Historical Fictionistas discussion
Historical Fiction Discussions
>
That's wrong!
That kind of goof can wreck a book for me. Don't feel sorry!
And not just HF but anything when reading. I read a book where every abbr. of Mississippi was PRINTED Ms. Last time I checked MS is a state not a female.
Sadly with the rise of the self-published author, and the rise of the spell-checker, no one seems to catch those mistakes any more. It's pitiful.
I had a real problem with The Boelyn Girl being historically wrong to the point the book and movie were painful to read and watch. There is nothing wrong with self published authors. I am one and I spell check.
I saw the movie before I read the book. Then I read the book and went back and watched the movie. The only difference was I understood the movie more.
I thought Gregory was terrible redundant in The Other Boleyn Girl. But I did enjoy The Queen's Fool and The Boylen Inheritance.
I find Ms. Gregory's novels more fiction than history.
Speaking of which I am going to see and hear Ms. Gregory October 16th in NYC. She is on an author's panel with Lee Child and Rita Mae Brown.
Nancy wrote: "Speaking of which I am going to see and hear Ms. Gregory October 16th in NYC. She is on an author's panel with Lee Child and Rita Mae Brown."Ooo, where in NYC?
The New York Times Building in Manhattan. The event is sposored by The New York Times. I bet there are still tickets available. Let me know if you want more information like the phone number,etc.
Can you send me more info? I tried looking it up, but didn't see her on the listing. I did enjoy Gregory's Boleyn books, but I didn't care for The Queen's Fool so much. I take her books with a grain of salt. Definitely, more fiction than historical but still enjoyable.
This is the information:The NY Times Great Literary Conversations on October 16th beginning at 11 - 12:30. Book signing to follow immediately after-books will be available for purchase.
The Times Center is located at 242 West 41st Street across from Port Authority. The cost is $30 and you can call for tickets at 866-811-4111.
Forgot to mention that Sapphire, the author of Precious will also be part of this event.
Seats are on a first come first seat basis. If you go, let's try to look for each other.
Jayme(the ghost reader) wrote: "I had a real problem with The Boelyn Girl being historically wrong to the point the book and movie were painful to read and watch. There is nothing wrong with self published authors. I am one and I..."I had the same problem with Michelle Moran's The Heretic Queen. There's absolutely NO way Nefertari could be Mutnodjmet's daughter OR granddaughter. Did Moran not check her dates?
Thanks for the info Nancy! I'll see if I can make it. If I can I would definitely like to meet up.
Jackie wrote: "Thanks for the info Nancy! I'll see if I can make it. If I can I would definitely like to meet up."OK - let me know
Rebecca wrote: "I hated The Other Boleyn Girl. There was so much wrong with it."I can't read that one for that reason and as for L. commenting on Poison, I just couldn't get into that book.
Much of mainstream historical fiction (from the "Big 6" conglomerates) is aimed ONLY at generating quick sales and as a corollary it is aimed at the lowest common denominator.To give an example of who is choosing Big 6 titles, a young NYC editor actually asked the following question after hearing a pitch about a title set in the Bronze Age around 2200 BCE:
"Were there people in Europe then?"
A stunning display of ignorance, and that exemplifies who is selecting and editing mainstream titles that will be endlessly hyped and given ad space and purchased space on the front tables at you-know-where bookstore chains. (The chains not yet in bankruptcy.)
A title from a small pub or a good indie author, or from a few less "popular" mainstream authors,
is more likely to be solid and show it had some research and thought behind the story, something conceptual rather than another Let's Cash In On This Tudor Thing While It's Hot. That indie/small press title will have a story that has context, some depth rather than being just another Romance in period costume that could have happened yesterday in Las Vegas or Miami.
...Unless that is what one wants, a book to be consumed like a bowl of popcorn and quickly forgotten except for the very annoying errors and anachronisms. Those titles are not unique to either mainstream or indie.
*End of rant!*
J.S. wrote: "Much of mainstream historical fiction (from the "Big 6" conglomerates) is aimed ONLY at generating quick sales and as a corollary it is aimed at the lowest common denominator.To give an example..."
I agree!
Barbara wrote: "J.S. wrote: "Much of mainstream historical fiction (from the "Big 6" conglomerates) is aimed ONLY at generating quick sales and as a corollary it is aimed at the lowest common denominator.To give..."
