Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
At the other end of time or types of society, if you go back to tribal peoples, hunter-gatherers or herders too, you can find different attitudes again. People who live very closely with animals -- more so than farmers -- and have religious/identity ties to them.
Those cultures you mention are a good example of how peoples perceptions of what constitutes animal cruelty is varied dependent on cultural and societal norms.For example, Steppe tribes and African tribes, who make small slits in the vein of their treasured livestock in order to drink the blood on a regular basis. To these cultures this is a normal part of their lives, to other modern cultures this would be deemed as animal cruelty.
Goes to show...very hard for modern writers to get accurate when dealing with animals in history.
Animal cruelty? Ah, don't get me started, Terri. You're right, though. Most in the West think it's OK to eat to eat farmed chickens, the majority of which has an awful quality of life.At least the Maasai cattle get to live out their lives without being penned up 6-12 months of the year and to die of old age, not to be culled when a quarter gives out, or because of foot problems.
(I've seen the blood letting done by the Maasai. It's done superfast, and is not that traumatic. The blood/milk mixture is, shall we say, an acquired taste!)
*ends off subject rant*
For anyone interested in the medieval people's propensity for cruelty to other human beings, I would recommend this book:
I doubt much has changed in the years since though.
Ben wrote: "Animal cruelty? Ah, don't get me started, Terri. You're right, though. Most in the West think it's OK to eat to eat farmed chickens, the majority of which has an awful quality of life.At least th..."
Yeah, don't get me started on animal cruelty either. Haha! ;)
For the record though, I don't think it is animal cruelty for the Maasai or the Steppe tribes to make small nicks in an animals neck or leg and take blood. I only mean that to some people in some cultures it is, so it is hard to say what to us as modern cultures would deem cruel and what a medieval culture would deem cruel. :-)
Tim wrote: "For anyone interested in the medieval people's propensity for cruelty to other human beings, I would recommend this book:[bookcover:By Sword and Fire: Cruelty and Atrocity in Medieval Warfare|227..."
I agree. I don't think much has changed either.
Since we have mentioned a few books on animals in history as we have discussed their accurate portrayal in hist fic, I came across this one quite by accident today.The Medici Giraffe and Other Tales of Exotic Animals and Power
Terri wrote: "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 ..."Sorry, been away at a festival.
Yes, they believed that making a bull fight helped the quality of the meat, which is the precise opposite of the evidence now. But they didn't have detailed scientific research to look at the way hormones worked in those days!
Terri wrote: "Ben wrote: "Animal cruelty? Ah, don't get me started, Terri. You're right, though. Most in the West think it's OK to eat to eat farmed chickens, the majority of which has an awful quality of life...."
I spent a fair time in Kenya, and no, I don't think the Maasai were cruel either. In fact, I think a lot of the cruelty to animals discussed in recent years is based on myths. If a man deliberately goes out to kill, he is naturally desensitised to the animal's pain, for example. Except the kindest people to all animals I have ever known to animals were a rabbit catcher and a farmer. The farmer always cared deeply for his cattle - to the extent of keeping some back as pets after their milking days were over. He didn't believe in sending them for slaughter. The rabbit man was a dedicated hunter and shooter. He used ferrets, guns and dogs - for preference, dogs, because they guaranteed a quick kill. One bite and the rabbit (or fox) was dead. Now fox hunting is banned in the UK, which means that foxes are pretty much guaranteed a slow death from natural injuries or gunshot wounds. However, I've seen the rabbit man slowly and carefully extricate a terrified rabbit from a net, gentling it, stroking it, soothing it, until very quickly snapping its neck. He had a job to do, but he always respected the creature and gave it all the kindness he could to give it a quick end.
There are many examples of cruelty to animals. The most hideous example in my lifetime was the foot and mouth epidemic in the UK, when herds were gathered together and shot by contractors who had little expertise with their weapons and no care for their charges. Terrified cattle broke free and were chased over fields by the men with guns. It's left a lasting legacy in the countryside, with farmers who will never trust central government. They loved their animals. But the contractors didn't care. They had no understanding of the animals or their needs.
But I agree with Ben. The worst cases now are the routine cruelties. Some years ago my house was a butcher's shop, and the barns behind were the fasting sheds and slaughterhouse. Cattle used to be brought here, as they had for centuries, from the fields all around, and given a last day quietly in a barn, later to be walked ten yards into the slaughterhouse, where they died in seconds. Now, since the EU introduced potty regulations after lobbying by the big abattoirs, the cattle are driven over 100 miles to the nearest. All the smaller abattoirs have been closed.
