Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
My book has a review that points out that I have used some anachronistic place names (it's set in ancient Egypt). Apart from that it's the most flattering review I could ever hope for, but I still have the unbearable urge to focus on that one criticism and shout at the computer 'I know! I was doing it on purpose!'But you're right. You just have to let it pass.
Richard - my grandmother used to say, if you hurt one finger or or one toe, the fact that you have nine others that don't hurt at all doesn't make you feel any better.
Kate wrote: "Yes, and if they've put it in a review, you can't really argue with them about it, because it's counter-productive and can make you look unprofessional. ..."Yes, What Kate just said. As a reader (not an author) I can see exactly what she means. It does look unprofessional when an author defends their book on a review. Even when you know the reviewer is wrong, there is just something unpleasant about authors being defensive in that way.
It is thoroughly unfair. I understand that and I feel sorry for the author. If an author knows a review has commented negatively on an historical detail and the author wants to defend that detail, they should be allowed to, but yes, I think it looks bad.
Like the manager of a store arguing with a customer. Others don't care if the Store Manager is right and the customer is in the wrong, it just looks unprofessional and the Manager will always look the worse.
In saying that however, there are benefits to places such a Goodreads where authors interact with readers and get to know people.
For example, if I read a book by Ben or Kate and said something in a review about a historical detail, I would have NO problem with either of you correcting me nicely. Because we are not strangers.
If an author was a stranger..they should let it go and not approach me. Let me be wrong and think i am right. :D
I have had authors message me privately and open a discussion on something that I've pointed out. I liked that because I didn't feel as though I was being called to task, and we both had opportunities to understand each other. I think that had they responded directly to the review they may very have been perceived as Terri described above.
Then it depends on the tone of the PM doesn't it.I think if an author was to pm me about a historical detail I had touched on in a review, they would have to ask me first in that pm. "I saw you said ...bla...bla...do you mind if we have a chat about that historical detail?"
None of the ones I got asked if we could have a conversation, but they all approached me in a very polite manner and not accusatory or insulting in any way. So yes, I reckon tone is definitely important.
The author of one book I commented on did start up a bit of a conversation back and forth on Amazon. He was justifying how he wrote his book, which was ok but I did think he took too much of a 21st century approach to the characters' motivations. There were a few anachronisms in his book, too. Seemed like a nice guy, but still working on his writing.I heard Diana Gabaldon say that she never reads the comments on Amazon and has told her son, who is also a writer, not to do it. But I think a new writer, still developing a sense of self-confidence, might be tempted to check them out.
happy wrote: "Here is an article my William Dietrich, author of the Ethan Gage series, on historical fiction, that I found interesting and touches on the topic at hand (I think)http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wi..."
Nice article! Thanks for sharing.
Eileen wrote: "I heard Diana Gabaldon say that she never reads the comments on Amazon and has told her son, who is also a writer, not to do it. But I think a new writer, still developing a sense of self-confidence, might be tempted to check them out. ..."It is a good idea. If an author is 'too close' to their book or cannot take criticism (even if it is unfair criticism) they should stay away from the reviews.
Only authors with a thick skin and an interest in seeing how they can improve should look at any reviews under 3 star. In my opinion.
I don't go on Amazon much. I sometimes go to look for new books, but I have never bought a book there or looked for reviews.
I rely on GR for all that. Most of the time if I do look at Amazon reviews it is because there are none or very little on GR for a book.
Amazon seems very dog eat dog to me. I don't want to leave reviews there. People get so vicious when they see a bad review, on Amazon, of a book or author they like!
But I suppose I have gotten off topic....sorry about that. :)
You put your finger on it, Terri - it's bad to engage with a reader over a review because even if you are in the right it looks unprofessional. Far better to just seethe quietly (or to your closest friends) and let the review sink relatively unnoticed, rather than stir up some fuss accidentally that goes viral and suddenly gets that same review 20 times the readers it would otherwise have had. I have seen that happen with other authors, and in very ugly fashion. I will freely admit that if I get a review about one of my books that is not only negative in opinion (I've learned valuable things from negative reviews that are well-written, so I never discount them) but ignorant, malicious, spiteful, and poorly written, I may do some ranting about that review to my dear spouse/best friend. But never, ever, ever online or to the reviewer themselves. They are entitled to their opinion, and I never challenge that.