Ooh, thanks -- it's dangerous to encourage my rants though! *smiles*
Ugh - there was a HUGE debate about this on another blog (Dear Author). One of the book reviewers came up with the tag "mistorical" and all hell broke loose. Or would that be Hell as a proper noun? I'm a huge fan of Author's Notes at the beginning or end to explain what historical liberties were taken and why. For ranting, here's a copy/paste of my input on the other site because I'm too lazy to condense it.
To help romance authors avoid Post-Mistorical Stress Disorder, here is Kelly’s Manifesto on Neo-Constructivist Romantical Historicism, backed by my one year of library grad school and self-proclaimed armchair historian status.
Is the historical setting integral or incidental?
If it’s integral to the characters and the plot, there’s absolutely an expectation of accuracy (insert an unsaid but implied DUH here).
However, if I’m sucked into the story and invested in the characters, I probably won’t even notice the oops until a third or fourth reading. If the story is compelling, I couldn’t give a rat’s ass whether their carriage should have been a barouche instead of a landau.
I'd put "The Other Boleyn Girl" (the book, not the horrible movie) and the movie "Elizabeth" with Cate Blanchett in this categories - there's so much other brilliant stuff that I'm willing to overlook the wrongness.
What DOES annoy me is being hit me over the head with irrelevant trivia, archaic word usage or info-dumping to show off your mad research skillz. It might be technically correct, but it’s jarring and disruptive to my reading, so STFU.
If the history is incidental, is it used appropriately to support characterization or provide a visual frame of reference?
In Kleypas’ Wallflower and Hathaway series, the early Victorian setting allows for some quirks that would be anachronistic in a true Regency, e.g. the snarky American dollar princesses playing ball with the stable boys, and the Enlightened Earl’s bromance with a Cit and a half-Gypsy card dealer.
Or maybe that’s just my overweening love/lust for said Enlightened Earl, still reigning as my Ultimate Hero *sigh*.
Does the use of history consist solely of name-dropping, title-lust, fashion-fantasy and/or property-porn?
This blatant misuse and disrespect of “history” really frosts my cupcake. If you claim a peerage or ballgown or Mayfair Mansion Staffed by 150 Servants Who Have Sworn Mindless Allegiance To The Family For Generations is integral to the story or a character, you’d better damn well prove it. Otherwise, you’re just a lazy hack barfing up boring, worn-to-a-thread clichés.
For example, random or superficial references to the following will NOT give you history cred: Almack’s (ooh, the watered-down lemonade and Sally Jersey as a bouncer!), Vauxhall Gardens (ooh, the paper-thin ham slices!), or White’s (ooh, the smoky, leathery enclave of upper-crust masculinity!).
What is the author’s intent and/or strength as a writer?
Mild anachronisms in Julia Quinn or Julie Anne Long don’t bother me in the least. I read them with a sense of humor, because the authors are known for their wittiness and light touch. They want me to get to the last page with a smile and a swoon, and I almost always do.
Quinn’s Regency world is apolitical and insular, which suits her character-driven writing style perfectly. If she suddenly switched to an earnest This Is Historical, Dammit! style, I’d suggest she consult her therapist about a change of medication.
On the other hand, any Regency centering on the Horrors of War or the Evils of Vice demands accurate historical detail to create a believable world. See Carla Kelly’s “The Surgeon’s Lady” as a beautiful example of how to write a war-time Regency romance. (If there are historical errors in this book, I DON’T WANT TO KNOW LALALALALA I CAN’T HEAR YOOOOOUUUU)
How experienced is the author, and how is the book published?
If it’s a debut author, I’m more forgiving (within reason, AHEM). But if an established writer continues to make reckless mistakes again and again, it shows they’re too busy with book signings to bother with research or just plain don’t care. And if they don’t take their writing seriously, why should I?
I’m also more forgiving with indie authors, because they don’t have access to the same support system. If I pay full-price for ANY book from a big-name publisher, I expect and DESERVE a quality product. I’m willing to pay more for those authors because I expect my money to fund fact-checkers and copy editors who prevent such errors.
Or am I just naive to think that the vast publishing bureaucracies should be held accountable as much as, or even more than, the author?
I've considered a blog post on this! Ever since the author of a self pub decided to make a daft comment in a review of another authors work.
The comment in the review proved the self pub DIDN'T know the subject .Which they claimed they actualy taught!!!
