, not as an author. Do not discuss your own books, infer about your own books or take the conversation into any realm of author like discussions.
My apologies. The mention of my own work was simply because it was the easiest example that came to mind. I shall be more careful in future.
I still think the way Bernard Cornwell does it works the best. Use a real event or series of events as the frame and background, and then insert characters like Sharpe and his band into the environment. Fiddling with the way major events such as the Battle of Waterloo too place is simply going too far.In addition it does the reader no service by only twisting a few events while leaving the rest historically accurate.
I think it's ok IF the author explains in an Author's note [or the equivalent] what he or she changed and why.
Apologies too, didn't realise how tight the rules were there! I do like to feel that I am learning something when I read historical fiction, especially if it is something amazing, and I think to myself wow is that really true. It's very satisfying to google something and find out it really did happen, and very disappointing to find it didn't. And I think it can shake your faith in a book when you catch them out in obvious mistakes.
Alex wrote: "Apologies too, didn't realise how tight the rules were there! I do like to feel that I am learning something when I read historical fiction, especially if it is something amazing, and I think to my..."Completely agree. I use my Kindle to constantly check names and dates on Wiki and have an iPod nearby when in bed so I can look at art and paintings as well. I've come to hate the phrase, :"The page 'whatever I've highlighted' does not exist."
May I vent my frustration for a bit? When I read historical fiction focused on historical characters I want to be able to imagine what that person went through, not what would have been cooler or more interesting.
I'm a bit obsessed with a Portuguese historical event that has been popular in literature for literally centuries. The basic premise is: prince spends months on end away of the court with his lover, lover's family is involved in politics, prince's father (the king) decides to have her throat slit to put an end to problems.
The focus is always on the love story (even after becoming king, he never remarries and has the dead lover crowned as his queen) and I can live with it, although I much preferred the politics were seriously looked at. The real problem is that most writers often shuffle the real events around to further stress how big their love was. And yet, I find that every change writers make only causes the story to lose its power and strength. If nothing else, because it all comes off as fantasy (often a very modern and corny fantasy), whereas I'm trying to imagine how it could actually have felt for those people to live through those events. That's what I want to read about: the real people and the real events they faced. Otherwise, it's just a what-if kind of tale.
There is a tendency for writers to try to see historical events through "modern eyes" and to re-interpret them when they don't suit current biases and beliefs. But in doing this, often the very elements that caused the event to occur become diluted or vanish entirely.
I dislike this intensely. If I read or write a historical based novel, I want the characters to behave they way they would have then and for the reasons that would have seemed important to them at the time, even if it offends our modern sensibilities.
V.W. wrote: "There is a tendency for writers to try to see historical events through "modern eyes" and to re-interpret them when they don't suit current biases and beliefs. But in doing this, often the very ..."
Yet not everyone during the period had the exact same views. There were differences of culture, religion and class. I want to see those differences and the conflicts between those varying beliefs.
Shomeret wrote: "V.W. wrote: "There is a tendency for writers to try to see historical events through "modern eyes" and to re-interpret them when they don't suit current biases and beliefs. But in doing this, of..."
I have no problem with that, so long as they were the views that were reflected in their cultures, written records, and biographies, and not the views of someone with a modern education and political views (doesn't matter if it is left or right) imagining how he or she would behave.
Sara wrote: "May I vent my frustration for a bit? When I read historical fiction focused on historical characters I want to be able to imagine what that person went through, not what would have been cooler or..."
I agree, for me it's all about experiencing history in a way that non-fiction can't speculate about. A good crossover book about the Black Death, which is predominantly non-fiction but speculates about people's lives is The Black Death by John Hatcher. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Black-Death-I...
V.W. wrote: "There is a tendency for writers to try to see historical events through "modern eyes" and to re-interpret them when they don't suit current biases and beliefs. But in doing this, often the very ..."
Agree with this too, but it can sometimes make for some unsympathetic characters. If your hero treats women/slaves/kittens in the usual way for the time period they can be unlikeable pretty quick!
Shomeret wrote: "Yet not everyone during the period had the exact same views. There were differences of culture, religion and class. I want to see those differences and the conflicts between those varying beliefs."I completely agree: just like there are people today who say vaccination is or can be harmful, so there would be medieval people who thought bleeding was or could be dangerous. But, just like today, they were not the majority, and the majority would frown at them. And yes, I do believe that including characters who hold minority views enriches the novel.
