Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
So we're at peace again! Great. What I wanted to ask before, was which battles you studied? I am interested.
God yes! I sometimes wonder if academics remember they're studying REAL people.
hmmm interesting that this discussion on the "lack of imagination and empathy" of academics started on the exageration of the odds in battle. On the topic of taking histories / epics / chronicles at face value: I find that people who'd do that in presenting their core arguments aren't exactly top of their field... Though sometimes historians can be caught making small whoopsies when it comes to details which are not at the core of their argument - perhaps some juicy anecdote they'd wanted to include to make their writing more lively. Much like a certain fiction writer who had a recent run in with a tomato, or - well - just about any historical fiction writer as you're going to make mistakes in your writing.Besides, perhaps it helps to remember that arguing "human nature" is not an academic agrument. How are you possibly going to prove that these particular humans would have behaved in that particular way in those particular circumstances? You'd need more than what you'd think is "human nature". Fiction writers, on the other hand, are free to make that judgement call about how people might have reacted based on what they'd think is "human nature".
This particular point of believing stories about great odds (because it suits you) is precisely one thing I came across in Bernard Cornwell's book Azincourt. In his historical note, he writes that one eminent scholar has recently argued that the odds at Azincourt weren't as great as the chronicles like us to believe. I looked her up, as well as her writing on the issue. She's backed more and more by other scholars in the field. Yet he chose to go with the other approach of great odds because of his "gut feelings". Though every bit of logic (human nature about boasting after a smashing victory, sources in the English and French finances, etc.) dictates that the odds wouldn't have been that great as chroniclers would like us to believe....
So he gets to hide behind artistic licence while academics who made similar unlogical argumentations are poor judges of human nature? really?
- - - - -
ps. thanks for your response Terri! We might not see eye to eye about the Borgias (I think you might be a bit too harsh about the first and second season of the series. Loads of political intrigue going on as well as interesting family dynamics. Though I agree with you about season 3. Up to now, I'm bitterly disappointed and I'm considering to stop watching all together). And thanks for the suggestion of the Juin Arthur reading. Looks very promising. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to join reading it, but I'll certainly follow the discussion!
Darcy wrote: "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 g..."Precisely. I never took 300 seriously as an historical piece. It was just a semi animated movie based on the Battle of Thermopylae and the Spartans.
Like King Arthur, there is such sketchy details out there for that particular battle that a director, or author, can play around with the story as much as he likes. In my opinion. :-)
Kate wrote: " 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. ..."Oop. Moving up checking the new posts. I read Darcy's and responded and then I see Kate posted next and made the Spartan/King Arthur comparison too. :-)
Kate wrote: "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 ..."Yes, exactly, even today (and as a military wife you know this yourself, Kate), a squad gets in a firefight, a soldier does a brave act and saves his team mates from two mujahideen. And at the end of the day his mates will boast about what their team mate did, to those who weren't there.
The individual may boast himself, or will be bashful and others will play the story up. But by the time the army gets home and they are drinking in a port or after returning to base, suddenly, that one soldier took down ten Mujahideen instead of two.
By the time those soldiers are having a reunion 20 years later the story amplifies even more...
Throw some journalists into any of these equations at any of the stages, or a film maker, and the story spreads beyond inner circles as well and will be exaggerated or twisted even more in order to sensationalise events and before you know it..you may have yourself a legend. The story of a soldier and his squad who committed a legendary act in the face if great adversity. Outnumbered. Cut off from the Battalion. Under siege by at least 30 mujahideen. Coms down. Then Johnnie risked it all and got the squad out and to safety without a single casualty.
I have no doubt, in my mind, and that's okay if others disagree, that boasting and 10% fact is a pretty close description of what happened in battle stories since time immemorial.
Sanne wrote: " . Looks very promising. I'm not sure whether I'll be able to join reading it, but I'll certainly follow the discussion! ."In that case, please know you are welcome to jump into the discussion on her book in June even if you are not reading it with us. :-)
Go back to bed. :-)
Or go to bed...whichever works.
Lol. Don't be hurt. It's my nature. ;)
Terri wrote: "Lol. Don't be hurt. It's my nature. ;)"Yes it is. Will even testify in court if need be ;)
No need. I think everyone knows..except Rough Stu, who now knows, so now everyone knows. :-)
Jacques wrote: "I had to go have a little lie-down after seeing Oliver Stone's 'Alexander' (and not just because it's so damn long)... "What's interesting is Oliver Stone has been a fanatic about Alexander since childhood. He read every history on the subject he could get his hands on, and had some very well-regarded historians as consultants on the film. So I assume every historical inaccuracy was made out of artistic license, and efforts to appeal to a broad film audience, rather than ignorance. In the Director's voice-over, Stone mentions that he did not show maps in the film, because modern American audience hate them. It's likely that a historically accurate (or even plausible) film about Alexander would not be commercially viable.
