Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Historical Accuracy in Fiction
Marina wrote: "Richard wrote: "Historical accuracy? Not so much..."(...)The most historically accurate book out there is War and Peace. I dare anyone to read it. I double-dare anyone to enjoy it."
Plenty of people seem to enjoy it. I enjoyed the first part I read, but I abandonned it due to moving houses and general life happening. I will return to it sometime soon. It's all taste what kind of fiction you like.
I think the point of "historical accuracy" is that you stick to the facts that we know are true (ie. medieval people didn't walk around in jeans, and at the end of the war of the roses the Tudors came on the throne). If you don't keep to these known and proven facts, you're writing a different genre (fantasy, or alternative history for example). The good thing about history is, is that there are plenty of things we don't know. Why people acted the way they did, their motivations and emotions or unsolved mysteries (what happened to the princes in the tower?). Fodder for writers! You don't have to tell the same story over and over again, even if the events have been used many times over in fiction. There's an abundance of different accents and different interpretations of historical facts. So even sticking to a framework of known facts, there's plenty of room for individual interpretations, without writing the same book over and over.
So I think it's too cynical to say that just because you can never retell the events "as they truly happened", that you should just abandon all attempts at historical accuracy all together and make everything up as you go along. I don't like books that take great liberties and invent stuff which clearly didn't happen and clearly couldn't have happened. Though others do love it, so clearly there are all sorts of standards of what people are looking for in historical fiction.
Doesn't stop me complaining when I'm somehow tricked into watching or reading a story that doesn't meet my standards of accuracy. There's different tastes and different degrees of accuracy.
I personally prefer authors who try to keep as close as possible to the known historical facts. The reason is that I'm not only reading historical fiction because I like to read a good story, but I also want to get a sense of what it must have been like living in that period of time. Period feel is just as important to me as a good story in historical fiction. And for me, I cannot get a good feel of the period if an author is taking too many liberties.
Terri wrote: "Talking of bloody shortening names! Reading 1356 by Bernard Cornwell right now and if Thomas of Hookton calls William Bohun - Earl of Northumberland - 'Billy' one more time I am going to scream I ..."
Was Billy used in the 14thc?
Sanne wrote: "Terri wrote: "Talking of bloody shortening names! Reading 1356 by Bernard Cornwell right now and if Thomas of Hookton calls William Bohun - Earl of Northumberland - 'Billy' one more time I am goin..."
Ok where was Bobo used? Just who is the culprit?
Richard wrote: "Marina wrote: "I've just finished watching an actual episode of "The White Queen" and it was more wonderful than I could have ever expected (and my expectations were quite high).And the vile Marga..."
Richard, thought that historical fiction was supposed to at least give one a sense of time and place, this effort gave me more of a sense of fantasy rather than a real place and a real time. Some liberties with the facts can often be forgiven if at least they had got the costumes and sets right, the acting right, the script right,unfortunately for me,towards the end of the episode I just left feeling that it was worse than i had expected.
Richard wrote: "Marina wrote: "I've just finished watching an actual episode of "The White Queen" and it was more wonderful than I could have ever expected (and my expectations were quite high).And the vile Marga..."
Were they calling her a dragon? Bet they never did that to her face
Marina wrote: "Richard wrote: "Historical accuracy? Not so much..."I've seen people complaining about historical accuracy (or rather, lack of it) all over the place, about books and films/TV shows.
The most hi..."
To be fair War & Peace was more-or-less written at the time it was portrayed, give or take a generation. Not really historical fiction
Sanne wrote: "Marina wrote: "Richard wrote: "Historical accuracy? Not so much..."(...)The most historically accurate book out there is War and Peace. I dare anyone to read it. I double-dare anyone to enjoy it...."
Marina wrote: "Richard wrote: "Historical accuracy? Not so much..."
I've seen people complaining about historical accuracy (or rather, lack of it) all over the place, about books and films/TV shows.
The most hi..."
Marina (428) has a point about history being unreliable - two newspapers today rarely agree about what happened at a demonstration, or in a recent war, for example. But that does not mean that all historical detail is meaningless. There is usually a core of agreed facts; it is different interpretations of those facts, and peripheral events, that are in dispute. Admittedly this is not always true - but mostly it is.
