History Buffs United discussion
Why read about the same events again and again
date
newest »
newest »
Hi Inga, found you(I keep getting lost in the maze of Goodreads)
I must have read every book there is on Mary Queen of Scots - from fact to fiction - and I'm always looking for that different angle or perspective that might shed light on the reasons behind the action. And what one author leaves out another might find important and highlight. While history gives the facts, fiction writers can add both psychological depth and a deeper reality. Also they can explore the minor characters caught up in the major events whom the historians tend to neglect or ignore.
Interesting questions, Inga. I've often wondered about that myself--especially about the Tudors. They definately get more than their share of attention today.I agree with Marie that looking at the same events from a different angle can add interesting depth and perspective. The events of Tudor Europe are very well documented. Since everyone agrees on what happened, we can examine different ideas about why, and what effect those events had on the survivors (it was such a violent time that just surviving it makes previously unlooked at people interesting!)
There's also the fact that the Tudor clan is one of the most dysfunctional families in history--something people are interested in today. We compare them to our own families, and realize ours aren't so bad.
Mod
I'm not really a Tudor fan, but I have probably read or have on my to-read list, every novel written about William Wallace. He's one of my favorite historical figures and I've written two novels about him myself. I know for me, the reason I keep reading novels about him is that I like to see how different people portray him, and the Wallace legacy is actually very interesting, because the way we view him has changed over the centuries, from the first "fictional account" of him by Blind Harry which kind of portrayed him as an epic hero and somewhat of a bloodthirsty killer, to versions from the 1800s like The Scottish Chiefs where he was a more classic, virtuous knight, and now we'll get some of both I think. So because it's a favorite story of mine, I like to see how different authors see Wallace. I don't always agree with all of them, but they're very interesting to compare with each other.
I answered this in Historical Fictionistas, with positive comment on how deeply I like to get into a period--like to live there, as nearly as possible.However, I'm one of these who complain 'too much Tudor' on the shelves. It's not one of my periods. And I'd kill for more diversity in HF publishing. Of course that's where indie comes in.
I'm a historian. That's my job. ;)Like Bryn, though, I am Tudored-out. There has to be a real twist in a story to persuade me to bite if Tudors are involved. So the real answer to your question is that I won't, after a while.
But novelists often add dimensions to a story that nonfiction writers don't bother with. So as a novelist, I will read many books in my area of interest, both fiction and nonfiction, in the hope of mining data I can use. At whatever point I begin to feel that I know more than the other writers, I stop reading that and go onto something less familiar.
And like C.P., when I first answered (in the other group) truly I was talking about research. Where you don't get bored, you just get more and more involved. Though impatient with stuff that just goes over the ground.
Hi Inga. My particular obsession is the Plantagenets. Yes, it's true that the books I read are, in essence, the same events and characters, but there are differences in each version of the telling which changes the perspective enough to keep things interesting. For example, in "Frost on the Rose," by Maureen Peters, Richard II was gay. This perspective provided one explanation as to his not having any children. Neither of his two marriages were consummated. In "Within The Hollow Crown," by Margaret Campbell Barnes, he was straight, and adored his first wife Anne of Bohemia, therefore, most certainly consummated their union. This naturally would lead to a different explanation for the same fact.
Bryn wrote: "I answered this in Historical Fictionistas, with positive comment on how deeply I like to get into a period--like to live there, as nearly as possible.However, I'm one of these who complain 'too much Tudor on the shelves..."
Sadly that's not what major publishers feel (or so agents say) - when I was looking for an agent I came up against the 'pity it wasn't about the Tudors' kind of attitude, and interestingly one of the reviews on Amazon (which was positive) commented 'these are not the Tudors' - and therefore that the book required a little more effort to read. So clearly familiarity is something that some readers at least feel is valuable. I was almost at the point of going down the Indie road when I got two offers from small publishers after making a direct approach. So maybe the small presses are more adventurous in terms of periods / settings.
For myself (maybe I'm odd) I like to try lots of different periods in fiction, there is just so much fascinating stuff about. If i enjoy a articular book then it's the non-fiction about the period that I tend to try and read more of.
I write about the American Civil War era, and it seems that, no matter what I read, there is always something new and fascinating to learn. Every soldier had a story to tell, as did the people at home who were effected by the terrible war. To me, it is a continual learning process.
I am working my way through the tudor period and I suppose what I look for is different perspectives either simply from different fiction authors or when it comes to factual writing the different focus that the author takes. Also I suppose it is worth remembering that each author has their own take on the evidence they use. After all when you're largely working with secondary sources you almost always put you own take on it. In my reading I like finding out about the characters that although largely fictional would probably have existed in some form or another. They are the ones that really bring the story to life.
Thank you all so much for very interesting answers! I've now got a lot of material to work with. I'm giving a talk on this on Saturday, along with comparing two historical novels that cover the same events. Interest is actually such that the national radio here in Iceland interviewed me about the Tudors and historical fiction!
Not that is something! Well done. Hope it goes well. Maybe next time you'll look at Scotland in the time of the Tudors...