Rob wrote: "What's interesting is Oliver Stone has been a fanatic about Alexander since childhood. He read every history on the subject he could get his hands on, and had some very well-regarded historians as consultants on the film. So I assume every historical inaccuracy was made out of artistic license, and efforts to appeal to a broad film audience, rather than ignorance. In the Director's voice-over, Stone mentions that he did not show maps in the film, because modern American audience hate them. It's likely that a historically accurate (or even plausible) film about Alexander would not be commercially viable. "Exactly: it's part of the post-literate (post-modern, even) world. Most people don't really like dusty historical accounts; they want a bit of flash and sensationalism to go with everything - because nowadays that's how we connect with "reality," as contradictory as that might seem. And because that sort of thing sells...
But also, artistic liberties are sort of unavoidable with telling Alexander's tale, since it's so big and far-stretching that it has to be compounded and essentialised to an extent in order to fit it into the average time-span of a box-office hit, or between the covers of a novel even. No way of getting around it, not really.
Also, didn't the historical consultants involved in the film withdraw their names? I think I read that somewhere...
Andrew wrote: "Forgive me, Stuart - just when we were seeing eye to eye - but I disagree with that! I think Kate was right - if any Spartans (or their helot arm bearers, and other attendees) did survive they sure..."The Spartans (and other Greeks) certainly did mythologize their past, claiming their aristocrats descended from Gods, and that their forefathers were giants (accounts have them arranging and displaying bones of large animals as proof that Spartans were once 12 feet tall).
The problem I have with the 300 is it doesn't even capture the spirit of the times. Spartans, for instance, would have been quite familiar with Persians, since they ended up dealing with them closely in alliance against Athens. And the whole notion of Spartans as freedom fighters, when their society rested on the backs of one of the most brutal slave regimes in history, is odious. Not to mention the denunciation of Persians as homosexuals, when it was Sparta that had a policy of institutionalized pederasty. The 300 is ancient Sparta through the distorting lens of a modern Western male of a quasi-fascist ideological bent. It's a festishized depiction of hyper-masculinity utterly divorced from history.
Rob wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Forgive me, Stuart - just when we were seeing eye to eye - but I disagree with that! I think Kate was right - if any Spartans (or their helot arm bearers, and other attendees) did su..."Great stuff, Rob! I agree absolutely. And the problem with films like this is that though the well-read and enquiring members of Goodeads are sophisticated to to realise that the films they watch are not necessarily 'real history', an awful lot of people do not realise this at all. Most people have NOT read Thucydides, or even Herodotus, let alone fair-minded Xenophon. To many of the filmgoers who saw 300, Persians now really ARE an evil horde.
That is an appalling indictment of Hollywood. Changing a few facts in a book may not be the end of the world, but perpetuating an historical libel against any group is unacceptable. Goodness knows, I am not politically correct - but I happen to think that truth - be it legal, historical or otherwise - is precious.
Yes, it can be discouraging when people who don't know their history take Hollywood's version at face value. I've had people inform me that they KNOW Henry VIII was a total hunk, because they've seen Jonathan Rhys Meyers in the role in "The Tudors." Not much use explaining that by the end of his life the man was obese and syphilitic - nope, Showtime is proof that he was a hunk all the way to the end.
Kate wrote: "Yes, it can be discouraging when people who don't know their history take Hollywood's version at face value. I've had people inform me that they KNOW Henry VIII was a total hunk, because they've s..."LOL!
Its not just Hollywood though. Popular HF literature can also contribute to the most widely believed version of events as well as films. A good example of this is King Harold (Godwinson)'s "tattoos". It seems to be widely accepted historical 'fact' that after the battle of Hastings, Harold's mistress Edith identified his mutilated, decapitated body by the tattoos on his chest, and this is so widely believed that it was included (and dramitized) in the UK Channel 4's docu-drama "1066" a couple of years back. It turns out that a historical source only spoke of "marks" and in fact the tattoos were invented by a Victorian novelist in a popular piece of HF from a hundred or so years ago that since entered popular belief."Nothing has ever been finally figured out, because there is nothing final to figure out”
― Charles Fort
Sanne wrote: "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 ..."Even then we are learning new things all the time. For example its been an accepted part of that story that Robert Bruce's wife, after captrue by the English was hung in a cage from the walls of a castle for years - a barbaric torture at the hands of a cruel tyrant. It now seems that perhaps the conditions weren't so brutal:
http://davidmaclaine.wordpress.com/20...