The real point though is that historical fiction - like all art - is neither 'right' nor 'wrong'. Unlike Stalin banning Shostakovitch, or Hitler banning modern art, providing the author makes clear that they have interpreted/made up/ supplemented the plot, it is hard to see how there can be a single 'right' approach. As a society we do not agree about religion, politics, smoking, sex, GM foods, badger culls.... or any of a thousand other issues. How can we therefore have a definitive 'right' and 'wrong' when it comes to fiction?
Some readers prefer realism. Others prefer plot. The important point is that open disclosure should be made by the author, so that no one is mislead about what they are getting...
Paula wrote: "Richard, thought that historical fiction was supposed to at least give one a sense of time and place, this effort gave me more of a sense of fantasy rather than a real place and a real time. Some liberties with the facts can often be forgiven if at least they had got the costumes and sets right, the acting right, the script right,unfortunately for me,towards the end of the episode I just left feeling that it was worse than i had expected."For me it's the mindsets not the costumes or other verisimilitudes that count most. So, for example, with Titanic they went to ludicrous lengths to get the costume and cutlery right - but the story and attitudes were entirely bogus. That really irritated me. With The White Queen I don't much care about side saddles and battle times being moved - but I am worried that no-one appears to pray or take their religion seriously, and I was worried about the viewpoint issues to do with the near-rape (in the book the viewpoint makes Woodville's feelings clear, because it's first person; on the TV it's ambiguous, and could seem like: when women say no, they really mean yes - which is uncomfortable). There are ALWAYS things wrong.
Marina wrote: "The most historically accurate book out there is War and Peace. I dare anyone to read it. I double-dare anyone to enjoy it..."I just want to say that I read it and loved it. One of my favorite books of all time. :)
Andrew wrote: "Marina (428) has a point about history being unreliable - two newspapers today rarely agree about what happened at a demonstration, or in a recent war, for example. But that does not mean that all historical detail is meaningless. There is usually a core of agreed facts; it is different interpretations of those facts, and peripheral events, that are in dispute. Admittedly this is not always true - but mostly it is."Fair enough. Let me put it this way: I prefer hf that not only works within the boundaries of what we know for sure, but which also works with knowledge backed up by what historians today believe is the most plausible. There are - of course! - points that are debated, but there are also many instances where historians have come to an agreement over a certain topic. Plus, why ignore historians who have a far better knowledge of their own specialized field, just because "history is unreliable" and another explanation is possible (just not - in the educated guess of an historian - the most plausible)? So to just say that history is unreliable, and that you cannot always know the "truth" (whatever that is), so you can therefore pick whatever explanation you want for your novel is going too far for me. Sure it's a premise you can take, but I won't want to read your novel :)
Historical fiction - for me - means fiction that purports to have a firm basis in historical reality. I prefer that historical basis to be as big as possible, instead of a small starting point after which the author veers off into their own fancies.
You never heard me say that other types of hf aren't allowed or that they are Entartete Kunst. They're just not my thing and when I find myself reading a book that doesn't meet my standards, it works on my nerves.
Marina wrote: "Sanne wrote: "Period feel is just as important to me as a good story in historical fiction"Can't argue with that. There are two types of hist.fic. I've been reading lately - "serious" ones, that ..."
Completely agree that there are many different types of hf. From hard-core to history-light. It's great you can enjoy them both :)
I've been eyeing Penman's books for a while now and wonder if I would like them. Will certainly check them out!
And this group has given me so many new reasons not to read Follet's books, haha!
Sanne wrote: "why ignore historians who have a far better knowledge of their own specialized field, just because "history is unreliable" and another explanation is possible (just not - in the educated guess of an historian - the most plausible)? So to just say that history is unreliable, and that you cannot always know the "truth" (whatever that is), so you can therefore pick whatever explanation you want for your novel is going too far for me. ..."That's sort of nails it for me: While historians may at times make mistakes, or be biased or whatever, they at least have the moral high ground of having spent a lot of time and effort studying the subject,being peer reviewed and working with academic colleagues. Their opinions on what might or might not have happened are more likely to be closer to the truth than the rest of us, certainly based on logical/evidence based thinking. A writer who believes that they can willfully ignore that based on what they looked up in wikipedia, their own prejudices or what their granny once told them is arrogance worthy of Russel Crowe.
