Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Stuart wrote: "Serious question - Swearing in Greek/Roman historical novels using modern language - good or a bad thing? Opinions please.Example -
“Soldiers of the Ninth Century, I am your new centurion, Marc..."
You'll see lots of discussion and debate in swearing in past pages on this thread.
I hate it. I think that part you just quoted is bloody ridiculous and I don't think I will read that book now.
It never ceases to amaze me that authors use modern examples of swearing in a cluster like that because they haven't the skill to create a military feel without it.
I read a lot of books that have minimal or no swearing (Robert Low and Bernard Cornwell) and they don't seem to have a problem creating boys being boys scenes without the tryhard swearing.
But anyway...I have made my opinions on swearing in HF books clear numerous times in group and it is kind of flogging a dead horse for me. :-)
The long and short of it.. I can handle a simple swearword like the f word or the c word or whatever, as long as it is only once every now and then and feels natural. I am a heavy swearer and am not offended by swearing. So it isn t like reading swearwords offends my delicate sensibilities. It's just that swearing like in that passage Stu quoted, sounds so poorly written. Like the author hasn't the skills to write about soldiers so he/she has to revert to the Modern English soldier example...well..at least some modern English soldier examples. Not all squaddies speak like that.
Authors who like to use swearwords enmasse in their books will always find excuses for it being there. Because they like to write them, they will always defend them. They cannot be impartial.
It is only readers who can be impartial on the swearing issue.
Yes thank you, I know it was from Riches. It was Andrew who was asking. :)As for the book, there is some of that swearing but it's not a massive part of the book from what I recall.
Andrew wrote: "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 ..."
There is no probably about it. Soldiers swear ... ALOT!
The F word is used a noun, verb, adjective and adverb. You get so you don't even hear it.
I differ to happy here..if I were a soldier, in any era, going into to battle, I'm pretty sure I would be swearing my ass off. It doesn't bother me in fiction, but over doing it can be annoying.
Stuart wrote: "It was from Anthony Riches novel Dawn. I agree Andrew. In some novels I've read, I feel that I've been fettered within the 'modern' world by the amount of swearing and profanity we use today. Wha..."
I don't know if swear words are often preserved in the historic record, other than maybe a few Roman ones. The Persians must have sworn, but we don't know how.
I don't think I would write a passage as colourful as that, but to be fair to Anthony Riches the fiction industry believes that readers expect a certain amount of swearing; my first draft had only two swear words, and my agent made me insert a few more...
I know plenty of soldiers who don't swear every scond word. They just swear when they have to. And my grandfather, who was in WW2, says that he and his fellows didn't swear all that much. That the swearing that is done today wasn't used as much in his time....and I can tell you he isn't glossing over the truth becasue he is talking to his grand daughter. he had no problem telling me about the lady joint they all used to go to when on base in Canada. And how the strippers used to have sex with themselves with coke bottles...so yes, he would tell me the truth about the swearing.
Stuart wrote: "Serious question - Swearing in Greek/Roman historical novels using modern language - good or a bad thing? Opinions please.Example -
“Soldiers of the Ninth Century, I am your new centurion, Marc..."
Yes, I'm sure they had their profanity, but why use any? Or use it VERY sparingly--and not the F-word. I think of a centurion as a cross between a drill sergeant and a mid-level officer, say, a captain; he would be rough on the soldiers under him. This particular book left a bad taste in my mouth because of the profanity, so I gave it away. I hate foul language in any book.
Well I dont like the over use of foul language but sometimes "Sausage and chips!" or "Oh dear!" just doesnt cut it in Hist fict
In the first draft of my book Feud, I was taken to task by my [female] test readers over the number of F words. At first I argued about this as every one was uttered in a perfectly natural context. However, I gave it some serious thought and went through every example and forced myself to justify every occasion I'd used an F word. I ended up deleting about two thirds of them but I am now confident about their use. On a different point, it is not really about soldiers swearing it is a cultural thing. Amongst certain groups of people - not always soldiers - swearing positively saturates speech. I'm talking every other word beginning with F! This has been true forever so I would expect that in most genres, including HF, writers would use swearing. If a reader does not like swearing at all, that would seem a little unrealistic.
Derek wrote: " If a reader does not like swearing at all, that would seem a little unrealistic. ..."Wrong. And please don't offend the members who do not like swearing in books.
Funny. There are thousands of Classics written throughout history that don't use one swearword. They managed to write magnificent books that last and are relevant to this day, and yet so many modern writers seem to think swearing 'has' to be in a hf or it isn't natural.
