Historical Accuracy in Fiction

[Dawn]

Now that I've been reading about all the things that bother others for historical accuracy I wonder if some of them will start to annoy me too?

Maybe this is one of those times that ignorance is bliss? :)

[Bryn]

Monica wrote: "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"..."

I like the sound of this lively language. As Michael says, to my mind, it's translation. Might even have to hunt up the book.

[Monica]

Bryn wrote: I like the sound of this lively language. As Michael says, to my mind, it's translation. Might even have to hunt up the book..."

I gave Imperium an extra 1/4 star just for the added humor! I was certainly entertained. Harris did not carry this over (as much) in the second book, so perhaps an editor helped out a bit.

[Bryn]

I might think that's a pity, that he didn't go on with the amusements of the slang.
Humour's never to be sneezed at in a book.

[Kate]

Bryn wrote: "I might think that's a pity, that he didn't go on with the amusements of the slang.
Humour's never to be sneezed at in a book."

Yes, because I have to say, historical fiction can be a genre that takes itsealf deeeeeeeeeadly seriously. I think because a lot of writers are trying to prove their own erudition as scholars of the past, or because they're trying to duck the other reputation that HF has: bodice-ripper with historical setting.

[Margaret]

Marina wrote: "Monica wrote: "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 ente..."

Modernisms are the single most likely thing to make me stop reading an historical novel I'm afraid. (Or even something that has a very modern ring to it.) Example - I was reading a Tudor novel but stopped the instant I came to a character being told to 'get her kit together' as she was to go to court. The book went straight to the charity shop - and I shan't read any more from that author. Am I being too purist? Will I miss some otherwise good stuff as a result? Possibly, but it broke the thread of the story for me and grated so much that I lost confidence in the author to do a good job in any aspect of the writing. For me if a novel does not have a ring of authenticity I don't want to read it.

[Richard]

Margaret wrote: "Modernisms are the single most likely thing to make me stop reading an historical novel I'm afraid. (Or even something that has a very modern ring to it.)"

Several hf authors write with self-consciously modern idiom. Suzannah Dunn springs to mind. If you scan through the reviews of The Confession Of Katherine Howard you get quite an indication of what readers think of this. I think she writes lyrically and rather beautifully, but others deplore the 'anachronisms'. (inverted commas because all historical fiction is anachronistic). Though, amusingly, the other thing that people seem to damn her for is not having written a proper 'confession'. (as in confessions of a window cleaner, I think!)

[Margaret]

Marina wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Modernisms are the single most likely thing to make me stop reading an historical novel I'm afraid. (Or even something that has a very modern ring to it.) "

I suppose it depends o..."
Absolutely agree, Marina re sense of time and place / atmosphere. Which is why I find blatant modernisms, particularly slang, so jarring. Slang dates - if I was writing a (very) contemporary piece I would think carefully about use of slang, because it can anchor a piece firmly in a particular era, which may or may not be the intention.

A 16th century character saying 'cool' when they approve of something for example, would destroy for me the sense of their time. Just as much as them wearing trainers would.

I don't think many historical novelists would think of putting their 16thc character in trainers (nor readers expect it) unless it was a deliberate retelling of an old story in a contemporary setting - which can be incredibly effective, but is quite a different thing.

Why should clothing matter and language not?

BTW I wasn't thinking of prithees and forsooths - which, courtesy of Blackadder et al carry the connotations of spoof writing and therefore, however authentic they might or might not be, will in many reader's minds be associated with comedy. Fine if you're writing comedy...

The wider issue of connotation is something I think about a lot at the editing stage - something may be authentic, but better not to use because it appears wrong to readers and jars them out of the story. If this happens then I have made them aware of me as the author rather than the characters - definitely not what I'm aiming for.