While I have to admit that I've drawn down the wrath of at least one writer with that opinion in the past, I believe on balance that most of the serious HF authours who I've seen express opinions on this topic tend to go a long way towards trying to achieve a high degree of historical accuracy based on the state of current historical research.
Sanne, Penman is brillant and I highly recommend her. Another version of historical novels I have enjoyed is some "alternative" looks at history. The Newt Gingrich Civil War series was one of the best of that genre, in my humble opinion.
Terri wrote: "Talking of bloody shortening names! Reading 1356 by Bernard Cornwell right now and if Thomas of Hookton calls William Bohun - Earl of Northumberland - 'Billy' one more time I am going to scream I ..."
northampton. ;0)
I was just coming back to correct it, Mark. LolAfter I posted I logged off and then realised my error. I hoped nobody would notice before I could get back the next day to edit. :D
Sanne wrote: " I think the point of "historical accuracy" is that you stick to the facts that we know are true (ie. medieval people didn't walk around in jeans, and at the end of the war of the roses the Tudors came on the throne). If you don't keep to these known and proven facts, you're writing a different genre (fantasy, or alternative history for example). The good thing about history is, is that there are plenty of things we don't know. ..."+1
I agree with everything in this post of yours Sanne. :-) I have the same viewpoints on historical accuracy.
Marina wrote: " All in all, I think that if a book is written well (unlike, say, Follett's ones), .."Haha! Oh Marina. :-) That cracked me up. Perfectly said.
Richard wrote: " It is absolutely NOT (NOT!) recommended to Terri :) .."Yes! Totally! Nobody recommend the White Queen to me. :-)
For the record though...a lot of people think that because I do not like chick melodrama books (and tv/movie) that that means I like battles and blood and guts.
This is not correct. I sit in the middle. I hate B Grade graphic violence and I find the majority if battles in HF a yawn fest.
Battles and blood and guts are not the opposite of romance and melodrama. Those are just two extremes at each end of a perfect balance. And I like a pefect balance.
One type is female-centric and one type is male-centric. I sit in the middle and like neither.
I do not like The Tudors for its relationship melodrama (aka sex lives of the Tudors) and I do not like Spartacus for its B Grade, slow motion machismo.
Basically, I don't like melodrama and I don't like sensationalism.
Terri wrote: "For the record though...a lot of people think that because I do not like chick melodrama books (and tv/movie) that that means I like battles and blood and guts."I didn't mean to suggest that you (or anyone here) is predicated on blood and guts! It was just a short hand.
Bernard Cornwell has an anecdote that I have heard him say several times in talks. He is one room, and he overhears his wife talking to a girl friend in the other room. The girl friend says, ''So do you actually read Bernard's books?'. His wife replies, 'Yes, but I skip the battles.' And Bernard shouts across 'Bloody short read then!'
Books about tumultuous times in history that focus on the action and the protagonists... Is that a good description?
Terri wrote: "Sanne wrote: " I think the point of "historical accuracy" is that you stick to the facts that we know are true (ie. medieval people didn't walk around in jeans, and at the end of the war of the ros..."and I agree with both of you!
I do like a good gory battle scene myself but i don't like reams of chapters that go on and on. whenever have a reading from my book (i don't read it my friend does) I always do the battle scene and I often cringe just in case people think its too gory, but for me, I like to experience the effects of battle as if I was there. Weird I know, but tha'ts me lol.
Richard wrote: "Terri wrote: "For the record though...a lot of people think that because I do not like chick melodrama books (and tv/movie) that that means I like battles and blood and guts."I didn't mean to sug..."
Oh I know you didn't suggest. That's why there was a big gap between my reply about the White Queen and my comment about Battles.
The first bit was to you. The rest was just a general explanation to fellow members to explain why I would not be into The White Queen.
I get a bit of digging around the place sometimes. People saying things like "no battles so not something Terri would like".