If someone thinks swear words need to be in hist fic then they need to go read a Bernard Cornwell novel. He writes very real battle scenes and macho scenes without a single 'f#ck' word. It can be done and it can be done well by good writers.
Actually Bernard Cornwell has used the "C" word though. I don't think I've offended anyone. I did not say that swearing "has" to be in any genre of writing; my point was that swearing is a constant feature of language use and therefore as a reader you're going to come across it and it would be unrealistic to think you're not. Nor did I say that every reader needs to like it - the reader always has the choice. That's the point of reading: authors write a rich variety of books and we don't all like the same things.The argument that the F word can be avoided by "good writers" sort of implies that if you use the F word you're not good enough to avoid the F word. That clearly makes no sense because not using the F word is very easy indeed - you just miss it out.
I sense we're not going to agree on this one though...
I have to agree with Derek on this one Terri your argument just isn't logical. Good writing can be with or without swearing, it really comes down to whether you care about swearing in books or not. Swearing doesn't make a good book bad or a bad book good. I know many don't like swearing or the use of a particular word, but that is their opinion not a question of right and wrong. I personally don't mind swearing if it seems to fit the character and the situation, but don't like its excessive use. Again though what constitutes excessive to me is purely my opinion.
Derek wrote: " I don't think I've offended anyone. I did not say that swearing "has" to be in any genre of writing; my point was that swearing is a constant..."You said anyone who thinks there should be no swearing in books is being unrealistic.
That is an insult to members who have expressed in this thread that they don't like swearing in books.
That was what I was referring to when I asked for you to please don't offend members.
Chris F wrote: "I have to agree with Derek on this one Terri your argument just isn't logical. ...."Thanks Chris.
In my world, the purpose of an historical novel is to convince the reader that they are witnessing events in previous time. Although some "historical" novels are merely soap operas with a big skirts and puffy shirts, a novel that truly aspires to be historical should be able to maintain that suspension of disbelief necessary to telling an historical story. By using a random selection of modern curse words and putting them in the mouth of a Roman centurion completely destroys any sense of reality.If you want to have your centurion curse, why not find out how Latin speakers cursed?
It's not about the cursing its about the silliness of using modern dialog in an historical setting. Might as well watch Merlin on TV.
G
That is an interesting discussion point. The problem with using swear words of the time is that they don't usually have the same effect for the modern reader. Having said that I'm a great believer in trying to use "period" words where they make a degree of sense to the reader. One can be quite creative and descriptive. I think it's all about context and perceived meaning.Usually where writers use archaic language to convey authenticity it seems to cause some other problems.
Agreed about making an impact on the reader.Personally I just have a problem with anachronisms. Obviously if you are writing descriptive prose in modern English rather than Latin you have already injected an anachronism. The issue is how much one can take before the writing sounds like a modern story in Roman (or any other period) drag.
Personally, using specifically modern dialog, cursing or otherwise is beyond the pale. To achieve one effect the author has sacrificed another – an arguably more important one.
This is an interesting subject. But how does someone avoid total anachronism unless you write all the dialogue in say, Latin,Olde English, Olde Norse or Armenian, Old Hebrew, Carthaginian, ancient Greek...you get my meaning. For me dialogue needs to convey whatever the author is trying to convey in the story,and to achieve the desired affect, I need to be able to comprehend and imagine the persons viewpoint and I need to do that in Modern English. As long as people aren't calling each other "Dude" etc or using street language, or words like Golly Gosh, or "Amazing", then I feel thats fine.
G H wrote: "In my world, the purpose of an historical novel is to convince the reader that they are witnessing events in previous time. Although some "historical" novels are merely soap operas with a big skirt..."I agree whole heartedly, G.H.
Terri: Thank you.Paula: I agree entirely. However I believe you have made my point for me. Using the expression "c*ck jockey" is exactly the same as using "Dude" and worse than using "Amazing".
F and C are from at least Middle English (fart too) and can claim some kind of legacy, but c*ock jockey just makes me laugh. And not in a good way.
G
Terri wrote: "Derek wrote: " If a reader does not like swearing at all, that would seem a little unrealistic. ..."Wrong. And please don't offend the members who do not like swearing in books.
Funny. There ar..."
Touché, Terri! There are, besides Cornwell, other hf writers with no or minimal profanity.
They are definitely out there, that's for sure, and you don't even notice that modern swearing is not in the dialogue. Can't say the same for the opposite. When modern swearing is in the dialogue it most definitely is noticeable.