(Though I have to admit to including a particular detail in a novel because I found it so fascinating - an item I thought was modern and turned out to be not at all - but I did it knowing it was a risk and deciding in that case it was a risk I felt worth taking. I hoped that if people noticed it it would send them looking to check the authenticity, rather than annoying them. Which from feedback so far appears to have been the case. Thankfully! But it's a tactic I wouldn't use often, not least because my job when writing isn't to illustrate how much I know about an era, but first and foremost to entertain.

[Simona]

Michael wrote: "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 p..."

I love the use of language in Michael's books (Michael Jecks) but then, I'm a fan..

[Sanne]

Historical accuracy is very important to me in deciding whether or not to read a book. When I start reading a book and I get the feeling an author doesn't portray an accurate picture of the period because they lack knowledge or that they're taking too much liberties, I will put the book down after a couple of pages.
But if an author shows me they know a lot about the period (in the non-lecturing way fabulous authors have of weaving information into the story), I'm willing to forgive little slip-ups, lagging plots, shallow characters and a whole lot more in order to enjoy a well-researched historical fiction book. What I love most is when authors are able to weave interesting and new tibbits of information about past cultures into the writing.

[Sara]

Sanne wrote: "But if an author shows me they know a lot about the period (in the non-lecturing way fabulous authors have of weaving information into the story), I'm willing to forgive little slip-ups, lagging plots, shallow characters and a whole lot more in order to enjoy a well-researched historical fiction book."

I wouldn't go so far: yes, I am willing to forgive little slip-ups, but not lagging plots or shallow characters.

First and foremost, I will demand proper characters and well weaved plots from any fiction. For historical fiction, I'm particularly strict about feminine characters: I cannot stand medieval heroines (my period of election) who behave like modern-day feminists, and that alone will ruin a story, no matter how good everything else is. Male characters aren't so easy to mess up, but I have 'met' medieval princes who didn't like hunting because it was cruel. º_º Worse: the prince was presented as an enthusiastic hunter in every medieval chronicle! How could the author get it so wrong?

But I digress. Clothing, tools, and routines are also essential to create a historical feeling, and although I am willing to forgive slip-ups in this area, they can't be blatant.

[Sara]

Margaret wrote: Why should clothing matter and language not?"

I completely agree with you, Margaret. Of course one can't have characters speak exactly as they did in medieval times - vocabulary, if nothing else, has changed too much since. But old words that are still recognised today should be used, even if others are modern. And some speech patterns should be used as inspiration, if using them outright isn't feasible. The narrator, naturally, has more freedom, but not a character in its everyday speech.

On the other hand, if the period is closer to our own - say, the 19th century or early 20th - then I expect dialogues to be as faithful as humanely possible.

I'm willing to cut the authors some slack in medieval stories when it comes to language, though, for as long as everything else is near perfection (operative word being 'some', blatant language misshaps aren't forgivable). But I'm not near as forgiving when the time period is the 19th century, for example.

However, when the story is set in Roman times, I'm willing to allow much more freedom. As someone previously wrote, "Romans must have had phrases that could be translated as 'piss off'." In my Latin classes, I had the chance to read and translate some Roman graffiti, and some were as coarse and obscene as any modern day slang (actually, plenty of Portuguese, Spanish and Italian 'bad words' of today are almost the same as the old Latin ones). So for as long as one doesn't refer to radios and tomatoes, 'translating' Latin, Sumerian, Old English, etc., must allow for the inclusion of modern day slang. The problem arises when the language is close enough to the modern one that one can't translate anymore but must evoke it.

[Sanne]

Sara wrote: "I wouldn't go so far: yes, I am willing to forgive little slip-ups, but not lagging plots or shallow characters.

First and foremost, I will demand proper characters and well weaved plots from any fiction. For historical fiction, I'm particularly strict about feminine characters: I cannot stand medieval heroines (my period of election) who behave like modern-day feminists, and that alone will ruin a story, no matter how good everything else is. Male characters aren't so easy to mess up, but I have 'met' medieval princes who didn't like hunting because it was cruel. º_º Worse: the prince was presented as an enthusiastic hunter in every medieval chronicle! How could the author get it so wrong?..."

