Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Thom wrote: "Braveheart did bring William Wallace out of the shadow of history and into the forefront and has made him a household name."Maybe, but for all the wrong reasons
Andrew wrote: "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..."Its okay to fill in gaps, I think this thread is more concerned with accuracy
Paula wrote: "Thom wrote: "Braveheart did bring William Wallace out of the shadow of history and into the forefront and has made him a household name."Maybe, but for all the wrong reasons"
Bingo.
Jaime wrote: "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 re..."Jaime, you and I have the exact same approach to historical accuracy in fiction.
Jacques wrote: " 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." ..."You may be on shaky ground there with Manfredi anyway, Jacques. I have never read him and yet he has written so many books I figured there must be one that rates highly. But none do. Something must be missing from those books that people who seek out historical fiction are not finding. All his books have consistently low ratings bar one The Lost Army.
I went through all his books ratings here on GR trying to find just one that rated high enough in Goodreads that I could include it in a Group Read Poll.
That The Lost Army was the only one that had fairly good ratings.
Considering what you are finding in the Manfredi book you are reading, perhaps you have found the key as to why there are a lot of books not rating very well. The history is not presented in an historical way. Perhaps the sense of accuracy is not there and they are just stories that could be set anywhere in anytime?
I wonder if part of the problem with his books may lie in the translation? But I agree, many of his book seem very generic. On the other hand people must like them, as they sell.
Terri wrote: "You may be on shaky ground there with Manfredi anyway, Jacques. I have never read him and yet he has written so many books I figured there must be one that rates highly. But none do. Something must be missing from those books that people who seek out historical fiction are not finding. All his books have consistently low ratings bar one The Lost Army."Funnily enough, The Lost Army is exactly the one I started reading. And while I'm not going to just give up on it because of my horrible first impression, the setting doesn't feel quite right.
It's always the case isn't it: either an author overdoes it with the Ye Olde approach, imagining all kinds of flowery prose or nitty-gritty, in-your-face gore-fest/"romance" to constitute authenticity in the hopes that the reader will be too lost in the purple haze of Ye-Oldyness to really care (the latest Spartacus series is a good example of this), or it's the other way around and they don't put enough adequate Ye Olde signifiers or other such indicators of realism in their narrative constructs, or at least what we expect to constitute realism.
I should probably just go read Xenophon's original text for my Ye Olde fix then...
Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with.
Terri wrote: "Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with."I don't foresee a problem with that.
Terri wrote: "Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with."Do you think so? Maybe you've read an old translation? His stuff is normally pretty interesting and to the point.
Andrew wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with."Do you think so? Maybe you've read an old translation? His stuff is normally pretty interesting an..."
I agree. I think Xenophon is generally a very good and interesting read - especially my old Rex Warner version from Penguin Classics. But for a shortened "edited highlights" you need to read Antony Mockler's THE NEW MERCENARIES, published in the 80s or 90s, and a great study of mercs and their leaders all the way from Xenophon and his Persian Expedition up to the Congo and even the Commores. Brilliant and well-written.
Has anyone read Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth? I just could not get a sense of place or time.
Paula wrote: "Has anyone read Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth? I just could not get a sense of place or time."I just could not get into the writing. :-)
Re: Xenophon. I have tasted the early stages of Xenophon's Persian Expedition and I found it too dry. I'll try again one day. But I am not in a hurry.
Terri wrote: "Paula wrote: "Has anyone read Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth? I just could not get a sense of place or time."I just could not get into the writing. :-)"
I saw the TV version. When we talk about historical accuracy ... let's just say my wife banned me from watching it.
Hahaha! That's what wives are good for. Redirecting their beloveds attentions away from negative energy. :-) I have to do that with my hubby too.
Terri wrote: "Hahaha! That's what wives are good for. Redirecting their beloveds attentions away from negative energy. :-) I have to do that with my hubby too."
Give him my deepest sympathy ...
Terri wrote: "Re: Xenophon. I have tasted the early stages of Xenophon's Persian Expedition and I found it too dry. I'll try again one day. But I am not in a hurry."
It's definitely worth a read. But it's been sitting around waiting for you for 2,500 years, so it probably won't mind waiting a couple more....