You're welcome, Inga. All the best for your talk on Saturday. :)
Margaret wrote: "Not that is something! Well done. Hope it goes well. Maybe next time you'll look at Scotland in the time of the Tudors..."Thank you Margaret. As for Scotland, I've looked at Mary Queen of Scots in historical fiction and film, I've published one article on this and another on the way...
I agree that when you analyze certain events from a different angle that someone else's, it makes it more interesting and you really become more fascinated by the subject. It keeps building up and building up! You never become satisfied until you know EVERY SINGLE DETAIL. Well, that's how I am. I want to know everything on a subject, and looking through many people's views, makes it much more interesting for me :)
Mod
Me too Hazel. And that takes up a lot more time, I've found. When exactly did a particular item of clothing or hairstyle come into fashion, or food become popular.... Same for vocabulary but it's great to come across a little spicy nugget that adds to the flavour.
Mod
I often read several different books about the same battle in a given war. And sometimes even a historical fiction book depicting that battle, or characters portrayed in it or affected by it, etc.Currently, I'm reading about battles in American Civil War, and in mid-1864 specifically.
I find if you read several different books on a subject like this, especially when they were written in different time periods (one as a memoir in late 1800s or early 1900s, another from 1940's - 1960's, and another from 1980's-2000's, etc). It's pretty remarkable how the authors' viewpoints and tones can very clearly reflect the times, attitudes popular, and the general society within which each wrote their books. It's pretty remarkable to contrast how viewpoints have changed (or even go 180 degrees) in last 50 years on subjects. Like the Northern and Southern anti-war groups, the homefront of the Confederacy, motivations of key figures, many others, etc., between books written on the same subject but from the different periods.
I read several versions about particular battles as well. Because I'm a Civil War author, I feel that it is imperative to research every event thoroughly. That way, I can get an accurate vision of what really took place, and transpose it into a specific character's experience. I think that is one of the most fascinating things about writing historical fiction. It's important to get the facts straight, but it's also necessary to transport readers, so that they can understand what it must have been like to live through those times. I agree that the writing has changed over time. Unfortunately, political correctness is interfering with historical accuracy.
Historical novels are written in one of two ways. One way is to try to dramatize an actual life (Julius Caesar, Lincoln) keeping to the facts as we know them, fleshing out the motivations and the physical settings.The other way is to create fictional characters and set them against a backdrop of historical events and people.
In both methods, the backdrop must be authentic, else it is not an historical novel but something else like Martin's Game of Thrones, or S.J.A. Turney's Tales of the Empire.
Of the two methods, I think the fictional characters against a true backdrop make for a better reading experience, for the Muse is free to wander where she will among the physical landscape.
I think history is very addictive and once you get interested in a certain time period or historical figure it's easy to get "hooked" on that theme. I've been a big American Civil War buff all my life and never seem to get tired of the subject but it's even more thrilling when I get turned onto something new and devour everything I can about that. Big events like wars and revolutions are always attractive to writers but sometimes it's the road less traveled that provides the most interesting dramatic setting. Writers and readers tend to have "comfort zones" where they know they'll at least be interested in the subject because it's familiar ground but it's also fun to spread your wings and try something new.
"Shogun" was that kind of experience for me as a reader as I knew very little about Japan in 1600. By the time I was done with that book I wanted to read everything I could find about the setting.
Yes, Scott. I think it is kinda like having friends, and also having special friends, such as C.S. Lewis probed repeatedly. I once posted on a discussion board if any of the philosophers who wrote on Aesthetics probed into why a person liked this piece of music and not that one. I got no answer, so I guess it hasn't been probed, except for the famous "Taste cannot be disputed."But I wonder if there is a common element that all the particular eras a person may like reading about has in common: He/she sees in it a familiarity coupled with a strangeness.
I am increasingly convinced that the primary element that lifts a work of fiction (for a particular reader) is detecting an other worldly strangeness. Not a religiosity, but a larger dimension.
In my thinking a prime example of this is the film "Legends of the Fall," in which two factors contribute to this. First there is the native American chants, and then, toward the end, there is the montage of various characters in their actions at the same time.
I have always avoided reading on the French Revolution, but recently added to my to-be-read list Pure
. The reviews hint of an element of strangeness. That is what attracted me to it. Is it out of my comfort zone that you speak about? Yes, but possibly I'll feel right at home experiencing another take on strangeness.Vann Turner
Inga, I feel that the reason why people like to read about the same people/places/and time periods again again is because there is something there about these things that deeply interest them. Such things can be the religion, costume, and the way of life of the people who lived during the time compared to their own time period. Sometimes people like to see where people from certain time periods like to learn about other times in history to see where they may have gone wrong in handling a historical event, so that the people of the future and now cannot make the same mistakes all over again. To add to that, it could be simply just to be more thankful for living in the time that they are living in now. I cannot tell you how many times I have read about things in history pertaining to people who had to suffer and live in miserable conditions just because of their race, or some other reason. When I read these types of things, it makes me so glad that I was born in the time that I was born in.