Sanne wrote: "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. ..."They are bad, but there is worse. The Arthur film with Clive Owen, Ray Winstone etc that came out a few years back was *truely* awful, IMHO.
I often wonder if Mallory is the most widely excepted version of the mythos is because
a: its probably the most comprehensive
b: its the only one written in something close to modern English.
Tim wrote: "Sanne wrote: "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 ..."Even then we a..."
I thought it was Robert the Bruce's daughter who was hung in a cage.
Eileen wrote: "I thought it was Robert the Bruce's daughter who was hung in a cage. ..."sorry it was neither his wife nor his daughter, it was his sister. Though Robert's Dad was also called Robert Bruce so I suppose it was the daughter of a Robert the Bruce.
For the record, in regards to Braveheart and 300. When those movies came out I wasn't reading historical fiction nor much historical non fiction. I was reading mostly crime thriller and non fiction military and some Saxon/Norman non fiction.I had not joined a library then and because I live in an isolated area my reading was limited as money is always tight around here and my book buying was boredering on non existent.
I had an interest in history, but it manifested in writing. I liked to write fiction for myself. I did not realise there was a historical fiction 'genre' and I didn't realise I was writing in that genre.
(My writing was always just for me. Because i couldn't read what I was interested in, I wrote about it instead. To please myself).
Still, back then Braveheart to me, as a novice, was simply ridiculous. I had learned enough in school to know how ridiculous hollywood had gotten with the story.
300. To me was an animated movie. And so it is. As animateed as the Jolie Beowulf movie pretty much.
Being fairly new to that history back in 2006 when I saw the movie, I never took one bit of it seriously. I knew it wasn't supposed to be an historically factual piece.
And most people I knew and know now, don't regard that movie as anything but just a cool movie done like a graphic novel.
I also loved the King Arthur movie with Clive Owen. For me, it was fantastic as a historical setting. I never expected that was true Arthur...because nobody knows what the true Arthur story is...or if there definitely is one. It actually inspired me to find some fiction books set in early british history and that is how I first stumbled upon the Bernard Cornwell saxon series. It is that movie that made me find those books, start reading HF, come to GR to seek more books like that, get involved in groups, and then...be here today modding an historical fiction group.
So I was all into that movie and it inspired me.
Due to the enjoyment factor and the eternally hot, Mads Mikkelsen. :)
Stuart wrote: "Sanne wrote: "hmmm interesting that this discussion on the "lack of imagination and empathy" of academics started on the exageration of the odds in battle. On the topic of taking histories / epics ..."Sure, I agree with you that you'd always need to look at who wrote what and why before turning to the text itself. Very true for historical texts as well as texts by historians. Yet, the comments above (I wasn't specifically directing my comment at you) seem to suggest that ALL historians lack a fundamental understanding of "human nature". Seemed a bit strange in a topic where people are capable of expressing nuanced views about different types of historical fiction and historical fiction authors. :)
Tim wrote: "They are bad, but there is worse. The Arthur film with Clive Owen, Ray Winstone etc that came out a few years back was *truely* awful, IMHO.I often wonder if Mallory is the most widely excepted version of the mythos is because
a: its probably the most comprehensive
b: its the only one written in something close to modern English. "
I willfully banished that movie from my memory. Thank you for bringing that one back up :)
Hmmmm Malory is certainly not the most comprehensive. There are also complete versions in French and Dutch that I'm aware of. Possibly also in other languages. These versions always differ, as authors put different emphasis on characters or events (Malory seems to have been very interested in Lancelot), and they generally inserted their own episodes into the story as well. Malory did with the story of Gareth. The Dutch and French versions also have their unique stories inserted.
I believe it's a combination of the English language and subsequent authors (Tennison as the main culprit) using Malory's version for their own interpretations.
A complete shame that other takes on the story are ignored. I prefer traditions with a heavier focus on Gawain, who's my favorite knight (he's like the medieval James Bond! Always there to save the day, and for every story a different girl). Yet he always has a subordinate role in modern takes on the story.
Terri wrote: "For the record, ..."
My teacher in high school made us watch Troy, Saving Private Rian and the Patriot so we'd get an idea what life was like during those times. I even remember him pausing Troy at some places to point out: "look! they lived in huts like that!"