Well, for me the medieval feminist and animal-loving prince would fall under poor research. NO. 1 in research should be culture and worldview. I have zero tolerance for messing up in that area. If you mess up on that one, your book is lost, no matter how period appropriate your clothing is. I've become rather good at picking up clues that books will turn in that direction and put them down before I wasted too much time on them.

My period of choice is medieval fiction (espcially late medieval!) as well, but I find it increasingly hard to find well-researched fiction set in that period as I learn more and more about it. There's just too much that people tend to get wrong and that gets on my nerves. So when I know an author knows what s/he's doing, I will finish their books, even if the plot-line isn't my cup of tea or when the characters aren't that well developed as I'd like. For instance, I read a book by Elizabeth Chadwick, even though her type of fiction isn't particularly my cup of tea (I still need to write a review for that book...). I enjoyed the little references, the way she described medieval culture and the medieval mindset. If it wasn't for the well-researched historical aspect of the fiction I would have put the book down. I need my medieval fix! So I'd say I'm very strict when it comes to the first impression: if I make it through the first pages without yelling at the book for being wrong, I'll finish it.

Though I have to say that my tolerance greatly depends on how much I know about a period. With me, there's a lot more an author can get away with in a modern history setting, than a medieval setting.

[Sara]

Eileen wrote: "Philippa Gregory had an article in the Wall Street Journal last summer about historical fiction (and later a longer talk at the Historical Novel Society Conference in London in late September) about how the best historical fiction fills in the gaps left in the history books. I think that is true - it can try to answer the questions about why things happened, not just what happened."

I agree with this 100%. And that's why I cannot accept changing a battle that happened in August to July. If it's a fact it happened in August, then work with that date. Historical facts can't be changed to fit the author's story; it is the author's story that must do so. And, in my humble opinion, if a writer can't do so - or won't be bothered to do so - then he's just being lazy and isn't worth my time. Fill in the gaps as you will, but do not change the facts!

Although I wil be benevolent with little known facts, especially when they were recently set right and there is a wealth of older texts supporting a different view.

[Eileen]

Sanne wrote: "Sara wrote: "I wouldn't go so far: yes, I am willing to forgive little slip-ups, but not lagging plots or shallow characters.

First and foremost, I will demand proper characters and well weaved pl..."

I agree with you on Elizabeth Chadwick. Her books are remarkably well researched. Also, Sharon Kay Penman and Colleen McCullough. They make the writers who refer to things like tomatoes, pumpkins and potatoes in medieval Europe look like amateurs.

[Sara]

Eileen wrote: "They make the writers who refer to things like tomatoes, pumpkins and potatoes in medieval Europe look like amateurs."

Although (at least in my native Portuguese, not so sure about the English) the Portuguese words for maize and pumpkin existed in Europe long before the discovery of America... only they referred to different products that have since acquired new names and given theirs to the newcomers.

So, in some cases, the anachronism may actually be very good research.

[Kate]

Sara wrote: "
And that's why I cannot accept changing a battle that happened in August to July. If it's a fact it happened in August, then work with that date. Historical facts can't be changed to fit the author's story; it is the author's story that must do so. And, in my humble opinion, if a writer can't do so - or won't be bothered to do so - then he's just being lazy and isn't worth my time. Fill in the gaps as you will, but do not change the facts!"

I don't mind changing small facts to suit a story - but the caveat is, they must be SMALL facts. Change a Roman emperor's travel schedule so he can make a stop through Rome and give Character X a chance to cross his path? By all means: it's a small fact, and who but the people who know this emperor and his movements down to the last detail are going to know? But to change things up so that said Roman Emperor dies a few years earlier than is specifically recorded? No. Bigger facts - death dates, birth dates, important events in history - should be worked with.

And when you do make small changes to history for your story, own up to it in an author's note! That way your readers will at least know you were taking creative license, and not just ignorant. :D

[Mark]

Bernard Cornwell has changed dates of battles to fit in with the story he is telling,he does imform the reader at the end of the book.