In strict privacy, however, I may mock their literary taste, their lack of punctuation, and their incorrect use of the subjunctive absolutely mercilessly.
And as far as historical accuracy goes (to bring this topic back on track with a screech), author's notes really are more essential in HF than just about any other genre, because it is a chance for the author to present to the readers exactly what they changed in the historical narrative, and what they didn't. If you have a contemporary series, well, it's fairly straightforward for the reader to assume that the story here was made up. But as soon as you deal in historical events, you have to deal straight with the readers about what got changed and what didn't. I really admired Stephen King's 11/22/63 for that reason - it didn't exactly take place during the distant past, but because it was such a watershed moment of history, it was such an extremely scrutinized period. With the Kennedy assassination, King literally had to get such things as street names and daily movements of people correct, because those things are so documented and because there are experts that will know if they are played around with too egregiously. I think King actually said that he had that particular book idea in mind for decades, but what discouraged him was the amount of research that would have to go into it!
Coincidentally, on how important historical notes are, I was told today that Conn Iggulden never included them in his Rome books.The Gates of Rome
This series has also been mentioned before by multiple readers as a potential 'alternate history' because it is so far removed from the truth.
I will be reading Gates of Rome in the next few months so I guess I will find out. Although i am more familiar with Romans in Britain than in Italy so may not notice inaccuracies.
Paul wrote: "Richard - my grandmother used to say, if you hurt one finger or or one toe, the fact that you have nine others that don't hurt at all doesn't make you feel any better."I love that. I'll be using that one myself, if that's Ok.
Kate wrote: "You put your finger on it, Terri - it's bad to engage with a reader over a review because even if you are in the right it looks unprofessional. Far better to just seethe quietly (or to your closes..." I agree about author's notes being especially needed for historical fiction. I was never so frustrated when I was reading Dorothy Dunnett's Game of Kings - she had tons of quotes in medieval French and Latin. Not being so up to date in those languages, I probably missed a lot of what was going on. The Game of Kings
I think I know which book that is and it is a book I have been avoiding. I think some of us spoke about it in another thread recently.Can I ask. What is the inaccuracy? It has gone over my head, but that isn't hard as I am no expert on Ancient Rome.
Terri wrote: "I think I know which book that is and it is a book I have been avoiding. I think some of us spoke about it in another thread recently.Can I ask. What is the inaccuracy? It has gone over my head, ..."
it could be the use of "OK".
I think if language of the times would be used, no one would understand it. I do understand Marina's point of view and would prefer more dated dialog as it doesn't detract from the sphere of the times.
I can go with either modern or dated language--I think both have a case, and both have risks. Whatever works. If modern, it's a judgement call on what to use, and for me, 'OK' is not okay. I won't put down books because of it, I'll let the author try to convince me.
I also have an issue with using modern slang in a story taking place a millenia or more ago. It just detracts from the story. I picked up a book recently,
(Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders)that blessedly confirmed a lot of what I knew and why it is important to keep anachronisms out of historical fiction. It should be read by any aspiring historical fiction author!
i must sound draft but i cant stand the use of ok in my fantasy books.got no bother with it in the urban fantasy books.
Mark wrote: "i must sound draft but i cant stand the use of ok in my fantasy books."That's not daft. Nor can I. And I like experimentation: I let Napier get wild and whacky with history in Attila #2.
What I find more maddening than factual inaccuracies like language or even the occasional blooper, is the presence of historically inaccurate attitudes. All those 21st century feminists flouncing their way through historical novels acting like they've just attended a consciousness-raising session - in most historical eras, women demanding anything like modern-day rights and treatment would have been smacked down. And yet the "spunky heroine" abounds in badly written historicals.
My pet gripe is when people of the past are written as low-brows. Brains haven't evolved in known history. If I've got my science right.
Kate wrote: "What I find more maddening than factual inaccuracies like language or even the occasional blooper, is the presence of historically inaccurate attitudes. All those 21st century feminists flouncing ..."Amen to that. Like it or not, it was a man's world. And while there were no doubt strong women trying to break the mould it would be in a much lesser way than modern woman did.