Every now and then I just want to point out that many folks have me figured all wrong. :-)
Sanne wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Marina (428) has a point about history being unreliable - two newspapers today rarely agree about what happened at a demonstration, or in a recent war, for example. But that does not..."Actually, Sane, to share a confidence, I personally also dislike novels which play fast and loose with essential and known historical facts. It boils my blood sometimes. But my point was that it's a preference -not an objective truth.
And if you'll forgive me, but as you made the point.... my novel is as accurate as 4 years of research could make it :)As attested by the academic historian from the British Museum who reviewed it.
Although I did change some dates, these are explained in the author's note.
But you may be disappointed to hear that I was told by several publishers there was TOO MUCH history in it. (I certainly was.) And sadly that says a lot about the way publishers view the importance of the 'historical' in hf.
Andrew wrote: "Actually, Sane, to share a confidence, I personally also dislike novels which play fast and loose with essential and known historical facts. It boils my blood sometimes.Playing devil's advocate here, but I love novels that play fast and loose with historical facts when they do it well. The example I wheel out is The Man in the Iron Mask. Every premise in that novel pretty much thumbs its nose at history. The big lie is up front and out there, but right to the end you get other disclosures and distortions (view spoiler). I think it's great, and a great example of historical fiction. I wonder when the historians won the argument so much that they get to dictate these days. We wouldn't have had Macbeth and so much else if that had always been the case.
Richard wrote: "Andrew wrote: "Actually, Sane, to share a confidence, I personally also dislike novels which play fast and loose with essential and known historical facts. It boils my blood sometimes.Playing dev..."
As an aside, I'm not sure historians ever 'win' arguments, even among themselves; history is an ever changing kaleidoscope of views. And historical research in Elizabethan times was probably pretty thin, so Shakespeare probably only had a vague idea who the real Macbeth was, I'd have thought.
I haven't read the Iron Man. It sounds good, and obviously made an impression. But is it primarily 'historical fiction' or primarily 'fiction set in the past?' And are the 2 always the same thing?
A novel which argues that historians have got it wrong - and makes clear it is the author's own interpretation - is fine with me. A novel which just alters past events because that sounds like a fun way to write - is, in my view - misleading. It is telling the public 'this is what happened' when 'this' is NOT what happened.
But I wouldn't want to have a Stalinist purge over it. I always think the worst thing about us as a species is that we have a tendency to try to control what other people do/say/think etc.
Andrew wrote: "I haven't read the Iron Man. It sounds good, and obviously made an impression. But is it primarily 'historical fiction' or primarily 'fiction set in the past?' And are the 2 always the same thing?"
Sorry - The Man in the Iron Mask - the premise is that Louis XIV of France is one of twins. The earlier (bad) twin takes the throne and imprisons his brother and puts him in an iron mask so no-one can recognise him. But the musketeers hate the King and plot to replace him with the twin. Great story. Based (slightly) on a couple of contemporary rumours. Not history. A classic of historical fiction.
Here comes the argument that a Classic is not an Historical Fiction. I am torn on this everlasting debate, but many people say that Classics of a certain type are not historical fiction.
I think some are. Some aren't.
A Classic does not always have a place in a historical accuracy debate, in my opinion, if it is written in a time where historical fact was thin on the ground. It wasn't really until the Victorians got bored and started to dig for fame, that archaeology began to unravel the past.
Unless the book was written contemporaneous to the times (ie Austen) there was an enormous amount of guess work involved.
This is why I agree with Andrew on whether a Classic is Historical Fiction or a book written about the past. For me, many Classics are books written about the past and not an historical.
Thanks Terri. Was thinking about this overnight; can understand why Richard says what he says about the Iron Mask, but I think Dumas was writing about a recent period in Frnch history which was still highly relevant to his time and - crucially - where everyone who read the book KNEW the real events and that he was deviating from strict historical truth.The difference with most fiction today is that most people do not know the time/events well, and actually take their history from the book they are reading.
Somehow, for me that changes the moral duty on the author.
Andrew wrote: "The difference with most fiction today is that most people do not know the time/events well, and actually take their history from the book they are reading. Somehow, for me that changes the moral duty on the author. "
Here's a question: Who ultimately defines the category for a book when sold: author; publisher/agent; distributor; or reader?