It's great if those movies made history more real to students, but I wonder how many of my classmates still think those movies are accurate representations of history....
Sanne wrote: "Stuart wrote: "Sanne wrote: "hmmm interesting that this discussion on the "lack of imagination and empathy" of academics started on the exageration of the odds in battle. On the topic of taking his..."To be fair to Suart, he was responding to a comment I made about academics. I don't think he was intending to suggest that every single academic is lacking in an understanding of human nature, and nor was I. Sweeping generalisations are rarely accurate.
But there is a tendency - and I stress the word - (actually I would stress it if I knew how - does this script do italics?) with academics to focus on their pet theory/argument/topic and to fail to see things in the round. And one of the attributes they often fail to take into account is, in my view, human nature. Perhaps because a truthful assessment of many historical events would have to admit - as I think someone said earlier in this thread 'we just don't know what really happened.' And that sort of conclusion does not produce very good academic papers, or win grants, or advance the writer's career....
Andrew, check out the (some html is ok) button at the top right of the comment box to see how to do italics for future use.
Dawn wrote: "Andrew, check out the (some html is ok) button at the top right of the comment box to see how to do italics for future use."Thanks!...
Andrew wrote: "But there is a tendency - and I stress the word - (actually I would stress it if I knew how - does this script do italics?) with academics to focus on their pet theory/argument/topic and to fail to see things in the round..."Sorry if I've mentioned this before, but when I was at university I particularly remember attending a lecture on "Beowulf as part of the Marxist dialectic"
I have mentioned before (wayyyyyyy back in the thread) how important I think the study of Anthropology is for an author planning in dealing with perhaps a series of books (because you are committing yourself to a decade or more to writing about human nature in history) and to historians and to academics studying history. In my opinion, anthropological studies and comprehension are overlooked when authors write about history. As I posted many pages back in this thread, many of your 'historical human natures' can be found in cultures and races to this very day.
Terri wrote: "I have mentioned before (wayyyyyyy back in the thread) how important I think the study of Anthropology is..."Amen. Novelists and historians. I read history works where I think, "needs anthropology..." I even see the importance as maybe 60/40, what with the things history can't and won't tell you. If historians don't get a feel for anthropology.
As someone with a degree in anthropology, I think it's something everyone should be exposed to, writer or not. Then again, I'm obviously extremely biased. :D
Oh didn't know that. Great choice, Darcy. I've discovered the wonders of anthropology late in life... I'll come to you for knowledge.
Bryn wrote: "Oh didn't know that. Great choice, Darcy. I've discovered the wonders of anthropology late in life... I'll come to you for knowledge."So did I. Nothing like going to Uni and being old enough to be your classmates mum. Don't regret it one bit though.
How did I not know this about you Darcy? If you told me I had not noticed. I join Bryn in commending you on your choice and I also came to Anthropology later in life.If I had known when I was 17 that it would interest me so much in my 30's, I would have gone to Uni after highschool and studied it.
Anthropological study is the key to opening the door to human nature. I think studying history or writing about history without an average comprehension of such things as socio cultural anthropology is like writing partly blind.
I realise now that when you said to me not long ago that you wrote a thesis (was it a thesis?) on Manx linguistics, that this must have been part of your Anthropology Degree. For the Linguistics Anthropology level. Is that right?
I think I had it noted on my profile at some point but then with the whole Amazon whatsit I deleted all that stuff. I don't think I ever mentioned in any thread before though. I wish I had known that what I was interested in could be studied when I was younger, I had no idea. It wasn't until I met a couple on the internet and they started asking me if I was one that I realised there something out there. Then it was a case of getting over the age thing and just 'doing it'. Anyway, as for historical accuracy, I agree, social cultural aspects are very important as are knowing where that information comes from and who by. Much as historians and any other researcher should do - questioning the sources is all part of writing I think. Also, an understanding of the source's perspective and biases are equally essential.
And why the heck are their voice adverts on this site all a sudden. Ruins my typing flow...grrrr
Terri wrote: "I realise now that when you said to me not long ago that you wrote a thesis (was it a thesis?) on Manx linguistics, that this must have been part of your Anthropology Degree. For the Linguistics An..."That was for additional Celtic "speciality". My Uni didn't offer minor degrees in association with a Major (I also have a "speciality" in Modern History). Though, the Manx paper opened up my desire for linguistics.
ETA: My linguistics portion I wrote on Language and its uses in English Commonwealth Law Courts. That was eye opening.