Marina's quote from that book.Ah, gotcha. it was the modern language. I thought it was. It was modern language to me too, but I didn't want to say anything in case it wasn't that. :) I thought maybe it was the characters names...that maybe they were famous people in history and there was an inaccuracy there.
Agreed, Ok is not okay. In my opinion, neither is 'Ok, steady lads.' The whole thing sounds a bit too...England to me and as i have stated before, i have a big issue with Romans sounding like Englishmen.
This is contentious, but I also feel women can be under-written, because the history familiar to us is European, and we went through the Victorian age. Where women had a better footing--in which I include Norse society (Vikings), steppe societies (Mongols, perhaps Huns), Germanic tribes--by God, I want to see that written in. It often isn't.
Historical women aren't always necessarily repressed - it's exceedingly sweeping and silly to assume all societies repressed women. A lot of cultures did have a better situation for women that what a modern audience would consider the norm. I just hate it when writers write their female characters without reference to the historical norms of the era they lived in. Either they are passive and downtrodden, without trying to exercise the historical freedoms that would have been available to them - or they blithely stride through life seemingly outraged at every attempt that would have logically been made by the men in their lives to contain them to the kind of behavior considered appropriate at the time.
Not that there can't be historical women in books who lead lives unconventional to their times. A good example is Aethelflaed from the Cornwell Saxon Stories: the historical figure DID lead quite an unconventional life according to the strictures of the day, and in the books you see just how she has to manipulate the system, the rules, her family members, in order to lead that kind of life. A less well-written book would have had her absolutely outraged! outraged! that she couldn't be free to do as she wanted. Aethelflaed in the book didn't bother wailing about how unfair things were; she just worked to get her own way in spite of it all. Seems like a much more practical and realistic attitude for historical women to have.
She's great. I mean the historical Aethelflaed--haven't read the Cornwells. There were always unconventional people--and no doubt we like to focus on them, whether women or other misfits and rebels against society. Fiction just does. Sounds like he treats of her well and I'll get to those books. Didn't know she was in there.
Kate wrote: "Not that there can't be historical women in books who lead lives unconventional to their times. A good example is Aethelflaed from the Cornwell Saxon Stories: the historical figure DID lead quite..."Kate - I agree, Cornwell's Aethelflead is a great example. I also like his character Jeanette in The Grail Quest series, especially in The Archer's Tale. She's a strong character, and a bit unconventional, but she's still convincingly a Fourteenth Century woman.
Kate wrote: "Not that there can't be historical women in books who lead lives unconventional to their times. A good example is Aethelflaed from the Cornwell Saxon Stories: the historical figure DID lead quite..."I wholeheartedly agree about how there seem to be so many spunky, independent women in a lot of historical novels. There were some, historically, but so often not the way 21st century writers portray them.
Another pet peeve of mine is how religious belief is portrayed, and how common non-believers are in these novels. Not that there couldn't have been, but I doubt that they were as common. So many 21st century writers have no understanding of how science drenched our culture is, and what a sense of control over our existence that it gives us. We make casual references to genes, viruses, computers, electricity, etc., etc., all the time. If you read something written, say, 1000 years ago one thing you will notice is the almost total lack of anything that could be considered science. For these people, it was their religious faith and prayer that gave them any sense of control over what happened to them.
Like the spunky, pert females, I suspect that atheists/agnostics were not common in prior centuries.
" I just hate it when writers write their female characters without reference to the historical norms of the era they lived" It jars me too, and puts me off a book quickly when that happens. I recognize that there were women who pulled against the system, but the "system" of the time needs to be fully acknowledged and the female historical fiction character needs to exist within that context.
Richard wrote: "Paul wrote: "Richard - my grandmother used to say, if you hurt one finger or or one toe, the fact that you have nine others that don't hurt at all doesn't make you feel any better."I love that. I'll be using that one myself, if that's Ok."
Thanks. And, absolutely - just make sure you attribute it to my grandma Sarah :)
Kate wrote: "You put your finger on it, Terri - it's bad to engage with a reader over a review because even if you are in the right it looks unprofessional."Exactly. The only advantage in engaging a reader over a review is if you believe in the principle of the worst publicity is no publicity - in which case, any mention of your book could be seen as helpful, because it attracts attention and therein potential readers.
Otherwise - however justified you may be in challenging a reader over a review with statements you see as unfair, including errors of fact in the review, including misstatements of what you actually wrote - you will come across as graceless and defensive.