I personally dont have a problem with this as Kate above says its creative license.

[Rob]

To me, changing the date of a battle doesn't change the essential truth of the historical characters, setting, or story. In most cases, nothing important would change if the battle was fought on May 7th instead of May 11th. However, having the corporal in Wellington's peninsular army speak to his superior officers the way a modern working-class Englishman would speak to his boss is untruthful in an important and dramatic way.

[Kate]

Rob wrote: "having the corporal in Wellington's peninsular army speak to his superior officers the way a modern working-class Englishman would speak to his boss is untruthful in an important and dramatic way."

Perfectly put.

[Bryn]

It's possible to have a medieval prince who doesn't want to hunt because it's cruel. He might have been influenced by popular stories of saints' lives where the saints are excessively kind to animals.

[Thom]

Luckily for all of us there is an abundance of published historical fiction to choose from. You will always have winners and losers. The only question that remains is how high do you set the lat? Obviously some of us set it considerably higher than others.

[Kate]

I think in that case it would work - because a plausible medieval reason was supplied, not just a generic "Hunting is cruel!" which came from a PETA pamphlet. A religious reason would make sense.

[Eileen]

Bryn wrote: "It's possible to have a medieval prince who doesn't want to hunt because it's cruel. He might have been influenced by popular stories of saints' lives where the saints are excessively kind to animals."

What saints besides St. Francis of Assisi were excessively kind to animals?

[Judith]

I find it fiendishly difficult to get historical dialogue properly balanced between not sounding modern and not sounding stilted and overly formal. And most of us writing HF aren't portraying people who spoke English anyway (or at least the modern sort), so you're having to create in English something that feels like it could be two Romans or two Greeks or two Hittites (you get the idea). Kate (who's chatting in this thread) is quite good at this trick, just so you know!

[Kate]

I have a little bit of an easy out because my characters so far have all been speaking ancient Latin. As Sara noted above, "Romans must have had phrases that could be translated as 'piss off'."

They did indeed. So I can just write "Piss off" and have done with it. :D

[Margaret]

Judith wrote: "I find it fiendishly difficult to get historical dialogue properly balanced between not sounding modern and not sounding stilted and overly formal. And most of us writing HF aren't portraying peopl..."

This is one of the critical issues for me when writing a novel set in 16th c Scotland - trying to get the balance right and a flavour of the time without making it inaccessible to readers. Although I do include some specifically Scots vocabulary (with a glossary) my main method in dialogue is to alter the sentence structure to reflect period grammar. How well it works is of course a matter for readers to judge!

[Sara]

Bryn wrote: "It's possible to have a medieval prince who doesn't want to hunt because it's cruel. He might have been influenced by popular stories of saints' lives where the saints are excessively kind to animals."

Yes, but, historically, he was famous for being a great hunter. He was even accused of being more interested in hunting than the kingdom affairs.

The author just decided (I suppose) that a different personality would suit the love story better. But changing such an important and well-known fact ruined the whole book for me.

[Darcy]

However, we also know that chroniclers were often paid propagandists.

Just because one does something need not mean that they agree with it. Even today, we (well, maybe it's just me) things that aren't necessarily within my belief system. However, I do it out of a sense of 'duty', to keep the peace or simply because it's easier than having to cope with the alternative.
As an example: I do not personally celebrate Christmas, but I do celebrate it with my family because a) there are embedded traditions that I do agree with, b) explaining to 7 & 10 year olds philosophical contradictions to what their parents are teaching could create undue tensions within the family c) I don't like crushing other peoples' enthusiasm for something they believe in.

There is nothing that states a prince couldn't think/believe that hunting was cruel. However, that he would have been able to get out of going hunting would be far less unlikely. And the notion that a prince might, as a means of rebellion, excel at something he does not believe in and appear aloof to other endeavours is psychologically supported.