The most appalling cruelties are the routine ones like that. Our ancestors couldn't have conceived of such behaviour.
That's why I was curious. I did not realise they thought that back then. Hadn't come across it in any reading. I have not read huge amounts on animal baiting. I avoid it. :-) Of course, the proof is in the eating and the cutting though. You would think they would notice it when they eat an animal that suffered high stress, compared to an animal slaughtered in a yard. Anyone familiar with butchering a carcass (and I imagine a large percent of the male population was back then, especially in rural environs) can notice the difference between a regular carcass and the meat from an animal that died under enormous stress. Much like a baker would notice when the gluten has changed under his hands during kneading.
The science of stress effects came about as a result of a lifetime of hands on, production level knowledge of how stressed meat looked and handled and ate.
But then I imagine there was no such thing as a low stress slaughter job back then. An animal slaughtered in a butcher's yard, or back of a hut etc wouldn't exactly have a quick end. Lot less stressful than a baiting death I imagine though. Lol. :-)
Terri wrote: "That's why I was curious. I did not realise they thought that back then. Hadn't come across it in any reading. I gave not read huge amounts on animal baiting. I avoid it. :-) Of course, the pro..."
Yes. I have written and studied the way animals were treated (and because I firmly believe in practising what I preach, I've killed for the pot myself, especially when I started writing and couldn't afford to buy meat). The difficulty comes from the times you read about when animals were routinely tortured by young boys. You can see plenty of reports of cats being tortured, or sometimes dogs. As always, there are no rules in human nature. Some are evil, just as, occasionally, some politicians actually have the interests of their constituents at heart. Both are rare!
Bryn wrote: "Nice post, Michael."Thanks, Bryn. A bit of a rant for this early in the morning, but it's a subject that does get to me.
Haha. We all love a rant around here, Mike, so don't worry.It is also something that is close to my heart. I am a carnivore. I love meat. Yummy, yummy, meat. :-) And I am also a beef producer who grows meat for other humans to consume.
As far as farmers and their attitudes towards their livestock, it is a case by case thing. Some farmers I would like to drag out by their hair and give them the kick up the arse they deserve for their treatment of their cattle and calves, then other farmers have a deep respect for their animals and will give the proper care throughout their productive life.
I am one of the latter type of farmers. I am very protective of my cattle, and hubby and I go quite often without so that we can pay for vets to treat our animals when they need treatments for injuries or illness. I have a duty of care if I am going to keep livestock and, paddock to plate, I make make sure every step is done humanely.
Terri wrote: "Haha. We all love a rant around here, Mike, so don't worry.It is also something that is close to my heart. I am a carnivore. I love meat. Yummy, yummy, meat. :-) And I am also a beef producer wh..."
A propos, I'd like to recommendThe Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.
I've had a few Goodreads friends read that. I haven't yet.
Hello, I'm new here. I have written my first HF. It begins in 1947 ce, and backtracks some into WWII. After reading this complete thread I find that my thoughts while I was writing and bringing in history as it happened throughout the following years to the 21st Century, I was correct in wanting the historical facts to be correct. I researched everything as well as possible. I am so glad that I did since reading here. Now I am planning a pre-sequel using real ancestors to the people in my first book. They are the Frisii's in the early Germanic lands, beginning around 700bc. I have learned so much from you all and will put this knowledge to use in the research and planning stage. I am really excited about this adventure I'm about to embark upon! Thanks for all your wonderful knowledge and wisdom!
In discussing his own research, author Steven Saylor offers this view...Even more distressing are those historians who insist on having the "last word" on a subject for which there can be no last word, short of the invention of time travel or communication with the dead.
Monica wrote: "In discussing his own research, author Steven Saylor offers this view...Even more distressing are those historians who insist on having the "last word" on a subject for which there can be no last..."
I like that quote fr. Saylor. Thanks Monica. He should know!
I'm currently reading HHhH. Not sure if anyone else here has read it but it raises some interesting points about historical accuracy in fiction. It's a strange and enjoyable sort of book where the author comments on it as it goes along. The book is about the assassination of Heydrich during the war.He tries to keep the book as accurate as he can, but whenever he's made anything up he seems to feel guilty about it and can't resist admitting it in the following chapter.
In one chapter, for example, he describes a character (a real historical person) travelling somewhere by bus or drinking a cup of tea. He worries that he, as a writer, is being disrespectful by just assuming that the character would have caught the bus and not the train. Or maybe in real life he hated tea and only drank coffee, and because the character is now dead he can't put the record straight.