G H wrote: "Terri: Thank you.Paula: I agree entirely. However I believe you have made my point for me. Using the expression "c*ck jockey" is exactly the same as using "Dude" and worse than using "Amazing".
F..."
With you on that G
I would certainly agree that using such modern words shouts out from the pages of a book and destroys the period "feel". It defeats the object of writing historical fiction I would have thought.
Personally I kind of tread the middle ground. I want a story that captivates me through the way it's told, empathising with the characters - whether factual or fictional - but is set around historical events or in a poignant period of history.That said I'm far far from anywhere near massively knowledgeable on every single last little foible, nuance and strict chronological order of a lot of historical events so some glaring standout errors don't glare to me as much as they might do to others.
It has to be said though, if it's a period of history you're not familiar with to begin with and the story enchants you, the chances are you will then be motivated to go off and find out the truth behind the fiction and learn more about the history.
That's what I've found at least.
I want a book that reads like a story more than one that just sounds like an endless recitation of facts, anecdotes and statistics like a couple of books I've read.
'Myth is the ivy that binds all historical ruins and makes them picturesque to the eye' - Lewis Spence
Personally, I have to say that historical fiction has inspired me to go look up the 'real' story behind what I've read far more than any history book has inspired me.
I guess it boils down to whether you're someone that either takes historical fiction as LITERAL truth and ignoring the fact that it's a story or someone that's too uptight to let often tiny incongruences stop them enjoying a good tale.
Fair enough if it's a MAJOR event that's been cocked up - ie claiming the Americans captured the Enigma machine etc - then come down on them with an iron fist. The more minor the inaccuracies the more you should be able to let your guard down and just enjoy a story.
Paul wrote: "Personally I kind of tread the middle ground. I want a story that captivates me through the way it's told, empathising with the characters - whether factual or fictional - but is set around histori..."All this indifference to historical accuracy from the guy who gave me a historical accuracy drubbing for making a joke about a "Caesarean Series'". Lol! :D
One thing I have learned from this group is that the people who read historical fiction generally have a better than passing knowledge of the periods being written about. So they catch stuff. At the same time, good writing is soooo very important. I recently read a book that was about as historically accurate as could be, but was poorly written. I could not rate it well.
On the other hand, I also recently read
which has a few things wrong, but only things that someone very familiar with the time and place would know. And the writing was delightful, so I gave the author a pass for the minor problems. Now, I doubt that I would give a good writer a pass if they had a lot of major things wrong about the history, but I am more forgiving of small things if the writing is strong and clear.
Eileen wrote: "which has a few things wrong, but only things that someone very familiar with the time and place would know..."Actually Eileen, you inspired a thought from me. Something I noticed recently.
I read a book recently...not saying what book...now I was picking up small historical inaccuracies. Little ones that the average reader wouldn't notice. So I let them go. ie use of a cart in certain situations, footwear..little niggles like that which I don't judge an author on too poorly.
But what I noticed was that while the book took place in Britain, it didn't feel like it. It felt like it could be anywhere. The author was not British.
I don't usually care if an author is American, Canadian, Australian or whatever and writing about Britain, or vice versa. But in this case, I could really tell the author was not British. There was a basic descriptive element missing that should have been capturing environment and locale.
It was not as much a case of historical inaccuracy, but a case of cultural and enviornmental inaccuracy. If that's the right definition.
Terri wrote: "Eileen wrote: "which has a few things wrong, but only things that someone very familiar with the time and place would know..."Actually Eileen, you inspired a thought from me. Something I noticed ..."
I've noticed in books generally, hf ones sometimes, that the cadence of 'speech' can give away that the author isn't native to the area, or perhaps they're trying too hard. I don't know, but your comment Terri about cultural/environmental can give the impression of inaccuracies, even if all the detail is spot on.
But that's a whole other topic.
It sure is. A whole other topic, a whole other can of worms. ;)
Paul wrote: "Fair enough if it's a MAJOR event that's been cocked up - ie claiming the Americans captured the Enigma machine etc - then come down on them with an iron fist. The more minor the inaccuracies the more you should be able to let your guard down and just enjoy a story."One thing I did notice about that U-571 movie was that they ran acknowledgments in the credits first thing, scrupulously listing ALL the British and American subs and crews who had a hand in capturing various Enigma machines. Hollywood's way, I guess, of an author's note saying "Here's where we changed history . . ."