We have no way of really knowing what went on, and it is this lack of reliable evidence that allows for possibilities that seem otherwise inconceivable.

[Sara]

D wrote: "Even today, we (well, maybe it's just me) things that aren't necessarily within my belief system."

It's not just you: I also do as you do when it comes to Christmas. And, usually, I don't mind seeing historical characters painted with non-traditional colours. But to say that this particular prince avoided going hunting because he couldn't stand shedding the blood of innocent animals (if at least the author had made him a St. Francis follower, like Bryn first suggested, but not even that - it was a really modern reasoning). Moreover, it clashes with a fact that the author respects: he rebels against the royal family and starts living with the woman he loved. There is no more reason to put up with a hated duty, right? But then he leaves her to go hunting (during which she is killed) and his hate for hunting isn't mentioned again. So the change in personality ends up causing a contradiction in the prince's future actions.

In conclusion (it probably wasn't fair from me to bring up such a very specific example, so my apologies on that), to change the traditional personality of a historical character might work, for as long as there is a realistic justification behind it and as long as it doesn't contradict future actions and decisions in the story. But I can't see how an author would have, say, King Henry VIII as a music hater just to fit a love story.

[Darcy]

I agree that lack of continuity and contradictions have a way of derailing me from the story.

[Sara]

Judith wrote: "I find it fiendishly difficult to get historical dialogue properly balanced between not sounding modern and not sounding stilted and overly formal. (...), so you're having to create in English something that feels like it could be two Romans or two Greeks or two Hittites (you get the idea)."

That's an interesting point. From what I've seen from a TV series -I think it was Spartacus - it sounds as if Latin speakers are expected to speak in a formal way. I mean, even the slaves spoke formally. In reality, there was a very deep divide between the formal-speaking elite and the low-classes. So much so that at a certain point the low classes nearly spoke a different dialect (the elite would say equus when talking about horses, the low classes would say caballus).

And indeed, how would one transmit the sense of 'Latin' in English?

[Rob]

One memorable interpretation of historical dialect is Brian Moore's Black Robe. He has the Huron natives speech peppered with casual use of 'fuck' and 'shit'. Once you understood that this band lived closely together in intimate proximity almost every waking hour of their lives, it felt right. They spoke to one another the way a bunch of miners who had worked together for 20 years speak - with the kind of familiar insults and black humour that come with long-term intimacy among men who place a high value on stoicism.

[Judith]

Sara wrote: "Judith wrote: "I find it fiendishly difficult to get historical dialogue properly balanced between not sounding modern and not sounding stilted and overly formal. (...), so you're having to create ..."

It would be bizarre to have all Roman characters speaking formal English. Kate's point that they'd have been speaking Latin and had an equivalent phrase for "piss off" and so just use that is a very good one. My characters are from the region around ancient Troy, so the same theory works--they certainly can't speak their original language in a book in English, so just use contemporary English. but I find that some things sound too much part of a modern world. Now, "piss off" sounds just like the kind of language a soldier or various other people would use in any age, if you ask me. But as someone said above, "cool" just sounds wrong!

[Tim]

Sara wrote: "I cannot stand medieval heroines (my period of election) who behave like modern-day feminists...."

What's your opinion then of Chaucer's Wife of Bath?

[Bryn]

I didn't mean he needs to be a follower of St Francis. Or the saint who helped the wild beasts over a stile even as chased them off his vege patch. Just urged to say that pity for animals wasn't unknown, so I don't see why we can't invent such a prince (not your historic prince, Sara).

Animals were given such human qualities in tales; they weep and wail and suffer, or have fine feelings like the lion in Chretien de Troyes 'The Knight with the Lion'. From that, too, I can't see cruelty to animals as a foreign idea to them.

At bottom, as usual, just want to point to the medievals' sensitive side.

[Tim]

Bryn wrote: "From that, too, I can't see cruelty to animals as a foreign idea to them.
At bottom, as usual, just want to point to the medievals' sensitive side. ..."

