That's wrong!

[Steelwhisper]

Ann wrote: "I love your 'Marching Through Georgia', Diana. I know another Diana--Gabaldon--discovered a character in 1700s Scotland speaking like a more modern woman. Thus was born the OUTLANDER series. I o..."

Are you (not meant personally, but the everyone here you) satisfied with such an approach?

Because I must confess that I'm not or wouldn't be. Same with stating something is written but a year later, or that something will be invented but shortly after etc..

I could accept an author stating in their notes that they chose one of the less likely chains of events, when they aren't certain and scholars have differing opinions about a far back historical fact. If the novel is paranormal and about a fictional universe (what if Hitler were never born, what if timetravel existed and a woman could move back in time etc.) that's okay, anything else and I quite dislike fiddling with established facts.

It leaves, heh, sort of a brain itch and takes me out of my suspension of disbelief and I can't get back into it enough then to enjoy the story. Anyone else having that problem?

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "It leaves, heh, sort of a brain itch and takes me out of my suspension of disbelief and I can't get back into it enough then to enjoy the story. Anyone else having that problem?..."

I think it depends on what has been done and how. If it is a sort of 'alternative history' thing and is clearly stated, it is not a problem (though I tend to avoid alternative history).

It also depends on just what is being done and how. Using the example of my seventh son of a seventh son, he's 'fey' (though very down to earth), and some odd things happen around him, so that his saying 'that hasn't been written yet' and everyone unable to remember the song is something a little different.

I know some people who will not consider as a 'historical novel' a work that has any elements of religion or mythology in it, no matter how well researched it is. I am not speaking of having the god Apollo step in and be a character. Religion, considered 'fantasy' has no place in a historical novel, per these people.

[Steelwhisper]

Diana wrote: "Religion, considered 'fantasy' has no place in a historical novel, per these people. ..."

I wouldn't say that religion has no place in a historical novel, because obviously formerly way more people were believing in one or another religion.

However, and I have to clearly point out that this is my personal opinion, any novel which treats religious events (such as the abovementioned fae incident) for real indeed belongs into the category "inspirational". At the very least it indeed is an alternate universe and paranormal.

I would consider this a paranormal, historical story--maybe, if it's more history and only a little bit of paranormal. If it's more, then this quickly moves off into urban fantasy or fantasy. But of course YMMV ;)

[[deleted user]]

Oh, I don't think having a character with a touch of ESP has anything to do with religion, and if the incident is a throwaway side note with a minor character, that's fine, too. How would one handle a novel about Joan of Arc?

However that is simply my own opinion, and I perfectly understand and accept your take on things. It's logical and well-founded.

I guess individual tastes and tolerances vary. I am not calling anyone intolerant - I, for example, have a low threshold for the 'gory gallop' types of novels like Robert Low's or Bernard Cornwell's. I also object to having as 'historical fiction' a novel like Achilles' Song where the goddess Thetis, for example, takes a direct acting part.

[Diane]

If a novel is Alternative History, then I expect anything might happen, but I don't like an author who changes history for her own pleasure and says her research was extenstive. Yes, back to the Second Empress. If a character says something hasn't been written yet, then the novel borders on fantasy, which is fine, if that's the genre the author is working in. Or if the book is a parody, and it's meant to be amusing.

[Steelwhisper]

Heh! I needed a moment to be sure my eyes didn't cross or something, but then I noticed one of you is -e the other -a ;) What a coincidence!

I agree quite entirely with Diane.

Joan of Arc is an event which took place at a time when paranormal or religious "occurrences" were considered the most likely explanation for any kind of vision or hallucination. Without siding with any scientific explanation, and there are quite a few, the one explanation I would not accept is that of any of these saints or entities appearing to her in reality.

That said, I am an author and tend to talk with my characters while I write, or look through their eyes or experience what they do. I'm certainly neither insane (well some might argue ;), heh!), nor do I think these are paranormal experiences.

Heh, I have far more problems with Achilles' Song than that and was rather shocked that it won.

[Joyce]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Heh! I needed a moment to be sure my eyes didn't cross or something, but then I noticed one of you is -e the other -a ;) What a coincidence!

I agree quite entirely with Diane.