Nevertheless, if the main character is the one having the minority view and there is no clear justification why he/she thinks differently, I'll most likely roll my eyes.
Alex wrote: "Agree with this too, but it can sometimes make for some unsympathetic characters. If your hero treats women/slaves/kittens in the usual way for the time period they can be unlikeable pretty quick!"True, but, to paraphrase something I read elsewhere, just because a man firmly believes a woman's place is in the kitchen, it doesn't mean he can't be loving and tender. And although the law allowed a man to beat his wife dead, it doesn't follow that every man was willing to follow suit. Like Shomeret said, people had different views, and some views weren't that small a minority.
Yes, Sara, that's the trick! But as you said, a character has to have a reason for minority views.
I think the key word here is "Believability" - any character in a novel has to act in a manner with which the reader can identify and often sympathise. Lose that, and you lose the reader. So if a reader can see a minority view as being believable because the novelist has managed to build it up that way, then I think that is perfectly acceptable. One example that applies to medicinal practice in the Tudor period is the attitude of the former monk called Guy Morton in the "Shardlake" series by C.J. Sansom, whose origins (if I recall correctly) are Spanish/Moroccan.The "Modern Eyes" interpretations that V.W. mentions can be a bit of a danger. A good novel needs "conflict" to make it interesting and there is no reason why that should not be modern ideas (for the time) conflicting with old and established practices. It is down to the novelist to build the framework that explains that conflict to the reader. There are also some emotions that are everlasting - love, hatred, revenge and murder for starters. Add Benjamin Franklin's "death and taxes", plus bureaucrats and damn stupid laws and you have the makings of a really good novel for any period of history. "Modern-eyed"? Well... possibly. It's worth remembering that Jesus Christ was born in Bethlehem only because his parents had been forced to travel there in order to be assessed for tax! Some things just never change.
Jerry wrote: "I think the key word here is "Believability" - any character in a novel has to act in a manner with which the reader can identify and often sympathise. Lose that, and you lose the reader. So if a r..."Would "Plausibility" be the same as your "Believability"? I use the former as one of my criteria for a good historical novel. For instance: in The Water Thief, Aelius Spartianus, the hero, is tasked with finding out where Antinous, the eromenos of Emperor Hadrian, is buried. Historians don't really know and have all kinds of theories but Ms. Pastor's solution to me was perfectly plausible. "It could have been this way," I said to myself after finishing.
A couple of observations : I find from receiving fiction set in Medieval times, there is too little attention drawn to the fact that there were so many dialects in and it was highly unlikely that someone in (say) late 13th century Devon would understand someone from East Anglia if conversing in English. There would also be different dialects of French spoken, particularly in the reign of Henry III. But on the other hand , a novel is telling a story and that has to flow. and labouring this point would get in the way of the story. Also readers have their own expectations . Many want to read about lawlessness and battle. How many people want to read about a cathedral being built or a water mill being constructed?
I think the majority of hist fic readers I know of would rather read about cathedrals being built or water mills constructed over lawlessness and battle. :)Battle fiction has been done to death.
That is what Ken Follettt did so well in "Pillars of the Earth" et al. As to dialects I dealt with both proper upper crust Latin and common vulgar Latin in the "Eagle and the Dragon." I gave the upper class a voice something like very proper Oxford British, while I gave my up-from-the-ranks centurion, a voice from one of Rudyard Kipling's 19th century soldiers. "Beggin' yer pardon, sir, but yer keep doin' that shit, yer goin' ter git us both kilt." And everyone seemed to like Antonius.As for incomprehensible dialects, in Medieval Europe Latin was the lingua franca of the upper class, though that too was beginning to break up... the Venerable Bede had a hard time understanding the Italian pope, though they both spoke Latin. As to dealing with languages, if they can't understand someone, just put that in the story and figure out if it was important enough that they had to do so, and do what you would do if you were in that situation today. Hand signs, single clear words, head nods, or find a translator.
Terri wrote: "I think the majority of hist fic readers I know of would rather read about cathedrals being built or water mills constructed over lawlessness and battle. :)Battle fiction has been done to death."
The more I read of military fiction, I keep wondering how the authors can keep any originality in battle scenes.
Terri wrote: "I think the majority of hist fic readers I know of would rather read about cathedrals being built or water mills constructed over lawlessness and battle. :)Battle fiction has been done to death."