Rachael wrote: "Inga, I feel that the reason why people like to read about the same people/places/and time periods again again is because there is something there about these things that deeply interest them. Such..."Thank you Rachael!
I confess that I am not of that type. I love to read and write about the Roman Empire but I avoid Caesar, Augustus and Pontius Pilate because I am thoroughly fed up with meeting these guys all the time and prefer to walk on less trodden paths.
Ingibjörg wrote: "Dear History Buffs,I would be ever so grateful if you could help me. I'm doing some research on the reasons why people become fans of historical fiction set in specific time periods such as the T..."
For me, it's because one book or story can't do justice to the complicated issues of the time and the people. Each story sheds new light on the era. Also, if it's an era I really like, such as medieval or colonial, with each new story about the period I can really feel like I'm there, in the book.
Ingibjorg, great question. My therapist is probably more capable of explaining this than I am, but certain time periods resonate more than others. I am fascinated by the Crusades, but couldn't care less about the American Civil War. World War 1 I can't get enough of, I think the second world war has been done to death.... Just a general rule for me; Swords are cooler than guns, and it's hard to find a badass woman in a corset. I will be interested in hearing from others and finding out what you discover.
Wayne wrote: "Ingibjorg, great question. My therapist is probably more capable of explaining this than I am, but certain time periods resonate more than others. I am fascinated by the Crusades, but couldn't care..."I'd agree that swords are cooler than guns. And I fell in love with the Crusades when I read Children of the Lost Crusade by Henry Treece in elementary school.
"Just a general rule for me; Swords are cooler than guns, and it's hard to find a badass woman in a corset."True enough, but they are easier found in the Roman Empire. I would just refer you to that notorious quote by Ammianus Marcellinus: "If a Gaul gets involved in a quarrel, a host of opponents will not prevail when he calls his wife to help - who is taller than him and bright-eyed."
Cool, and notice she probably wasn't wearing a corset!
Wayne wrote: "Cool, and notice she probably wasn't wearing a corset!"You know, speaking from experience, corsets aren't so bad, if they fit properly and aren't too tight.
Asian women, historically, don't wear corsets. And steppe women in any period can be pretty feisty. Just sayin'. ;-)
Hi Inga,I just like history (and as my bio here says - it's ever since I read my first Asterix :)
Really, I'd read about anything up to WWI - as long as it's well researched. This is critical for me. I use the historical fiction as a way to bring characters and events for life. It's a great supplement to reading non-fiction accounts.
Seeing the difference in depictions and interpretations between various authors and between fictionalised and historical accounts, helps highlight what we know and what we don't. What is safe to assume and what blanks can be filled. I'm already excited about history - this learning exercise just makes it even more exciting :)
As for favourite periods, probably ancient Rome tops my list (though like I said I'll anything - like 19th century Russia ;). Good examples of the kind of books I am referring to are Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series, and Steven Saylor's Roma and Empire books. They are very well researched, they present a plausible account, the authors list in the footnotes their own research and interpretations, and it just open a gateway to a whole exciting world for me.
Cheers!
Assaph
Guilty as sin. Post Roman Britain. Middle Ages. Napoleonic era. American Civil War. American West. WWII. More...I must admit, I read little of the Tudor period. So I can't say I'm Tudored-out yet.
Over and over. Read and reread.
Great and thought provoking discussion, Inga. Thanks
Well, I usually don't re-read the same events unless there's a different perspective on them. I also have obsessions about particular historical personages, but sometimes I lose my appetite for reading about a particular one. For example, I'm no longer interested in Eleanor of Aquitaine unless it's Eleanor of Aquitaine on crusade.
I do get rather fed up with time certain time periods. The War of the roses, The Knights Templar and even my once favorites, The Roman empire and Arthurian romance (I know not strictly history but it contains some) are now things from a bygone time for me. Lol. I think that we go through phases where certain things fascinate us but once we are reasonably well read on that subject the glamour fades to be replaced with another shinier time period. For me at the moment it is the sagas but i am sure that with time this too shall fade. However, I think all history buffs retain their fascination for history it is just the time period that changes.
There is a similar discussion currently going on in a German group. One reader who wondered why there is so much about the Tudors but never anything about the Jagellones or the Arpadides - or Central Eastern Europe in general - was answered by an established author of historical fiction that she had made such proposals but publishers would routinely turn them down.
History Buffs United
Books mentioned in this topic
Pure (other topics)The Scottish Chiefs (other topics)
I would be ever so grateful if you could help me. I'm doing some research on the reasons why people become fans of historical fiction set in specific time periods such as the Tudor period, and in particular on why they like to read a novel about the same events or the same historical figure again and again. Is it not just always the same story?
I'm one of those who like to read about the same events/people again and again, but I can only answer for myself as to reasons; I need more information from a wide variety of people.
I'm preparing a talk on this issue (focusing on historical fiction of the Tudor period) and would appreciate your comments very much; I may quote you in my paper and so would advice only those who do not mind this to reply to this post.
With my best wishes,
Ingibjörg, or Inga for short