Joan of Arc is an ..."

I may also be insane, but my characters have to be real to me. That's why I have to ignore many of the sidelights. I write about WWII in the Pacfic, and if my characters can't have had knowledge or involvement in an act, I don't write about it. Granted that I have to have my characters involved in a way that, at first, may seem a little unlikely, but I always try to make it seem real. The book I am writing now is about a partisan group in the Philippines that fights behind japanese lines. Although the navy certainly played a huge role in the Pacific war, I have to leave it out completely. How am I going to explain that they have any knowledge of what the navy does? They have no way to know! I think that's what a writer does, or at least I do. I talk with my characters and listen to how they feel and what they think. It makes them more real! No further explanation need apply! Joyce Shaughnesssy
blessedarethemerciful.net and ahealingplacebook.net

[Libbie Hawker]

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

Here's a review I did recently of a book which combines religious and historical elements. In it I share my thoughts on why it's USUALLY a bad idea (and why it succeeded in this case.)

I agree that a book which has gods as active characters belongs more in the realm of fantasy..."historical fantasy," maybe? However, books in which characters are strongly religious, maybe have religious visions, etc.? That seems perfectly all right for historical fiction. If the character was a strong believer, then that's who the character was. The author should stay true to that. I say this as a staunch atheist myself...to short-change a character's personality or to misrepresent the zeitgeist of the historical setting is to fall short of writing excellent historical fiction.

[Steelwhisper]

Lavender wrote: "However, books in which characters are strongly religious, maybe have religious visions, etc.? That seems perfectly all right for historical fiction. If the character was a strong believer, then that's who the character was. The author should stay true to that. I say this as a staunch atheist myself...to short-change a character's personality or to misrepresent the zeitgeist of the historical setting is to fall short of writing excellent historical fiction. ..."

I fully agree with that, I hope that much got clear. It's when the author suddenly foists their own religiosity and beliefs on me by making them "reality" that I usually baulk.

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "It's when the author suddenly foists their own religiosity and beliefs on me by making them "reality" that I usually baulk..."

We had a discussion along these lines on another board (specifically for writers) regarding religion and historicity. The discussion put out a very interesting point:

By 'religion' we agreed that it meant a system of beliefs regarding ultimate reality (someone was wondering whether his atheism/atheistic slant of his novel would disqualify him from a contest). Atheism was included in the definition of 'system of beliefs' because it draws a conclusion regarding ultimate reality. (Agnosticism was judged not to be a 'religion' by that definition...)

So an atheist author can foist his or her religiosity and beliefs on a reader as well as could a Shinto or Zoroastrian or Quaker.

It made a lot of us think.

(We also concluded that the contest accepted all systems of beliefs - or absence of belief. The OP was quite relieved and we encouraged him to submit his MS.)

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Heh! I needed a moment to be sure my eyes didn't cross or something, but then I noticed one of you is -e the other -a ;) What a coincidence!.."

A's and E's are hard to keep straight, aren't they, Staalwhispar? ;) (though in Diane vs Diana one is latin and the other French.)

[Steelwhisper]

Diana wrote: "Steelwhisper wrote: "Heh! I needed a moment to be sure my eyes didn't cross or something, but then I noticed one of you is -e the other -a ;) What a coincidence!.."

A's and E's are hard to keep st..."

Heh, yes, depends entirely on my current state of eyesight ;)

As to your discussion, I probably would have baulked at the notion that my rejection of both religion and belief in deities is a religion. ;)

[Libbie Hawker]

Heh...I would have balked at that as well, although it's a useful discussion in figuring out whether an atheistic novel can be entered in a contest of religious themes. In that case I'd say it can, though not because atheism is a religion, but because it addresses religious questions.

[Steelwhisper]

Lavender wrote: "Heh...I would have balked at that as well, although it's a useful discussion in figuring out whether an atheistic novel can be entered in a contest of religious themes. In that case I'd say it can..."

Very logical. Yes ;)

[[deleted user]]

The point is that atheism is a system of belief(s), and any validity it may be perceived to have is no less likely to be colored by wishful thinking than a 'religion' involving 'deities'. Proseletyzing is offensive no matter who does it, or why.