Posie Graeme-Evans's war of the roses series drives me nuts in this regard. I noticed so many errors that I started questioning every detail she included. I'm even more irked to see the first of the trilogy is in the "Idiot's Guide..." which has it's own thread in this group. No. Do not read this garbage.
J.S. wrote: "Much of mainstream historical fiction (from the "Big 6" conglomerates) is aimed ONLY at generating quick sales and as a corollary it is aimed at the lowest common denominator.To give an example of who is choosing Big 6 titles, a young NYC editor actually asked the following question after hearing a pitch about a title set in the Bronze Age around 2200 BCE:
"Were there people in Europe then?" "
This makes me angry. I'd have her fired or assigned to the serial romance department where the need for accuracy of historical items is never needed*.
While I realize this is a systemic problem with our educational system it does not mean it is correct to not know what your dealing with as an editor.
Then again I get very upset with all the grammar and basic editing problems I find in works published in the past decade. (Frankly my pets can edit better) I often wonder what these people are being paid for - it obviously isn't the editing.
Oh and I don't blame an author for an editorial fail.
*steps off soapbox*
* As in formulaic harlequin types, not other romance novels.
Darkpool wrote: "Posie Graeme-Evans's war of the roses series drives me nuts in this regard. I noticed so many errors that I started questioning every detail she included. I'm even more irked to see ..."I'd seen these mentioned somewhere else and had considered getting them to read, but now I know I shouldn't. Thanks Darkpool.
Surely the point of HF is that we want to be educated...as well as engaged and moved by a good story...? I expect the facts to be right and any author, Indie or other, who gets those wrong cheats me. I agree on author's notes in that they show a writer has done the work.As for Ms Gregory...her Tudor novels were her worst (first person sloppy), extraordinarily enough her later ones are much better.
I've read blogs with the line " don't care about accuracy". Presumeably the bloggers/reviews don't mind their readers going else where!
I will go else where when i read that .
Hi everyone!I'll be honest an tell you that I read your comments hiding behind a cushion!!!
I think the thing that bugs me most is when the characters treat important people in the story in a way they never would have done. For example: I read a story and the King of England kept turning up in random stuations in a really ludicrous way. His subjects were treating him with a complete lack of respect that would have been unthinkable, unless they didn't mind having their heads removed from their shoulders!
But I don't mind historical inacurcies so much if they are believable, and if the book is not trying to make out it's a history book.
Oh, man. Yeah, I go nuts when history is all wrong in novels. I have to keep it in perspective...fiction is fiction; there's artistic license involved. But if it's a historical setting I really love and know a lot about, it just sets my teeth on edge when it's wrong!I often find it hard to enjoy a book in spite of bad history. Sometimes I still manage, though. :)
When a author chooses to write Historicals I believe they know that they are going to have to do a ton of research to make sure everything is accurate, this is why I couldn't ever write historicals, its to complicated..lol Paranomals are so much easier! Anyway, it drives me crazy when someone gets something big wrong..could make me quit reading in the middle of a book. :(
Any factual error by an author is a distraction, big or small, that jars the reader from the world of the story. I think a history error in the genre HISTORICAL fiction is a less forgivable error than others because the very definition of the category implies that the writer has done his homework and the readers will care—a lot— about historical accuracy.To pick an example from another genre, in THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO the heroine, near the dramatic finale, picks up a Glock pistol and flicks off the safety. Glocks have no safety to flick off so it was a distracting moment for me as the reader, but it wasn't a huge deal because the genre is mystery/thriller, not gun digest.
However, when the genre is historical fiction and you screw up the history, you've screwed up in a big way.
Jeffrey wrote: "Surely the point of HF is that we want to be educated...as well as engaged and moved by a good story...? I expect the facts to be right and any author, Indie or other, who gets those wrong cheats m..."That's why I read historical fiction. I want to learn about history in a fun and engaging way. The point is moot if there's so many errors that the reader can't believe anything the author says.
Melissa wrote: "That's why I read historical fiction. I want to learn about history in a fun and engaging way. The point is moot if there's so many errors that the reader can't believe anything the author says."I think it better for me to learn history from history books, esp primary and secondary sources and let HF bring it to life. Historical fiction by its nature has much fictional history. How does one tell the difference without some background in the period or era? Of course one could use an HF to stimulate reading about and going deeper into the history.
I guess I mean it is important to remember one is reading fiction.