I'd echo that and point to another of Chaucer's characters, madam Eglantine the Prioress, with her lapdogs and who would weep when she saw a mouse caught in a trap. She's not a sympathetic character but her appearance suggests there were people very like her around in the later 1300s.

[Sara]

Bryn wrote: "From that, too, I can't see cruelty to animals as a foreign idea to them."

I certainly don't think it was foreign. Though it was probably much less common than today (especially since most peasants and even poor city dwellers kept animals for eating, which they slaughtered themselves). As in today, I think that the farthest a person is from the reality of animal husbandry (and killing them for food) the more sensitive one becomes to cruelty.

I remember a reality show where some celebrities had to kill a goat for dinner; some couldn't even watch, and the one who had to do it tried to kill it less painfully, and the natives were getting all upset because the delay of the killing was cruel to the animal, because it suffered more. So there's a difference between what people consider cruel.

Anyway, I never did study Chaucer (I'm not a native English), but in some Portuguese medieval texts over-sensitivity to animal, or person, cruelty usually depicts hypocrisy (they say it's wrong to hurt animals, but can't care about people; or say it's wrong not to help people, but they themselves don't move a finger to help). Again, I don't know about Chaucer.

[Bryn]

@Sara Lucky you that you have Portuguese medieval to read, in the original.

[M.K.]

Last year I conducted a survey about historical fiction that reached 800 participants. In response to the question "what detracts from your enjoyment of historical fiction?" 44% cited historical inaccuracies. The flip side of historical accuracy is the desire many readers have to learn history while they read historical fiction. 52% of those surveyed said they read HF "to understand and learn about historical periods without reading non-fiction" while 76% said they read to "bring the past to life". My vote is in favour of accuracy although interpretation of known fact is important too.

[Judith]

Mary wrote: "Last year I conducted a survey about historical fiction that reached 800 participants. In response to the question "what detracts from your enjoyment of historical fiction?" 44% cited historical in..."

Well that seems like the comprehensive answer! Thanks, Mary, for this window into the readers' minds of historical fiction.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Mary wrote: "Last year I conducted a survey about historical fiction that reached 800 participants. In response to the question "what detracts from your enjoyment of historical fiction?" 44% cited historical in..."

That's great Mary. Thankyou very much for sharing those figures. 800 participants is a good chunk of people.

[Tim]

Mary wrote: "My vote is in favour of accuracy although interpretation of known fact is important too. ..."

However, to strike a slightly contrary note, I believe the key bit is not just "known fact" but also "widely accepted version" which is sometimes as important. I have read a comment by a best selling HF authour who said she deliberately left out certain facts about the time she was writing about because the truth contrasted so sharply with what the widely accepted version of "history" said that most readers would assume it was inaccurate, and the surprise of reading it would knock them out of their suspension of disbelief, and therefore ruin the experience. That's not a criticism by the way.

[Bryn]

Ooh don't know if I like that story, Tim. I'd have her stride in and battle the misperceptions. :} On behalf of the dead.

Out of interest, can you name the period, even if you don't want to name the book?

[Sanne]

Tim, that's an interesting take that author has on HF, though I have to say I thoroughly disagree with it. As Bryn said, HF authors have a great way of presenting a different (perhaps more accurate) view of history, and to battle misconceptions. Letting inaccuracies deliberately into your story, so you can lead your audience to believe your story is more accurate... sounds like a cop-out to me.

RE: the animal discussion: I suspect (late) medieval views on animals and cruelty to animals to be extremely different from how we view animals today. I've come across notions of persoonhood being attributed to animals (city regulations saying when there's a food shortage, the grains ought to be given to people-persons first, and horse-persons second, for instance. They used that particular phrasing (in Latin)), and animals being tried for their crimes just like men (livestock causing deadly accidents with their horns/tusks, for instance. A pig was tried and found guilty in Paris after mortally wounding a little girl. The pig was sentences to be burned to death). I suspect the examples of Chaucer and St. Francis to fit into this view of animals as persons as well. Would they love animals like we do? Could they be against animal cruelty like we do? I don't know, but I suspect their reasoning would be very different from our modern reasoning. Their respect for human life isn't our modern standard either.
So, yeah perhaps you could get away with a prince not liking to hunt because it's sad for the animals, but you'd have to explain an awful lot about the medieval mind-set. And your prince would be a viewed as a weirdo in the aristocratic world.