I agree. As someone with an MA in archaeology I rather read anything but battle fiction.
Maritha wrote: "Terri wrote: "I think the majority of hist fic readers I know of would rather read about cathedrals being built or water mills constructed over lawlessness and battle. :)Battle fiction has been d..."
Battle fiction might be something that women lose patience with faster than men do. I rarely find it interesting but my husband prefers it.
Lewis wrote: "That is what Ken Follettt did so well in "Pillars of the Earth" et al. As to dialects I dealt with both proper upper crust Latin and common vulgar Latin in the "Eagle and the Dragon." I gave the up..."For dialect, how about Mark Twain? I think he was a master.
The toughest dialect I have come across was the Robert Low, Kingdom (Wars of Scottish Independence) trilogy. It made it hard for me to connect to the reads.Robert Low
Terri wrote: "The toughest dialect I have come across was the Robert Low, Kingdom (Wars of Scottish Independence) trilogy. It made it hard for me to connect to the reads.Robert Low
[bookcover:..."
Hmmmm, if the library has these I might try Vol. 1.
I recommend giving it a go. Even if it is only for the experience. He captures something quite special by doing it the way he did. A bit of hard for me to connect to conversations because I had to work for those conversations, but there's not many books around that capture the Scottish dialects like this.
@Terri I humbly stand corrected ! Perhaps I have made too many assumptions about historical fiction readers. I think that 'battle fiction' can be engaging, and there are some talented writers in this genre. But the medieval era was a great deal more then break down of authority and fighting . It is time I re-read William Golding's 'The Spire' (1964) ....about a cathedral dean who has a vision. Loosely based on the construction of the spire at Salisbury cathedral. A couple of non-fiction books about medieval technology by french historian Jean Gimpel 'The Medieval Machine' and 'The Cathedral Builders' maintain that up until about 1277 the Medieval era was one of great technological innovation. Terri wrote: "I think the majority of hist fic readers I know of would rather read about cathedrals being built or water mills constructed over lawlessness and battle. :)
Battle fiction has been done to death."
Thank you for your comments Lewis in message 885. Yes, I the prevalence of Latin gave the Roman Catholic church such immense power. The fact that a member of a religious order could travel to other establishments and use Latin, to converse with and of course Latin as the language for the Mass, for education, for so much of the written word, must not be overlooked. Good point about the search for a translator and non-verbal communication could be explored in fiction.
<<<>
Hmm, never noticed this thread before, which is odd because it's something I feel strongly about.For me, the basic rule is don't let the facts get in the way of a good story, but if you're going to change or ignore "the facts" you'd better have a plausible alternative.
As for "battle fiction" it will always be boring unless it raises questions or proposes answers regarding old battle mysteries. AND, it must always have plot consequences for the characters, especially if they are fictional characters fighting in a historical battle.
A fascinating comment and one very dear to my heart. It is easier to get it right these days thanks to the internet. One of my favourite English Civil war books (until the dog ate it -not a joke) was a battered second hand copy of Daphne du Maurier The King's General. Written in the 1940s, du Maurier wrote a fantastic yarn about Menabilly where she lived. I can't fault most of it, but she did get a couple of tiny details wrong. Soldiers in those days didn't wear shoulder badges and didn't actually salute. They removed their hats/helmets and bowed.
Which begs the question...where (and when) did saluting come from?I'd always assumed it was a derivation of forelock tugging to denote subservience.
Adrian wrote: "Which begs the question...where (and when) did saluting come from?I'd always assumed it was a derivation of forelock tugging to denote subservience."
I was taught that it came from knights lifting the visor on their helmets to show that they were who their banners declared they were.
I love this stuff!!! Thank you for all the possibilities!!I’m going to have a whole range of reactions the next time I read of a soldier or police officer saluting!!
Awesome!!
FWIW, in the steppe world the salute was to touch your right hand to your heart and dip your head. That is, salutes change over time, but I'm pretty sure subordinates always have to find a way to show respect.
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...
Oh, my goodness, pronunciation? Just divide into syllables and sound out slowly; many people seem afraid of anything that isn't absolutely familiar or strictly Anglo-Saxon [I mean us native English-speaking folks].
I don't think you were pedantic at all; you were just accurate. Many authors besides Mr. C. include maps and many authors also include a list of ancient names with modern equivalents. I didn't realize about Kindle because I don't have one, but if enough people write in and complain, maybe they would remedy the situation...