This is a great thread with a lot of useful view points. When I read historical fiction, I like the touches of reality that I find. However, sometimes I feel like some writers tend to switch over to "teaching" rather than "telling". I'm thrilled when I can learn something about history in a great story. I'm not so thrilled when the writer puts the story on hold to instruct me about something he found fascinating during his research into the period or culture.For me it's as simple as don't have picts running around with trebuchets, don't call every roman soldier a centurion, and don't have a spunky young daughter of a sultan heading up the Seluk kingdom. Keep it simple, drop in the details that make me happy with your research, and tell a good story.
Wilson wrote: "I'm not so thrilled when the writer puts the story on hold to instruct me about something he found fascinating during his research into the period or culture...."
Hi Wilson,
Yes I agree with the point you made (that I quoted above). This is far too common.
Quite a few times I have given feedback on a book or said in a review that an author doesn't have to include ALL the research material they found or ALL the things they learned while researching, into their book.
It is very common.
An author should select from their research and they should use the learning process as a way to get into the period with confidence, not as a source to paraphrase.
I know some people have mentioned Sarum: The Novel of England in this thread as a favourite of theirs, but for me, it was bad for the reason I speak of above. The author was too literal.
I could nearly follow his research path as each short story in that book paraphrased details from commonly found websites, documentaries and popular non fiction.
I think it's also useful to say here that readers are different from each other, require different levels of accuracy, have different levels of suspension of disbelief. I don't like finding roast potatoes in 12th century Europe, but it won't absolutely kill a book for me (this was in an otherwise fairly well-researched novel I read for an unpublished novel prize). Again, I read that book The Physician which gives people modern American sounding names and very much reinvents medieval times as some moderns would like them to have been - but I could enjoy it on its own terms. I know other readers hate this. I'm much more bothered by what several of you have mentioned above: inappropriately feisty women, characters who have no idea that religion is many-faceted and should be very real to them, and tolerance in inappropriate ways. I also dislike the mindset that moderns are superior to ancients, except when, as in books like The Physician above, this attitude is pretty much set out on the menu and you can choose whether you are going to buy the dish or not.
Richard wrote: "I think it's also useful to say here that readers are different from each other, require different levels of accuracy, have different levels of suspension of disbelief. I don't like finding roast p..."Potatoes in 12th century Europe, pumpkins in 11th century France, ok in anything prior to 1800, those anachronisms distract my attention from otherwise fine books. I will give authors a bit of a pass on them, but the good authors of historical fiction are meticulous in their research and don't let them in. Sharon Kay Penman and Colleen McCullough are fastidious about it.
I recently read
Medieval Underpants - a guide for historical fiction writers for keeping anachronisms out of their books. The author covered a lot of subjects, some of which I was unaware of. It should be on the reference shelf of every historical fiction author.
I mainly write SF but find historical fiction interesting. Half the fun of writing is searching out interesting details. The hard bit is making it unobtrusive. If you like what you find there's a strong temptation to stick it in. From that experience I understand 'too much detail'. A writer hasn't been ruthless enough. What are the character parts? Which are strong? And weak? How well does each fit the story? Being a woman isn't a bar to being a strong character (not in my stuff anyway) but neither should it be incidental.
Historical fiction is about real people (and real events), otherwise it's pastiche. The former limits the latitude for invention. Stray from the accepted version of events at your peril - and back it up with notes. I've tried my hand at the latter. The challenge is to produce a piece that tells all without the need for notes - which I haven't managed. Happily I write SF :-).
Kate wrote: "What I find more maddening than factual inaccuracies like language or even the occasional blooper, is the presence of historically inaccurate attitudes. All those 21st century feminists flouncing ..."Definitely. And this kind of inaccuracy - inaccuracy of beliefs and attitudes - is common in historical fiction. And I don't think it's necessarily oversight or ignorance. If you're writing commercial fiction for a mainstream audience, you need sympathetic characters. And a great many people today would find most people from ancient Rome or 15th century Scotland to be unsympathetic, or simply alien, in their beliefs and attitudes.
The problem is, I find anachronistic attitudes just as jarring as anachronistic technology or trappings. So when a fictional Roman senator exhibits a modern North American attitude towards his daughter, it snaps me out of immersion as surely as him making a call on a cell phone would.