I write Historical Fiction, and I do quite a bit of research to get things right and avoid anachronisms. Glaring errors can take readers out of the story. Writers have the primary responsibility in that regard. Agents and editors are not fact checkers.Many years ago I read a best-selling novel set in the 1870s. The author referred to buying "film" for a camera and sending a message by "wireless." In the 1870s, cameras used plates. Roll film wasn't available until introduced by Eastman in the late 1880s. As for the message, it would have been a wire, or telegram, or cable. Wireless was introduced by Marconi at the turn of the century.
In one of my own stories, I had to get a character from Paris to London in 1848. Initially, I referred to the "Boat-Train." I knew that the British railways had reached Folkstone and Dover by that time, but I wasn't sure about the French railways. So I checked. In fact, my character would have taken a coach to Calais or Boulogne to catch the channel steamers, and I changed my story accordingly. Most readers probably wouldn't have noticed the detail, but I'm glad I took the little bit of extra effort to get my facts right.
Surprisingly, I ran into many more obstacles researching the two-year period from the time Castro returned to Cuba from exile in Mexico until he assumed power, than I had researching any other time period. For example, there are many diaries that serve as excellent source material researching every American war from the Revolution to the current ones, as well as official documents. Inasmuch as most Cubans were illiterate, especially the Fidelistas who were recruited from the outcasts and outlaws of the Sierra Madres, I found little source material that I could trust. Reminisces such as those authored by Fidel and Che are extremely self-serving and suspect. Almost all other material, especially that from the Cuban-American community is filled with invective that makes it equally suspect.In truth, I came to believe that inserting fictional characters to provide a fresh point of view may have helped me come closer to the truth than a scholarly study. I can't wait to see the reaction from interested parties as the novel becomes widely read (at least, that's what I'm hoping for).
I used dialog sparingly with historical personalities so as to not "put words in their mouths." Indeed, most of the dialog that I attribute to them is taken from their own writings and interviews. I tended to depend on my fictional characters to observe and comment for them, thus presenting my perceptions of what I felt most likely happened based on conclusions drawn from my research and applied common sense.
Ultimately, mine is a work of historical fiction, as historically accurate as I could make it. As interesting as only my fictional characters could infuse it with life.
Rebecca wrote: "Sadly with the rise of the self-published author, and the rise of the spell-checker, no one seems to catch those mistakes any more. It's pitiful."That's why authors are supposed to have brains and style knowledge, AP, Chicago Book of Style or whatever, but style consistency is one of the marks of a decent writer.
I recently read Marrying the Royal Marine and have noticed that it is held to be one of the most authentic Regency romances, I also saw it received an A-review on Dear Author.I must say I am flabbergasted. While it certainly is an engaging, nice read, fluffy and pretty fantastic, I never had the impression of being in the presence of genuine people or situations of that era. It felt more like a contemporary "strong female character" engaging a modern, enlightened man.
I was quite unable to suspend disbelief on most of what happened in that book either.
So, does the romance genre "label" mean there is more leeway?
KKJ wrote: "Ugh - there was a HUGE debate about this on another blog (Dear Author). One of the book reviewers came up with the tag "mistorical" and all hell broke loose. Or would that be Hell as a proper noun?..."The big publishers don't edit anymore, I'm convinced. I find many historical mistakes (so easily researched now with the internet) in HF pubbed by the big 'uns.
And the young editors at conferences don't know their history either, I agree.
I'm reading a book right now set in the regency and it could be set anywhere. Modern talk, no background setting. They went to Vauxhall with no details of the place, it could have been any park in the world.
Diane wrote: "KKJ wrote: "Ugh - there was a HUGE debate about this on another blog (Dear Author). One of the book reviewers came up with the tag "mistorical" and all hell broke loose. Or would that be Hell as a ..."That's a shame. Good Historical Fiction should give the reader a sense of the period; atmosphere is very important. Speaking of Vauxhall, there's a great description of the place ca. 1835 in Thackeray's "Pendennis."
Given the information available to anyone willing to do a little research, all that's needed is some good descriptive writing and imagination to draw the reader into another world.
As an author, it's very important to me to have my facts correct. As a reader, I expect the author to have done that same research. I understand when fine points conflict, depending on whose work you read -- it happens on small details. But I expect things like you describe to be spot on and yes, it ruins the book for me. If an author is going to fudge things (combining characters into one, for instance), at least have the decency to admit that in a foreword. A case of "forewarned is forearmed," as they say.