I suspect it might vary depending on the author's notoriety, how clearly things appear in the book, how strict any of these different groups adhere to a particular definition, etc.
Is it then, and this is a serious question up for debate/good old fashioned reasoned argumentation, really up to solely the author's moral duty to depict certain historical elements? I'm not sure.
Having said that, I'm one of those people who has a very loose definition of historical fiction. I don't mind if there are vampire hunters, bodice ripping, children trying to pass their Viking exams with the aide of their dragon. I also consider some of the classics as historical fiction if they were intended as such (i.e. The Three Musketeers and A Tale of Two Cities) Shakespeare's work I feel was primarily created for a different medium and not meant to be 'read' per se and as entertainment, and perhaps even allegorical to his own time, but that's a whole other topic.
My opinion is that a fiction writer/author is a story teller first, and an archivist/researcher second. If they're writing about a particular event or personage and choose to play around with known facts, I'm down with that, and if they provide a reason (author's note or the like) they can do as they like - I may not be happy with the result if it's something I'm equally familiar with (I met with this issue with our monthly read of Insurrection) but the author has explained why they've made the change then I'm fine with it. On the other hand, if they don't explain away the differences whether within the story or as a note, then they might want to sturdy themselves for some harsh criticism about that particular thing, but it doesn't mean that the story isn't terrific.
Some books are clearly identifiable as playing fast and loose with known history, some have writers who are more concerned with writing than with research. I've read a few books set in Medieval Scotland where the author has written in things or used terms that simply don't belong there, and no explanation as to their inclusion. These authors will be more highly criticised, if they've sold their work as a representation of the time/place/person.
I think if we assign moral duty to the author, we need also assign it to the others involved in the 'book' experience. If the reader is self-aware about what they find reasonably acceptable for them, then they should choose books according to those preferences (this is where reviews come in handy). If there was nothing indicated by the author that the story was meant to be a factual account of events, then it shouldn't necessarily be read as such.
Authors' notes do two things. Their inclusion immediately screams "this is based on history as we know it today" and "whatever the author has rationalised for a better reading experience".
If there's no author's note, then I tend to feel, and maybe this is wrong, that the story is not meant to be considered as based on factual events or people, and should be read as simply a fiction/literature. Going back to those previously mentioned books that I read set in Medieval Scotland, my review noted the disparities as an aside in the event the author did mean for the book to be an historical fiction, but my general sentiment of the book was about the story itself.
I'm of the belief that we cannot assign moral duty to an author without assigning responsibilities to everyone else.
Also, another question and it's not meant to fan fires, because I'm in agreement that Braveheart was...ugh... words don't even...
Is it important that everyone who reads an historical novel or watches an historical film/tele show, be made aware that what's in front of them isn't actually what happened? Does it matter whether the truth is known or not? I think sometimes they are blessed in being able to just enjoy the story and not worry about whether why there are Italianate greaves on an English knight, or whether there are enough "thy cometh"s in the text/script.
I agree with that last comment, Darcy - most people are blessed by just being able to take things as they come. But I believe that yes - there is a moral duty. I certainly don't think it should be a legal one though, for the reasons mentioned.To support this, I would point at the furore a few months ago over the BBC Wildlife programme that was found to be contrived - truth is important in all its guises.
I agree with you, too, that it is fine to write what you like - but that you must explain in the author's note.
When I read your opening question about 'who ultimately defines the category of a book when sold; author, publisher distributor or reader' I nearly screamed; from personal experience I can tell you that ALL of those define it, which is why my book began inexplicably in contemporary fiction, and after weeks of lobbying by me finally reached 'historical' and 'war fiction' on Amazon. (Although on some sites it has STILL not made it onto the 'historical fiction' listing after dozens of emails, which is driving me mad.)
Distributors are notoriously finicky about categories and I noticed a Wilbur Smith novel last week being sold on Amazon in 'literary criticism nonfiction'! What that says about the system I have no idea...