The key is to find a modern translation - then the language is better. Once you get into it, the detail about the different fighting styles and different tribes is fascinating. And compared to some ancient writers, Xenophon is pretty brisk.
Paula wrote: "Has anyone read Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth? I just could not get a sense of place or time."I haven't yet, but I also saw the 8-part miniseries by the same name. It's like Follet just sort of transplanted a bunch of modern notions on morality and romance and such into an almost pseudo-medieval setting, since King's Bridge isn't even a real place. And it's very black-and-white almost, and often cartoonish: the Corrupt and Ambitious Bishop, the Scheming Nobles, the Evil Earl, the Beautiful Yet Destitute Earl's Daughter, and the Good Peripheral "Witch" With a Heart of Gold (who presumably is supposed to represent secular morality or something similarly unoriginal).
So I’m very much in agreement with you there.
Jacques wrote: "Paula wrote: "Has anyone read Ken Follet's Pillars of the Earth? I just could not get a sense of place or time."I haven't yet, but I also saw the 8-part miniseries by the same name. It's like Fo..."
You put it into perspective exactly Jacques. The only sens i felt that the author had a good working knowledge of the history and times was when he wrote scenes abotu the building of the cathedral. He also seemed obsessed with writing scenes of men abusing women! lol
I loved The Pillars of the Earth. The book not the TV miniseries. It has been many years since I read it though, so I might feel differently if I read it now. The TV miniseries was very poorly done in my opinion.
The tv mini-series followed a standard and very predictable tv formula. It was average but the book was very good.
Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with."I've always found Xenophon's works to be fairly pacey, in comparison to others. Must have been the..."
You've got good taste, Stuart!
What did you say your degree was?
Andrew wrote: "I wonder if part of the problem with his books may lie in the translation? But I agree, many of his book seem very generic. On the other hand people must like them, as they sell."
I'm sorry to say it isn't the translation. I tried the original version of a couple of his books, and they are quite generic and romanced - with sometimes supernatural elements (as in Chimaira).
A large part of readers, first of all myself, isn't a writer or a historian, and hasn't the schooling to perceive the inaccuracies of a supposed good HF book, like Philippa Gregory ones; but I like to think that taste can always be improved, and that even Pillars of the Earth and Manfredi's books can allow a reader to approach HF and, having kindled an interest, you can learn to choose better books. Maybe joining an educated group like this one.
That's why I disagree with Paula (post 210),because IMHO there aren't wrong reasons to be interested in something, be it a character, an era, a book. If a bad movie made some people eager to learn about history, maybe it isn't so bad, after all.
I’ve read both parts of Ken Follett’s epic work and loved it. I have heard many criticisms about the architectural aspects but I even found these exciting and intriguing. Europe still has thousands of old churches and cathedrals and the work involved in building them is now taken by many as no small feat. Pillars of the Earth puts these feats in the forefront and how problems were solved.
Guess the books have to be better than the tv series, at any rate - it's usually the case. Also they must be doing well since I see stacks of copies of them in every single bookstore all the time for months and months now, so Follet must be doing something right. I'm picking up a copy tomorrow...There's also a follow-up miniseries based on Follet's World Without End. How does that compare to the books, does anyone know?
Simona wrote: "...IMHO there aren't wrong reasons to be interested in something, be it a character, an era, a book. If a bad movie made some people eager to learn about history, maybe it isn't so bad, after all."I think this way... and try hard to think this way, even with hf where I know a bit about the subject and can't stand the treatment.
I keep in mind an example from my own life. In our 1st class in West Asian Studies at university, the prof laughed to scorn a past student who chose the subject because she'd seen the film 'Lawrence of Arabia'. I shrank in my seat... and wondered whether there were others shrinking in their seats. If it sparked an interest... we're in a course... what's wrong with that?? The film's done a service.
Bryn wrote: "Simona wrote: "...IMHO there aren't wrong reasons to be interested in something, be it a character, an era, a book. If a bad movie made some people eager to learn about history, maybe it isn't so b...Braveheart might have sparked an interest but some people actually believed the portrayals of Wallace having an affair with Isabella( who i believe to be no more than a child at the time in France) and the effeminate version of Edward's son Edward. Thats where it fails
@Paula I confess I stamped on and cracked apart my dvd of that half-animated 'Beowulf' with Angelina Jolie. It's not like I don't get upset.