[Michael]

Sanne wrote: "Tim, that's an interesting take that author has on HF, though I have to say I thoroughly disagree with it. As Bryn said, HF authors have a great way of presenting a different (perhaps more accurate..."

I always tend to have as accurate a depiction as possible of the medieval mind set. I look on it as slander of our ancestors to try to put 20th and 21st century views into their minds - it's wrong. Rather, I will describe a bull-baiting in some detail, but comment (very) briefly on the way that spectators approved because baiting them tenderised their meat before slaughter and the spectators are looking forward to the better cuts. Pandering to incorrect versions of history only leads to readers being lied to, in effect. I'd rather think my readers are happier to get the truth.

[Sara]

Michael wrote: "I will describe a bull-baiting in some detail, but comment (very) briefly on the way that spectators approved because baiting them tenderised their meat before slaughter and the spectators are looking forward to the better cuts."

Yes, I do think that's the best approach. In that particular case, they weren't being cruel just because (as a modern day person might react at first), they believed that it was necessary. And in truth, that still happens today:

In some rural areas, people kill their pigs themselves. To do so, they use a long knife and stab the animal's heart, collecting as much of its blood as possible in the process. Some people (at least nowadays), knock the pig out first, so that it's unconscious while it's killed. But some people believe that they'll collect less blood that way, so the pig must be alive. However, those people will still consider that the pig must be killed as fast as possible because to do otherwise would be cruel.

And I remember a blotched decapitation in 17th century France where the executioner only decapitated the condemned after a number of attempts, and the audience, whom had been looking forward to show, was calling for the executioner's own head because of the cruelty inflicted on the condemned man. So, yes, it is very important to give a proper perspective on nowadays considered cruel practices.

[Michael]

Sara wrote: "Michael wrote: "I will describe a bull-baiting in some detail, but comment (very) briefly on the way that spectators approved because baiting them tenderised their meat before slaughter and the spe..."

Absolutely - the worst error people make is to believe that our ancestors were cruel and barbaric by nature. Anyone who reads Chaucer or Boccaccio can see that's nonsense. But they didn't have the benefit of science to guide them in most cases, their beliefs were just that, built up from philosophical arguments they came to from their religious beliefs. They weren't by nature necessarily cruel. And they don't deserve to be depicted as such.

Except for one or two characters I've written about who were based on a crook who stole from me when worked for him, of course ...

He's died several times in painful manners!

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Michael wrote: " . Rather, I will describe a bull-baiting in some detail, but comment (very) briefly on the way that spectators approved because baiting them tenderised their meat before slaughter and the spectators are looking forward to the better cuts. .."

Hi Michael,
Do you mean that this is what they thought back then? That bull baiting tenderised the meat?
Because it actually does the opposite. Cattle under stress, even slight stress, toughens the meat. The more stress the tougher it gets due to elevated ph levels and blood flow to the muscles.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I believe you can find many medieval practices and attitudes towards animals in currently existing cultures. The more primitive and/or isolated cultures. Where an animal is food or a beast of burden. Even dogs, while kept close are kept more as a 'companion' animal than an actual loved pet.
I think the tougher the existence and the more ignorant the culture, the more desensitized a culture or individual is to animal welfare or to feelings of fondness towards animals.

The more modern the culture the more the culture has come to rely on buying food pre packaged where it no longer resembles the original creature. This creates a disconnect between the consuming of animal meat, and the animal keeping and slaughter process.
I think with that disconnect comes a greater awareness of animal welfare issues. Because animals are no longer recognised as food to many.