The contest, BTW was the ABNA competition jointl hosted by Amazon and Penguin. No religion involved.

[Steelwhisper]

Diana wrote: "The point is that atheism is a system of belief(s), and any validity it may be perceived to have is no less likely to be colored by wishful thinking than a 'religion' involving 'deities'. Proselet..."

Heh. I hold with Sam Harris instead, he expressed it quite perfectly:

“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious. In fact, "atheism" is a term that should not even exist. No one ever needs to identify himself as a "non-astrologer" or a "non-alchemist." We do not have words for people who doubt that Elvis is still alive or that aliens have traversed the galaxy only to molest ranchers and their cattle. Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.”

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "“Atheism is not a philosophy; it is not even a view of the world; it is simply an admission of the obvious..."

I enjoy this sort of argument. You will notice that I have not given my take on things in this discussion.

Mr. Harris has voiced an atheist's opinion of what he believes to be obvious. I would imagine that the Dalai Lama would state that his (what we call) religion is merely 'an admission of the obvious', as well. Other systems of thought, including Confucianism, which does not involve a deity, say the same thing.

Who is wrong?

I think it is valid to state that the 'obvious' that is 'admitted' by what is called 'atheism' is by no means obvious to those people. Many of all those people (atheist and otherwise) are deep thinkers.

It's an interesting discussion, but I bowed out of the first one (while finding it entertaining from a slightly mischievous standpoint) and am bowing out of this one, as well.

Instead, let's mention Robert Heinlein, in the character of Lazarus Long, stating that he attended the United States Army Academy at Annapolis.

Now that's wrong!

[Libbie Hawker]

Diana wrote: "The point is that atheism is a system of belief(s), and any validity it may be perceived to have is no less likely to be colored by wishful thinking than a 'religion' involving 'deities'. Proselet..."

Er -- no, "atheism" means a person doesn't believe in gods. It doesn't imply proselytizing and "I don't believe in gods" can hardly be said to rely on "wishful thinking." All atheism means as a word or as a category is that the people who describe themselves that way do not believe in gods. Anything else (proselytizing, etc.) a person brings to the table is up to that individual. All atheists are not proselytizers, and I hardly think "I don't believe in gods" can be called a philosophy. It's more like an opinion.

By the way, it's a bit eyebrow-raising to make blanket statements such as "atheism is a philosophy" and to imply that atheists are trying to turn you or other people into atheists, and to call the atheists in this thread "offensive," then to hand-wave and say that you didn't say what side of the debate you are on and then effectively vanish in a puff of smoke. If you are going to make irksome statements, at least have the spine to stand behind what you say, and "bowing out" without defending your comments in the face of Steelwhisper's own comments is kind of lame.

[[deleted user]]

Lavender wrote:"...kind of lame...
But I did none of this, Lavender. I said it was a system of beliefs- an opinion, if you like, like other statements pertaining to ultimate truths. I said that preselytizing was offensive. I did not accuse anyone of proselytizing; my statements were general.I am strictly interested in the debate aspect of this discussion, which has played itself out and has apparently touched a nerve. and moved beyond debate into other territory . The discussion has no connection to my personal faith or lack of it, I never described it.

[Steelwhisper]

Diana, why not just leave telling me what I am alone? Especially in this area, because I can keep this discussion up and engaging eternally--only I don't wish to. Or in other words, I have been trying to very politely let you know I consider being told what I am and what is my POV of the world by someone else than me quite, heh, inappropriate.

This by the way is one of the main problems I have with religious people. They treat those who aren't religious and/or who don't think that deities exist as if they were some poor souls who're just led astray and need to be pulled back into some religious fold. To me on the other hand your comments make exactly as much (or rather as little) sense as Harris' reference to believing Elvis is alive. If you stated that, it would be as credible as any defense of religion--as such statements originate from the same general background of psychological behaviour.

I'm not an agnostic, to me there is no leeway of needing proof of something as outrageous. I consider proof and evidence against the case of deities and religions having already been very, very ample centuries before I was born.