When authors and writers and historians talk of how can one know. Many of their answers are out there. If they want to find them.As many of you know, there are isolated cultures living in ways not too dissimiliar to how people have lived since biblical times. An isolated tribesman and his family in Afghanistan (until the war of course) can go his entire life never having met any outside influences. He tends his flock, interacts with his family and other men in nigh on exactly the same way as an early farmer in (for example) the time of Christ.
The answers and cultures are out there. If one wants to imbue their stories with a 'human nature' relevant to a time and setting, one only needs to look at culture and the social sciences.
Of course if someone is only going to write one book and detail of human nature is not something they want to inject into their story, then anthropology won't matter to you.
But some amatuer reading on the matter cannot hurt, it can only make things better.
Yes. You can find equivalents. Get a sense for what's possible and impossible, what happens and doesn't happen in human cultures. I'm a believer that anthropology on the other side of the world can give you clues, examples, an idea how that piece of culture you know from a history might operate, day to day, among actual people.
Exactly. Could not agree more.
Bryn wrote: "Yes. You can find equivalents. Get a sense for what's possible and impossible, what happens and doesn't happen in human cultures...."-"Or if all else fails just make it up"
Bernard Cornwell :-)
To be fair, he said this after a story about how he had tried to wade into a river in India (in the name of research) to see how deep it would have been for Sharpe and his men - but was deterred by the crocodiles. "And that's where your imagination comes in - if all else fails, just make it up." After all, how many readers of Sharpe are likely to know how deep that particular river is at that particular point
Terri wrote: "I have mentioned before (wayyyyyyy back in the thread) how important I think the study of Anthropology is for an author planning in dealing with perhaps a series of books (because you are committin..."Totally agree with you there Terri
Tim wrote: "To be fair, he said this after a story about how he had tried to wade into a river in India (in the name of research) to see how deep it would have been for Sharpe and his men - but was deterred by..."Welll...wading in rivers...I think as readers we will let finer hydrological inaccuracies pass. :-)
Tee hee. The joke that had to happen.
Bryn wrote: "Yes. You can find equivalents. Get a sense for what's possible and impossible, what happens and doesn't happen in human cultures. I'm a believer that anthropology on the other side of the world can..."Bryn wrote: "Yes. You can find equivalents. Get a sense for what's possible and impossible, what happens and doesn't happen in human cultures. I'm a believer that anthropology on the other side of the world can..."
True. In my oasis in Egypt the tribes only got electricity 20 years ago, and some outlying communities still don't have it. They have been farming there in the same, non-mechanised way for centuries, possibly millennia, and you can still speak to middle aged people who grew up without television, artificial lighting, fridges, or cars. They cooked using wood until very recently, and until the road was finished a few years ago -linking them to a town 350km away - they were wholly isolated from the modern world.
Culturally they are among the most conservative anywhere - married women cannot show their hands or faces in public.
It is another world, and a real insight to how people lived in the past.
Their attitude to death, for example, is incomprehensible to us - if a child is killed in an accident (nowadays often a road accident), the person responsible is automatically forgiven as long as he takes food to the mourning house, and sits with them each day for a month. There is no blame, and no criminal penalty applies. The logic is that in a small, isolated community, disputes must not be allowed to fester.
You are right that anthropology is central to understanding the way people lived in the past.
Soldiers swear, so a bit of swearing is inevitable. How much depends on the audience of the book. Soldiers probably swear an awful lot, so the passage you cited (which I recognise but annoyingly can't place) may not be far from the truth.
But if the language is all f'fing and blinding, it would make for a pretty dreary book....
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...
The reason such exaggeration is not routinely recognised in the academic literature is that academic historians are in my experience often poor judges of human nature, and lacking in imagination.
One example. Can't remember if it is in Caesar's Gallic War, or possibly the section where he is describing his battles with Pompey, but somewhere he makes a quip that his men were complaining that all they had to eat was meat. (Bacon I think it may have been - but it doesn't really matter.) The commentator had put a footnote at this point, saying (broadly) 'Caesar's soldiers apparently did not normally eat meat'-as in they did not like it.
I nearly died laughing when I read this! Of course Roman soldiers ate meat (when they could get it)! Caesar's men were joking; it would be like a bunch of squaddies today getting invited to the Queen's garden party, going home with big grins on their faces, and complaining to their girlfriends 'It were awful Luv - all we got given was champagne and smoked salmon!"
Academic literature is just that - academic and literature. It is not real life.