It's an interesting angle, even if it's one I don't 100% agree with. I just wondered if anyone else had read it and what their thoughts were. (No spoilers please, I'm only about 1/3rd of the way through it).
I haven't read it, but I know that Dawn has and will definitely want to share opinions on this book. It was not long ago that she read it.(She's away on a trip right now though..not aorund for a week. i have no doubt she will wnat to respond when she gets back).
Rob wrote: "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"On the other hand, the lack of cell phones in ancient Rome is a stone cold incontrovertible fact, whereas attitudes are obviously much softer, to the point where we can't so sure about about them.
Case in point: I was struck by a book reviewed in the NY Times Sunday Book review, years ago, about a woman who lived in England in Victorian times and was somewhat famous. (I can't recall her name.) And there was a photo of her - possibly a daguerreotype from the 1850s, maybe an ambrotype from a bit later - and her biographer noted that she had a very modern, i.e., mid-late 20th century, expression on her face. Which she did.
So ... was she a fluke in the way she happened to look at the camera at that moment? Or are what we think were the attitudes of Victorian women in England not completely accurate?
Again, we can know for a fact when the telegraph or the telephone was invented (or pretty close to it, in the case of rival claims). But social attitudes are something different.
I did read HHhH not that long ago and I have to say that it ended up as a 1 star for me. I didn't like the style of the book at all and felt it was more a story of the author than a story of an assassination.
Paul wrote: "So ... was she a fluke in the way she happened to look at the camera at that moment? Or are what we think were the attitudes of Victorian women in England not completely accurate?..."This is one of my pet peeves with HF. Do we really think that women were that much different than we are now? I don't.
There were different social constraints but that doesn't mean that women didn't work with what they had. How do we think we now have the freedoms we do? Because women bucked the system and I think they always have.
I think with Victorian women, authors have no excuse if they cannot get an idea on what they were like. The Victorians were our grandmothers and great grandmothers (depending on your age of course) so we are not that removed from them.
My grandparents are 92 and I can still talk to them about what the Victorians were like, because their parents were Victorians.
Terri wrote: "My grandparents are 92 and I can still talk to them about what the Victorians were like, because their parents were Victorians. "But can grandparents be relied upon to be truthful to their grandchildren about all aspects of their lives?
Yes. Well at least it depends on the relationship people have with their grandparents, or the elderly they know who knew the Victorians.Mine can be relied upon to be truthful. My grandparents are very open. If I ask, they tell. I know plenty about what my Victorian great grandparents we like through their stories. I know stuff about what my grandad did during his 'downtime' in Canada during WW2 that i really didn't need to know. *shudder*
Trust me. They have no reason not to tell me what their parents were like.
Paul wrote: "On the other hand, the lack of cell phones in ancient Rome is a stone cold incontrovertible fact, whereas attitudes are obviously much softer, to the point where we can't so sure about about them...."We can't be sure, no. But insofar as attitudes and behaviour are shaped by environment, we can infer how people thought and behaved in the 19th or the 2nd century. Furthermore, we often have the voices of the people from another era to give us insight into their mindset.
We know ancient Rome was strongly patriarchal. I would not expect a Roman father to share the sensibility of a modern father when it comes to his daughter. Not unless the character is an extreme anomaly. So a starting point for getting into the head of a Roman father might be a patriarchal man of more recent vintage - say the 40s. Then consider things like a dedication to public service, keen sense of status and ranking, a reverence for ancestors, an unthinking conformity to daily auguries and rituals. The slow patience of a time when the fastest travel was on horseback, and a man might bide his time for 20, 30 years before achieving even modest goals. An unabashed fondness (or at least tolerance) for visceral violence.
Then, incorporate a novelist's understanding of psychological and poetic character. Find the universal in such an alien (to modern liberal sensibilities) character.
In short, the historical novelist, if she wants to be anything more than a hack, needs to master the intersection of place and character. The first, through research, the second through inference and intuition.
And it isn't only in character that we make these leaps. One of the most powerful pieces of fiction I've read is the opening chapter of William Golding's Pincher Martin. It describes in great detail the experience of a sailor drowning in the Atlantic Ocean. I've never fallen from a ship in the Atlantic and struggled to keep my head above the dark swells. But reading that passage, I think to myself yes, that's how it must feel. The author has it exactly right.. I believe we can have the same intuitions and ability to recognize truth when it comes to historical characters.