Kate wrote: "Hollywood's way, I guess, of an author's note saying "Here's where we changed history...""I tend to be more lenient when writers do something similar to that, telling us to look at an appendix with the accurate facts and then letting us know they're going to take some liberties. In fact, I will still frown, but I won't complain. Usually.
Last year, I read a book which had that very sensible warning at the beginning, but then not only the author changed too many - and sometimes too deeply - historical facts and characters, she went as far as changing geography (basically, located a town in the Northwest of Spain rather than the correct Northeast)! Warning or no warning, there are facts - geographical or historical - that cannot be changed.
Agree completely with Sara.In fact, I use my Appendices to flesh out real historical characters with known facts about their lives, and wouldn't ever knowingly put in a factually wrong detail in the text. As I said here or somewhere else a few months ago, I think fiction about real people should be confined to parts of their lives that we do not know anything about - for example, Thomas Jefferson had yet another lover not recorded in history.
Kate wrote: "Paul wrote: "Fair enough if it's a MAJOR event that's been cocked up - ie claiming the Americans captured the Enigma machine etc - then come down on them with an iron fist. The more minor the inacc..."I guess one of the benefits of not really being a movie-watcher is I stand a strong chance of avoiding such plain awful movies to begin with. I have suffered through more than I'd care to admit of, is it 'K-19: Widowmaker' with Sean Connery and Harrison Ford competing to see who can excrete the worse Russian accent?
Terri wrote: "Paul wrote: "Personally I kind of tread the middle ground. I want a story that captivates me through the way it's told, empathising with the characters - whether factual or fictional - but is set a..."
That's different. That's not a literary quibble but an etymology quibble, a whole other ball game! ;)
To pick up on what my namesake is saying, I think that the majority of historical fiction novels - that I've read at least - make a point of including a 'Historical Note' section or an 'acknowledgements' where they say what they've changed, guessed or took dramatic license with.
In my opinion, if a story is well written enough in it's own merit, it will or at least should inspire you to go see what the facts behind the story is. History should be no different. The fact that it's called 'historical fiction' should give you a clue that you should enjoy it for a piece of sterling drama not as a textbook of statistics.
I guess, to play devil's advocate, you have to weigh up whether the authors changes will affect your understanding of the history or how events played out, and why the author's done it.
I'm rambling now.
I came across a neat feature in the Michael Jecks book I started (and had to pause for Insurrection). I started the The Oath and discovered that as you read it has footnotes. I like a good footnote and I don't see it nearly enough. They are not huge wordy footnotes. If Michael uses a medieval word he will put an asterisks and at the bottom of page say something like *a clay bowl.
I find that really user friendly. Especially for people who aren't lounge chair history experts like us. It must help many novices.
I don't think it would work well for every book. It works well in Jecks', and it worked well in Eaters of the Dead. Those Eaters footnotes were wordy though and the entire book was done in a different to the norm.
I've noticed a similar (kind of) tactic used in a number of openers to Roman period fiction I've read, where the original Latin term is used but with an explanatory few words afterwards, without interrupting the flow of the story, meaning that the reader picks the individual terms up as they progress. I'm not sure how that'd work for things needing more detailed explanation as, for me at least, footnotes can be a bit distracting in fiction. I'd rather have something like an appendix or glossary at the back of the book I could refer to as/when necessary. That's just quibbling though really.
Terri wrote: "I came across a neat feature in the Michael Jecks book I started (and had to pause for Insurrection). I started the The Oath and discovered that as you read it has footnotes. I like a good footnot..."
Thanks, Terri - but I think they only work in moderation. Too many footnotes just lead to confusion as the eye's dragged down the page. I always loved George MacDonald Fraser's FLASHMAN series, but the extensive use of numbered notes did distract. But he was a real historian and wanted to make sure people weren't misled!
Yes, they do only work in moderation and I found they weren't so frequent in The Oath that it was too much. Just an every now and then footnote really works well.In Eaters in the Dead they could take up a quarter if the page. But it suited that book and the style in which it was written.
In everyday HF that isn't written in a unusual style like Eaters if the Dead, no, there should not be too many footnotes. For me what I was seeing in your The Oath was a good middle ground,
Terri wrote: "Yes, they do only work in moderation and I found they weren't so frequent in The Oath that it was too much. Just an every now and then footnote really works well.In Eaters in the Dead they could t..."
Glad to hear it! Hope you like the rest of it.