I agree that not all inaccuracies are equal.The latest episode of The Borgias, for example, had the Spear of Longinus arriving in Rome close to 1500, when in fact it arrived in 1492, and to Rodrigo's predecessor in the Vatican. But that didn't spoil the episode one bit - at least not in my opinion.
Yeah, I think there are some film adaptations of real stories (or beloved sags..;)...) where the directors go too far and actually cause more damage than good. In the case of Braveheart, in my opinion, that is what they did. That wasn t just historical inaccuracy' that was a historical train wreck.
It's not like Arthur, where there are so few facts to go on, so the director can do what he wants with the story.
I feel in the retelling of a history where much is known, such as the Scottish Wars of Independence, the story was good enough without the ridiculous fabrications.
Bryn wrote: "I keep in mind an example from my own life. In our 1st class in West Asian Studies at university, the prof laughed to scorn a past student who chose the subject because she'd seen the film 'Lawrence of Arabia'. I shrank in my seat... and wondered whether there were others shrinking in their seats. If it sparked an interest... we're in a course... what's wrong with that?? The film's done a service. "Same here. I took an intro to Medieval history course in my first year because of my all-time favorite book which I read over and over growing up. It's a YA triology set during the Hundred Years War (sadly only available in Dutch and German), mostly retelling the adventures of Bertran du Guesclin. The kindest analysis of the historical accuracy in the book is, that it's based on outdated historical research (it's very clear she took Johan Huizinga's view of chivalry to heart...). My teacher - who was otherwise wonderful and very inspiring - laughed about all those sorry people who took their image of what medieval life was like from those books. But thanks to those books, I took that course and I'm in my last year of a masters degree in medieval studies.
Terri wrote:"It's not like Arthur, where there are so few facts to go on, so the director can do what he wants with the story.
I feel in the retelling of a history where much is known, such as the Scottish Wars of Independence, the story was good enough without the ridiculous fabrications."
I'm curious what you think of series like the Borgias, were almost all events either occured at a different time, or under different circumstances, or didn't happen at all. Yet, at the same time, the series has done a brilliant job presenting a picture of late medieval / renaissance life as well as giving their characters some brilliant typically medieval reactions to events (Cesare's ochestration of Savonarola's downfall, or the Pope's behavior when the French king arrives in Rome. Brilliant! Like it's taken straight from the chronicles).
So I agree with Paul, there's different kinds of inaccuracies. For me, if you get the spirit of the time right, the worldview of that time and the way people interacted, I can forgive moving some events around to tell a more exciting story.
I'm awfully biased against Arthurian stories. I find just about any king Arthur adaption unwatchable (not talking books here, I read some Arthur books I liked). Everybody just sticks to the Morte d'Arthur version as if it's the WORD OF GOD when it comes to the Arthurian legend. There is barely any original take on the storylines - or someone who decides to follow the lead of another writer than Malory. It's as if Malory's the only interpretation available.
The only movie I liked was "the Fisher King", which is a loose, modern interpretation of Percival's and Gawain's grail quest. It was orginal and clever (but what else can be expected of Terry Gilliam?), while 99% of the Arthurian interpretations are threadbare and overdone - on top of taking historical liberties. The series Camelot and that awful movie with Richard Gere are fighting for first place in mediocrity and ridiciousness. And I'm sure those aren't even the worst things that can be found in that cesspit.
Hi Sanne,I'm afraid that I haven't watched The Borgias. I understand many people love it. Everyone is different. But series' like that and The Tudors that are really about the sex lives or dating lives of people from history, don't appeal to me.
As I said though. Everyone is different. People see different things in books and film and everything really. One persons sees The Borgias or The Tudors as an historical Days of Our Lives (me) and other people see these series' as a tv series masterpieces. We are all right. :-)
Oh, and Sanne, :-) I certainly hope you join us in the Arthur related group read in June!
http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1...
It is about Merlin (not magical Merlin) and precedes the authors King Arthur series. The author M.K. Hume will also be joining us when she can in the group read discussion.