Dawn wrote: "There were different social constraints but that doesn't mean that women didn't work with what they had. How do we think we now have the freedoms we do? Because women bucked the system and I think they always have. ..."Some. But you only have to travel outside the West today to meet women with very different attitudes from modern Western women. Spend some time with an old lady in Turkey or China - the greatest defenders of the status quo are often women, for reasons that aren't obvious to us. What is the greatest source of power and pride to women in pre-modern cultures? And what is the greatest threat to that power and pride?
It comes down to how environment shapes character. The world looks very different to an illiterate woman in a religiously devout community in an era when most people never traveled further than 20 miles from their home in their entire lives. Such a character probably wouldn't make for great reading for a modern reader. However, even a character with more modern sensibilities should be drawn in the context of her times, and recognized as a defiant outsider, with all that implies in terms of personality and motivation.
Historically, a poor woman didn't have the luxury of bucking the system, because she was stalked by the prospect of abject poverty every day of her life. A wealthy woman's status was inseparable from the status of her family - whether that's her parents or her husband. To defy the family was to be cast out utterly. Again, it's okay to make a character an outsider. But you need good reason to justify this exceptional character - eccentric parents, a rootless lifestyle - and you need to make the rebellion believable in the context of her world, not ours.
Terri wrote: "Yes. Well at least it depends on the relationship people have with their grandparents, or the elderly they know who knew the Victorians.Mine can be relied upon to be truthful."
That's exactly my point - anything other than personal observation is subject to the relationship between the reporter and the reportee.
Rob wrote: "But insofar as attitudes and behaviour are shaped by environment, we can infer how people thought and behaved in the 19th or the 2nd century. Furthermore, we often have the voices of the people from another era to give us insight into their mindset. "Absolutely. I just saying that authors have more room in rendition of social attitudes than in given technologies and other physical characteristics of an era.
The only explanation for a firearm appearing in ancient Rome is time travel or alternate history. In a contrast, an atypical relationship between a Roman father and daughter is not ipso facto science fiction.
Paul wrote: ". That's exactly my point - anything other than personal observation is subject to the relationship between the reporter and the reportee. .."Then find the right reporter (or reportee, I am not sure which one is which depending on definition) There are elderly people in homes and retirement villages full of people old enough to remember the Victorians. Interviewing those that knew the Victorians will give the author his or her answers on what Victorians were like in attitude..
The answers are there, if the author wishes to find them.
Speaking of historical accuracy in hf...Colin Falconer had a recent run in with a tomato...and blogged about it. Pretty funny.
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...
Terri wrote: "Then find the right reporter..."Right. But the further back you go in history with still-living participants, the less sure anyone can be about the reporting, i.e., knowing it's right.
Aye. But we were talking about Victorians.
Why - Victorians always told the truth? :)
Terri wrote: "This below is what I posted in response to the article and some fellow A&M members thoughts on it.-------------------------------------------
Some twist on truth is okay. Some twist, 90% of us rea..."
Oh dont get me started on Braveheart!!!!lol
Terri wrote: "I posted this artcile in the Random Thoughts thread. then decided perhaps it deserves its own discussion thread and people may want to share their thoughts on this subject matter.Feel free to tel..."
I dont agree with Phillipa Gregory's books sticking to facts - she puts her slant on all of them. And Alison Weir maybe a historian, but she is inclined to spout myth as fact and stated that Edward II was an effeminate homosexual, or words to that effect - which I dont believe could be further from the truth, and said them in a very homophobic manner. Anyhow as to the rest of the article, it was very good. Yes authors need to be very careful about what they present as fact as one unfortunate novelist found out recently when a couple of people reviewed her novel about Simon de Montfort.
John wrote: "Also, if you are going to show the Battle of Stirling Bridge, it would be kinda nice to have a actual bridge : )"Everytime someone mentions Braveheart or Mel gibson - I feel a rage swirling inside me that just wont quell until I eat chocolate
Paula wrote: "John wrote: "Also, if you are going to show the Battle of Stirling Bridge, it would be kinda nice to have a actual bridge : )"Everytime someone mentions Braveheart or Mel gibson - I feel a rage s..."
I can understand that. The mere mention of that movie always makes me grimace.
There is an essay entitled "Narrative Form as a Cognitive Function" by Louis Mink in which he states that history and fiction are not as far removed from each other as people seem to think, since both are ultimately constructions in narrative form. He argues that the narrative form is a tool used to conceptualise the world around us by framing it in ways that make sense to us; using structured accounts of events which we tie together to form a relationship with each other. So then one could argue that in a post-literate world (where the majority of people can read, but choose not to) the medium of film and documentary is quite important in terms of didactic purposes. And since we inherently employ the narrative form/fiction to make sense of history, a certain romanticised representation of the past would not necessarily be too ridiculous.