Darcy wrote: "Is it important that everyone who reads an historical novel or watches an historical film/tele show, be made aware that what's in front of them isn't actually what happened? Does it matter whether the truth is known or not?"Yes, I think it is. My 10 year old nephew isn't a big fan of reading or history, but he loves computer games. He now has one, "Assassins" maybe?, whose main player is an assassin in late Middle Ages Italy. He has been completely taken not only by the action but also by the story, since it features names he knows, like Leonardo da Vinci. He started telling me about the Medici, the other day, and Maquiaveli and da Vinci, based on what he'd 'learned' from the game. I pointed out that the game had plenty of fiction, but he was adamant that, the assassin aside, everything else was true because it was based on real people.
I know, I know, he's only 10, there'll be plenty of time for him to get the facts right. But what if he doesn't? What if he mixes fact and fiction? In Portugal, there is a historical moment that is well known of everyone, a tragic love story involving one of our kings. And everyone presents as facts stuff that are really fiction: the love interest is always said to have been murdered, when she was really executed; it is said that her rotten corpse was coronated as queen, when she was simply declared queen. And people believe it as fact! Thankfully, more recent authors that pick up the story have come to remind everyone the coronation is myth (though the 'assassination' isn't explained as often), and yet plenty of people will swear that the coronation really did take place. And when you tell them it isn't so, they'll get upset and say you are the one who don't know history!
So, yes. I do believe notes on 'literary' changes should be mandatory whatever the medium.
Sara wrote: "Darcy wrote: "Is it important that everyone who reads an historical novel or watches an historical film/tele show, be made aware that what's in front of them isn't actually what happened? Does it m..."Hey Sara, are you from Portugal?
Paula wrote: "Hey Sara, are you from Portugal? "Yes, I am.
Sara wrote: "Paula wrote: "Hey Sara, are you from Portugal? "Yes, I am."
Wonderful. Which part? My mum is from the North near Braga
Sara wrote: "Darcy wrote: "Is it important that everyone who reads an historical novel or watches an historical film/tele show, be made aware that what's in front of them isn't actually what happened? Does it m..."Hi Sara, I know how you feel. Last year I had a student in my year 13 History class, so 17 or 18 years old, who was much the same as your nephew. What he found in a computer game or saw on TV was more real to him than what we know happened, let alone him being able to engage with a range of possibilities in an objective way in the areas where what happened is much less certain.
Re: Darcy's ponderings on what constitutes HFHere's my view. I should preface my view by pointing out that because I run and helped set up this group I have had to pay more attention to defining HF that the regular Jo. :-)
Historical Fiction IS to me all those things you mentioned Darcy. Some hf themed books can straddle multiple genres. ie Horror and yet some are what I class as a sub genre.
I want to use this group theme to help explain this.
Historical fiction is the genre and then historical fiction has sub genres
Example;
Historical fiction - fantasy & supernatural
Historical fiction - mystery
Historical fiction - war
Historical fiction - Western
Historical fiction - Romance
Historical fiction - Adventure
Historical fiction - Speculative
Historical fiction - Alternative
Etc....etc......
Straight Historical fiction, which this group is dedicated to, is the genre of historical fiction with a sub genre that is non fantastical in anyway.
That is our niche. So our historical fiction interests lay with all those sub genres that exclude fantastical or non realistic.
And then because we chose to be niche (and since there are so many other groups that deal with romance) the group was chosen to exclude the 'romance' sub genre.
We also will allow Alternative to a degree, if the alternative history is subtle changes that evolve from limited real historical fact.
If the book completely rewrites history. Eg The Battle of Hastings didn't happen, then that is more Fantasy - Alternative - Historical as opposed to Historical Fiction - alternative
Romance also straddles multiple genres.
For example romance is also found like this..
Romance - historical
Romance - contemporary
Romance - western
I would regard an historical Harlequin romance as a Historical romance. Because its major focus is the romance, not the history. So bodice rippers are, to me, not historical fiction. They are Romance - historical. Which translates to the name historical romance..
Whereas a Elizabeth Chadwick, while I call it historical romance (due to my aversion to romantic melodrama in books) it is not historical romance really.
Books like hers are Historical Fiction - Romance.