I know it should drive me absolutely insane, but some historical errors don't annoy me too much.However, when the author goes out of their way to treat (or imply) those errors are fact (I'm looking at you, Philippa Gregory), I get annoyed. On the other hand, the thing that pissed me off the most about the Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter movie was that he and Mary only had one son in the film.... To summarize, my opinion should probably be considered moot. Crap.
I hate it too when the author brags about all their research but their novel is full of incorrect information. I'm talking about The Second Empress!!! But everyone loves it, and does not seem to care that it's brimming with major inaccuracies. I'm obviously in the minority to even vent about it.
It's more when they sort of... lead you into it, I guess? That doesn't make much sense on my end. Hrm. For example, at the end of "The Other Boleyn Girl", Gregory spoke of the charges of incest against Anne and her brother. She said something along the lines of, "Well, do you feel Anne was capable of doing this?"Me: What.
Barbara wrote: "I find Ms. Gregory's novels more fiction than history."I think of her as emphasizing more the "fiction" than the "historical" in "historical fiction."
At another site we call this "potato rage."
"Potato rage", eh? I like it. But yes, I'm okay with the authors emphasizing the "fiction" over the "historical" in said "historical fiction" so long as they don't imply their research is the be all and end all of everything ever.
I can forgive a lot for a good Author's Note. And I give a lot of slack indeed for older works where the state of the research has changed, of course.
I read (well, started to read) a best-selling historical novel set just at the beginning of the American Civil War. It seemed to have been put together in a hurry. There was a scene at the house of Captain Winfield S. Hancock, out west, where the officers, some of whom were heading north, some south.
A character knocks on the door. Major Hancock opens it himself, says (essentially) "Come in, come in, my good fellow! Mira (his wife - whose nickname for her full name - Almira - was reported to be 'Allie') is in the kitchen opening another bottle of wine, and there is cheese here..." (quote approproximate).
Hancock was wealthy. His wife was, socially, a Lady. Unless it was something urgent, Capt. Hancock would not have opened his own front door: a servant would. Mrs. Hancock would not have been doing things in the kitchen for a social gathering, even of good friends. And they did not have wine and cheese parties then.
I tried to hang on, but the inaccuracies were setting my teeth on edge, and I finally put the book away. It had an excellent plot, and deserved to be a best-seller for that, alone. The inaccuracies, however, spoiled it for me.
A character knocks on the door. Major Hancock opens it himself, says (essentially) "Come in, come in, my good fellow! Mira (his wife - whose nickname for her full name - Almira - was reported to be 'Allie') is in the kitchen opening another bottle of wine, and there is cheese here..." (quote approproximate).
Hancock was wealthy. His wife was, socially, a Lady. Unless it was something urgent, Capt. Hancock would not have opened his own front door: a servant would. Mrs. Hancock would not have been doing things in the kitchen for a social gathering, even of good friends. And they did not have wine and cheese parties then.
I tried to hang on, but the inaccuracies were setting my teeth on edge, and I finally put the book away. It had an excellent plot, and deserved to be a best-seller for that, alone. The inaccuracies, however, spoiled it for me.
When an author boasts about their excessive research on a subject, then writes the complete opposite, with no author's note, it's scary to think how many people will believe this is true history. But because the author is famous,she gets away with it. No one questions her inaccuracies. I know Gregory has been questioned or taken to task over many of hers, but the author I'm talking about hasn't...as far as I know.
Historical Fictionistas
Books mentioned in this topic
Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Domestic Life in Victorian England (other topics)London and Londoners in the 1850s and 1860s (other topics)
Further Particulars: Consequences of an Edwardian Boyhood (other topics)
Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Domestic Life in Victorian England (other topics)
Dr. Johnson's London (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Maggie Anton (other topics)Posie Graeme-Evans (other topics)
Posie Graeme-Evans (other topics)
Right now I'm reading Poison which is set in 1492. The author has twice had her main character make a reference to Saint Joan of Arc, when Joan wasn't made a saint until 1920. This is a fact not that hard to look up, Ms. Poole - why didn't you?
Never mind that this character also does quite a bit of bathing when Europeans thought washing themselves was actually unhealthy. She (the character) even ruminates about the smell of sandalwood soap on her lover. If Europeans did use soap at this time, they didn't use it on themselves.
Sorry, just wanted to get this off my chest.