But as for me, I like attention to detail and realism - at least as far as it's possible to satisfyingly recreate anything in a manner that is accurate, or at least appears accurate. I had to go have a little lie-down after seeing Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (and not just because it's so damn long)...
Paula wrote: "Terri wrote: "I posted this artcile in the Random Thoughts thread. then decided perhaps it deserves its own discussion thread and people may want to share their thoughts on this subject matter.Fe..."
All due respect to Philippa Gregory, but I have heard this of her books before. I have come across a few people over the years who have said Philippa Gregory plays fast and loose with history.
Jacques wrote: "But as for me, I like attention to detail and realism - at least as far as it's possible to satisfyingly recreate anything in a manner that is accurate, or at least appears accurate. I had to go have a little lie-down after seeing Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (and not just because it's so damn long)... ..."*snort*..when I first saw Alexander I think it took me three times to get through it.
I watched it again last year, and did better second time around.
I like attention to detail and realism also. I have been reading Historical Fiction long enough to tell wehn an author is out of their comfort zone and hasn't done enough research.
I need to feel I am in, as an example, Medieval Poiters and not Kings Landing (,from the fantasy book A Game of Thrones).
It is historical accuracy and good research that can help the reader to feel they in a real medieval scene...and not a George R.R. Martin style fabricated country.
Braveheart did bring William Wallace out of the shadow of history and into the forefront and has made him a household name.
Terri wrote: "It is historical accuracy and good research that can help the reader to feel they in a real medieval scene...and not a George R.R. Martin style fabricated country."True, but the irony of course is that Martin's King's Landing feels more real than some of the supposedly "authentic" settings/milieus that many of the author's talked about in other parts of this thread employ.
I mean I'm reading a book by Valerio Massimo Manfredi (who you might recall is responsible for the book that other horrible film 'The Last Legion' is based on), and so far it doesn't feel incredibly genuine. I'm barely 20 pages in and already the plot is fraught with Hollywood-styled "romance," which seems to consist solely of well-defined cheekboned characters having a romp beneath the sheets every second chapter, and bad narration - i.e. "telling" in stead of "showing."
In this regard Martin might actually be more "real" than other historical fiction writers who claim authenticity, but owing to various reasons can't ever seem to capture this illusive "reality" we're all so hungry for. But then again I rather like George R. R. Martin, so I'm probably biased myself.
But as Gene Wolfe said 'All novels are fantasies. Some are more honest about it'
I approach historical fiction with the expectation that some characters are fictional, some historical characters have been combined, major historical events are accurate, historical accuracy in regard to the culture, people and government. As others have said, the major problem with historical fiction is very dry writing. 65% of this type of fiction is dry or too superficial.
Well, I think comparing film to books is a bit tricky too. I think it was (the fellow who plays Forest Gump...can never remember his name) who said, and I believe when questioned about the lack of honesty in films such as Braveheart and his response was "Between reality and myth, a director should always go with the myth" (I may not have it exact).I think there are different expectations between what we read and what we see. We invest more time, usually, in what we read and we use our own mind to imagine the settings and characters provided, whereas in films it's already done for us.
Even fiction novels become altered for television and film: Game of Thrones and True Blood are changed. One might wonder why would you re-fictionalise a fiction? Same as why historical films and television aren't very good representations of history - people already know it, give them something new to talk about. It's good business and not just a bit self-serving.
Personally I dont really have any problems with authors changing facts to fit the tale or whatever else they choose to do - however what I do object to is authors who proclaim that their book is factual when it is so obviously not. Amd i'm not keen on books that attribute certain behaviour to historical characters who were once living and breathing people, sometimes making things up can go a step too far
Terri wrote: "Paula wrote: "Terri wrote: "I posted this artcile in the Random Thoughts thread. then decided perhaps it deserves its own discussion thread and people may want to share their thoughts on this subje..."I think it depends on the era you are writing about. The further back you go, the harder it is to know exactly what happened. All we often have are one or two threadbare sources, which in themselves are insufficient to create a viable plot. In that case you simply have to fill in the gaps with what you think may have happened.
Either that or write a very short book.
The article you posted made a very good point - the author's note should set out which parts are historically accurate, and which are not. That way, you can write an enjoyable tale, without being restricted to a threadbare plotline.
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...
These two are two I would like to read. There is another, only I can't remember the title to search for it.
Medieval Pets
Breaking and Shaping Beastly Bodies: Animals as Material Culture in the Middle Ages