Because the major theme is a detailed historical context and the focus of the writer is building that historical scenario, the romance and love story becomes the plot or sub plot, not the theme.
Okay, now there is a hazy one for some authors. If an author writes a contemporary story which has links to the past or flashbacks to history. That is not historical fiction. That is.
Contemporary - historical
The main theme is the contemporary world. That is the detailed setting. The historical scenes, whether brought to the reader via archaeology or time slip or whatever, is the plot or sub plot. Not the setting and not the context.
This is why we do not permit authors adding books to our straight hf era folders (some do accidentally slip through though) that are set in a contemporary setting and have flashbacks to another time. Because these books are Contemporary and should never be called historical fiction
Dawn wrote: "Marina wrote: "The most historically accurate book out there is War and Peace. I dare anyone to read it. I double-dare anyone to enjoy it..."I just want to say that I read it and loved it..."
And I have issues with its accuracy.
:) :) :) A lighthearted comment. True, though.
Interesting in-depth posts by Darci and Terri.
Bryn wrote: "Interesting in-depth posts by Darci and Terri..."Some food for thought today. :)
I am still chewing on Darcy's. She inspired other thoughts form me....but I figured one in depth response from me is enough frivolity for today. :D
We had a storm here, I was in a rush to put it up before losing leccie; I didn't realise how much I'd written. I can sure be long-winded, but am pleased it's thought provoking for some.
haha. I was taken aback when I logged on this morning and saw your long post. I was most impressed that you'd had such a deep moment. That all our arguing and banter had inspired you to dig deep. :D
Oh yeah, never let in an anthropologist into a good debate or stimulating banter if you're seeking the short and sweet posts. ;-)
I think we surprised everybody with our wall of words. :)....we killed the thread momentarily.
Bryn wrote: "Dawn wrote: "Marina wrote: "The most historically accurate book out there is War and Peace. I dare anyone to read it. I double-dare anyone to enjoy it..."I just want to say that I read it and lov..."
I read it as a teen and loved it.
War and Peace I cannot pass a double dare (double dog dare). I have the book twice and somebody slap me if I start reading it again. I enjoyed the book, but it is like flying in an airplane: two times was enough.
I have no idea how historically accurate it is, but I really liked War and Peace. Pierre is one of the most interesting fictional characters that I've come across. I could have done without the chapters where Tolstoy rants about how history should be written, though.
I also really liked the character of Pierre. He had a great story arc. War and Peace is one of the few books I will probably re-read.
I was under the impression that the book was actually quite accurate. That Tolstoy had done an immense amount of research, including visiting battlefields, before he wrote it. That was the point behind the second epilogue where he denounces how history was being written during his lifetime. The rest were inaccurate but his was as accurate as he could get it even though all his characters were fictional.
Everything I looked up while I was reading it seemed to be very accurate.
I'd be curious to know what wasn't?? :)
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...
All fiction is about the illusion of accuracy. I imagine most policeman think that police procedurals are dumb, and Sherlock is utter nonsense - but as fiction it works, and we stay with it. Who cares if a policeman enjoys it or not? (And I'm sure many policemen do).
Historicals are no different in that. You don't have to get it right, as such, you have to make people believe. Or maybe not even believe. Did anyone ever 'believe' in the Scarlet Pimpernel? Or the Three Musketeers? I doubt it. But people loved reading them. It's quite possible to enjoy stuff you don't believe in.
So yes - my re-enactor friend was moaning very loudly about the inaccuracies in The White Queen. He's like the policeman who is fixated about what really happens in the force, and can't see any entertainment in (say) Case Histories.
Other people were moaning loudly about The White Queen because they know the history well, were irked by misrepresentations, and (of course) loved the opportunity to show off their knowledge. Again, I have no problem with that.
Far the biggest camp of moaners objected to the 'feel' of it. Too clean, too romantic, too pretty. Because life isn't like that. Except I think life IS like that sometimes. Blessed times, followed by grimmer times. It's this sort of critic I thought should have held off a bit. If we have 10 episodes of falling in love in the summer I'm going to be disappointed with The White Queen too.
My 2 cents (embarrassed to admit I like War and Peace too)