Paul wrote: "I've noticed a similar (kind of) tactic used in a number of openers to Roman period fiction I've read, where the original Latin term is used but with an explanatory few words afterwards, without in..."I agree there Paul about a glossary, but I feel that a glossary at the back of a book is not as helpfyl as having one in the front so you can have a quick look through before you start reading.
I prefer them in the back. I'm used to going to the back of documents and non fiction books for the bibliography, Appendix and such, so I prefer having all that tucked in the back with the (in the case of non fiction and fiction) glossary.
Paula wrote: "Paul wrote: "I've noticed a similar (kind of) tactic used in a number of openers to Roman period fiction I've read, where the original Latin term is used but with an explanatory few words afterward..."I disagree, but it's purely an aesthetic thing really. Who wants to have to skip 4-5 or more pages at the front of a book, when you can just flick to the back when you need to.
Maybe it's just a hangover from reading non-fiction books with lots of reference notes that are always placed at the back that makes me prefer it that way.
I've no problem with there being say, character lists at the front - such as pointing out who's fictional, who's realistic - and the same with locations - eg, Bernard Cornwell's list of Saxon names for places followed by the modern equivalents.
Either works really though I suppose. I've had it a couple of times in the past where there's no glossary at all, so you find yourself having to flick back through the pages to try and remind yourself what X obscure term is again.
Preference as to where the glossary is located may also have to do, for some, with the media they are reading. Having the glossary at the end of an e-book is a pain in the petunia. I too prefer my reference 'stuff' at the back - except maps for some reason, I like those at the front or if the location shifts during the story, at the beginning of the new chapter. But I think ultimately, the decision is either made by the author or the publisher. Much like the acknowledgements. Some are at the front, some at the rear. I don't think there's a hard and fast rule.
I'm sympathetic to authors who have veered from history here and there in their stories. Whenever I take such a swerve, I make a point of adding it to the list of things to cover in the historical note/author's note, where I will explain the deviation and reasoning behind it (there's always a reason).I primarily want to give the reader a damn good read, but I don't want to send them away thinking that every iota of my story is fact (I write fiction, so that's simply not possible).
Gordon wrote: "I'm sympathetic to authors who have veered from history here and there in their stories. Whenever I take such a swerve, I make a point of adding it to the list of things to cover in the historical ..."Thank you Gordon. I like a good story, and Historical Fiction expecially.
Gordon wrote: "I'm sympathetic to authors who have veered from history here and there in their stories. Whenever I take such a swerve, I make a point of adding it to the list of things to cover in the historical ..."I totally agree Gordon. It's fiction after all. But I do think a historical note is important so as not to as you say, give the impression that its totally factual.
I once heard about a book written about the War of the Roses, I know who the author was, but forget the name of the book. Any how it put me right off reading it when i heard that Will Hastings was to be portrayed as paedophile. That was a bit of a step too far for me. this man was a real person and I think its really unfair to malign his name and memory in that way without the author making it clear it was her invention. But to me, if you want a character like that in the book, why not make it a fictional one? Does it really have to be a real character?
Gordon wrote: "I'm sympathetic to authors who have veered from history here and there in their stories. Whenever I take such a swerve, I make a point of adding it to the list of things to cover in the historical ..."yes, and it is good that you do that, Gordon.
All authors should do that. Historical notes are so important.
Speaking of historical notes being important. Some authors put their historical notes in the front. The common spot is the back, as you all know, but some times an author will put it in the front for some reason.I refuse to read historical notes until the end. Most of the time I want the ride first.
Take Insurrection by Robyn Young which I am reading now.
When the story started giving details on the Maid of Norway (Margaret of Norway) I did not know the finer details of this story. I was able to be surprised and shocked as I read that part of the story.
Afterwards, I posted a query to Robyn in the group read thread (in case she gets a chance to drop back to the discussion) to ask what part was real and what was not real.
I was then told by Darcy that Robyn actually explains that in the historical note in the back. :)
So if that historical note was at the front, I would liekly have been tempted to read it and would not have had the enjoyable experience of reading Robyn's part fictionalised account first.
So, I guess I am making two points. That I prefer the historical note in the back AND if an author is writing details into a big part of history (such as an event that pretty much kicked off the Wars of Scottish Independence) please include the fictional part in that historical note in the back. :)
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...
One of my favorite parts of the book.
Opinions on swearing lean toward indifference for me but I do wonder if an archaic form would sound as much like swearing as the modern.
I've read several books where they obviously can't use "Jesus Christ" as a swear word but use the era's gods or goddesses instead and it doesn't really sound like swearing to me. I think it looses some of it's potency when unknown swear words are used.