Rob wrote: "Kate wrote: "What I find more maddening than factual inaccuracies like language or even the occasional blooper, is the presence of historically inaccurate attitudes. All those 21st century feminis..."Definitely agree. There really weren't all that many feisty females or atheists around, and a lot more superstition and ignorance. I think historical fiction writers need to treat their subjects with respect - they behaved the way they did for a reason. Try and figure it out.
I agree. The sad part is that even when a writer tries to get it right, they often end up with a caricature of what would have been realistic for the time.When I wrote my Robin Hood novel, I was fairly comfortable with the time period and culture. But I have still had a few people tell me that my portrayal of Marian was too feministic. Even if you disregard exceptional women like Eleanor of Aquitaine, the high medieval woman was not a virtual slave with no rights or responsibilities.
Others have said that she wasn’t strong enough to be a character they cared for. But there were no women like Xena during that time. She was as self-reliant as she could be given her circumstances. She was also strong and dependable in those areas where she would have been expected to be in that culture.
In. That. Culture.
I don’t want the details to get in the way of the story, but I don’t want the story to disregard the details. If you have a Roman Patriarch who is deciding who to marry his daughter off to, I think it would be fine if he had a caring talk with her to determine what her feelings would be about a particular suitor. But if she were to declare that she wanted to marry a goat-herder, the proper response in that culture would be for her father to become frustrated that she wasn’t being serious. At that point, he would decide that either she was too silly or too young to make a decision and he would have to decide for her. That is not him being mean and nasty, that is him (from his own cultural point of view) being a good and caring father who is doing what is best for his daughter.
Sometimes the an inaccuracy will creep into language instead of your story, and that's far more insidious to catch, even when it's your own work. I knew after all my research that the ancient Romans did not have potatoes; certainly I'd never have any of my Roman characters chowing down on them! And yet when I was reaching for a simile in an action scene, I unthinkingly reached for "He slung her over one shoulder like a sack of potatoes." And nope, nobody caught it. *Face palm*
Similes and metaphors can be dangerous for minor historical slip-ups!
That is awesome! I am horrible about using "okay" (I still think it should be properly spelled 'O.K.' because of the history of the colloquialism) when I speak and it slips into my writing as well. So one of the first words I look for on my proofreading searches is "okay" if it is a story set before the 1830s.
At times historical inaccuracies in language can add a certain "charm" to the story. Case in point, Robert Harris's Imperium. At times the language was so "off" it added its own entertaining flair. I enjoyed the book all the more because of this. It is after all, fiction, so my first desire is to be entertained...and I most certainly was.
I remember reading a Matthew Paris book of quotations and insults, in which the first was a depiction of an Egyptian hieroglyphic. I've no idea how it would have been spoken, but the picture of a penis followed by travel was pretty easy to comprehend!Personally, I like using ancient English and often get pulled up by readers complaining about anachronisms. One lady hated my use of 'garbage' and 'trash' because they were too modern (they're medieval English); another hated my use of 'posse' because it was too American cowboyish ('posse comitatus', statute of Winchester, 1285); yet another hated me using 'sheriff' ('from 'shire reeve', saxon). However, I use modern language for insults and conversation like Tony Riches, because I look on the author's job as translating the language for modern readers, just as if I was translating Dostoievsky or HH Kirst. The English used in medieval England would be incomprehensible to most modern people. I have to translate it.
Marina wrote:one has to remember that Romans, say, also had slang and informal speech in their time and so something like "piss off" will doubtless have a Latin word for it...."I'm talking more about the use of terms like: a character calling Pompey a "great booby", or describing Cicero as "something of an airy-fairy intellect". "Super-snobbish", "crackpot", "bird-brain", and "money-grubbing knave" were also used by characters. This book was riddled with language that was "off" for the times, yet the story was well written, and it all worked out. Harris's second in the trilogy Conspirata had much less of the modern terminology, and more period-appropriate language.
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...
On the other hand, I've had lovely discussions with readers who have emailed me tactfully about things they thought I've gotten wrong - on some occasions I've replied, "Ouch, you're right, I'm correcting that in the next book!" and other times I've presented my research and had them reply, "You know, you're right after all about that."