I am sure you and M.K will have some interesting conversations (one Arthur fan to another) about Arthur that I would like to read. :-)
Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, but Xenophon's works are so dry that you need much wine to wash it down with."I've always found Xenophon's works to be fairly pacey, in comparison to others. Must have been the..."
Reading Thucydides when I was at high school was of the things that helped me decide to add classics to my to my degree. From memory it was Rex Warner's translation of the Peleponesian War. Also strengthened my love of history, which was the major in my degree.
Bryn wrote: "@Paula I confess I stamped on and cracked apart my dvd of that half-animated 'Beowulf' with Angelina Jolie. It's not like I don't get upset."Oh, i really liked that film lol! ITs a fantasy anyway :)
Paul wrote: "I agree that not all inaccuracies are equal.The latest episode of The Borgias, for example, had the Spear of Longinus arriving in Rome close to 1500, when in fact it arrived in 1492, and to Rodri..."
agreed, some inaccuracies are minor compared with stating that someone had an affair with a princess who wasnt even in the country!And although i love the Kingdom of Heaven it gets very annoying when Balian is supposed to have run off with Queen Sybilla
Yes, that Kingdom of Heaven had some storylines that made me double take. :-)
Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, that Kingdom of Heaven had some storylines that made me double take. :-)""300" is a very VERY historically accurate movie also *hides*.
Mutants.
Black Blood.
Spartans holding ..."
True, Stuart. Odd that the director missed out the roasted babies and necromancy. Or maybe I had fallen asleep by then? ;)
Stuart wrote: "Andrew wrote: "What did you say your degree was?"My degree was Ancient History."
We both joined Goodreads about the same day, so I might be confused about who was who, but was it about ancient battles? I saw a post from someone who had studied ancient battles?
I think that in film, like in books, the notes are important. While films like Alexander purported to be relatively historically accurate, 300 always only claimed to be the cinematic version of a graphic novel which was inspired by the events at Thermopylae. A bit funny how much work we all put in to be entertained.
Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, that Kingdom of Heaven had some storylines that made me double take. :-)""300" is a very VERY historically accurate movie also *hides*.
Mutants.
Black Blood.
Spartans holding ..."
I think that movies like "300" and "Beowulf" don't really serve to be historically accurate - in a way, they're like the campfire legends that these guys would tell about their exploits once they got home. (Well, if they survived.) It's like the heroic poems the bards composed for banquets; a certain amount of hyperbole is part of the art. If a Spartan has survived one of the greatest battles of his history and is bragging the story up later, then of COURSE the enemy king was ten feet tall, and of COURSE all the Spartans had bodies like gods and no need of armor. It's not history; it's a heroic ode which is usually 40% inflated drama, 50% poetic license, and 10% actual fact.
In the Cornwell Arthur trilogy, the hero is constantly griping about this. "The bards say that the fight lasted the day long, and the moon had risen by the time the enemy fell at Arthur's feet. In truth, the enemy did fall at moonrise - but the sun was already setting when they started fighting, so the whole duel probably lasted 10 minutes. But you'll never find a bard who tells THAT story."
Kate wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, that Kingdom of Heaven had some storylines that made me double take. :-)""300" is a very VERY historically accurate movie also *hides*.
Mutants.
Black Blood.
Sp..."
Spot on, Kate.
Kate wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Terri wrote: "Yes, that Kingdom of Heaven had some storylines that made me double take. :-)""300" is a very VERY historically accurate movie also *hides*.
Mutants.
Black Blood.
Sp..."
It's happened again - that comment was - oddly enough - meant for Kate's post at 259.
Maybe the Spartans wouldn't boast (and in that occasion, there were hardly enough survivors to do so!) but the poets who hear of their deeds afterward do. In any warrior culture, the idea is that a man's reputation lives after him in his deeds. Especially in oral tradition, where the stories of heroic deeds are told rather than written - and like a game of telephone, stories that are told and not written do tend to become blurred over time.
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...
< "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."
You're right, Terri. Good research should create a believable world. I find it disappointing to read historical fiction which is just modern characters transplanted to a generic olde worlde setting.