All that said, I really don't care for this discussion. Unless you want to irk me beyond measure please simply cease making sweeping statements about what I am or define my world for me. ;)

[Zoe]

Diane wrote: "I read somewhere that some people objected to the stink of body odor in the past, but, you're right, most people took it as the norm. Bathing was seen as wrong!"

Well, that was mostly the case with Europe, medieval and later on, but not everywhere the bathing was seen as wrong :)
(I have a relevant article if anyone may be interested http://blog.zoesaadia.com/bathing-twi...)

[Diane]

That's true, not everyone beieved bathing was wrong in other countries. Look at the Roman baths which were quite popular. I was speaking from the English POV, the era which I've studied, eighteenth century.

As for the religious discussion, I like what my son told me at sixteen: religions, which are supposed to be comforting, have started more wars than any other reason; he believes in science and what he can see before him.

[Zoe]

Diane wrote: "That's true, not everyone beieved bathing was wrong in other countries. Look at the Roman baths which were quite popular. I was speaking from the English POV, the era which I've studied, eighteenth..."

I think in England they may had a good cause to avoid too much bathing, in the major cities at least ;-)
I heard somewhere that with growing industrial revolution of the 17th century and on, the water of Thames had been so polluted, one was really better off avoiding much contact with it :D

[Diane]

The Thames was horriby polluted on up into the nineteenth century. Unsavory people rowed around in boats, stealing clothing and whatnot from the dead bodies floating in it.

[Zoe]

Ouch!!! :D (worse than I imagined)

[Kate]

Even in the Middle Ages, there was probably more cleanliness than we imagine. Naturally if you were very poor or rural the standard for washing was low - but anyone in even slightly more comfortable conditions made a point of washing hands, face, neck on a daily basis from a basin. It's full-body immersion that was a trifle more rare, since it was difficult to manage that much water. But washing from a basin was much more common, and it was considered good manners to have those visible parts of the body clean.

[Robin]

Zoe wrote: "Diane wrote: "I read somewhere that some people objected to the stink of body odor in the past, but, you're right, most people took it as the norm. Bathing was seen as wrong!"

Well, that was mostly the case with Europe, medieval and later on, but not everywhere the bathing was seen as wrong :)"

But this was my very point earlier on, that bathing was not that abnormal, not even in Europe during medieval times. This is a long topic so I'm not surprised my post was overlooked by many so I will quote again (and more elaborately this time) from
Daily Life in the Middle Ages:

"Among the many reproaches made against the Middle Ages one of the most insistent aspersions has been a three-headed slander, barking like Cerberus to this effect. First, that the streets of mediaeval towns were constantly foul-smelling and full of filth, owing to the lack of closed sewers and private or public conveniences, to the custom of throwing refuse into the street, and to the failure of municipal authorities to clean the pavements. Second, that soap and baths were little known in those benighted days."

"Like "jumbo shrimp" or "presidential integrity," the phrase "personal hygiene of the Middle Ages" appears so self-contradictory as to be an oxymoron. And certainly medieval Europeans did not bathe or launder their clothes as frequently as we do today. But that does not mean that they preferred being dirty or were oblivious to the benefits of good hygiene. Rather, the generally low level of personal hygiene, especially when compared to modern standards, can be attributed more to the limited facilities available for washing and the attendant inconvenience of using them than to any cultural bias against cleanliness or any ignorance of its benefits. This conclusion is supported by many surviving medieval tracts on health and numerous illustrations and records of everyday life. These sources provide depictions and descriptions of the washing facilities then existing. Just as important, they provide ample evidence that the pleasures and benefits of bathing and keeping clean were well known and enjoyed throughout medieval Europe."

"People in the Middle Ages do not appear to have avoided taking baths. Health manuals routinely extolled the benefits of bathing, especially in soothing warm water. This advice wasn't limited to adults. Some medical texts also stated that infants should be bathed at least once a day and some even recommended three."

"Soap was certainly known and used during the Middle Ages. Throughout the period, it often appeared as an item of commerce in shipping manifests and other records of trade while tales of fiction from as early as the 13th century record the use of soap while bathing."

[Steelwhisper]

There is a very lovely scene in the movie "Witness" (1985) with John Book observing Rachel Lapp washing in the evening at the basin in her room.

I always considered this sort of the gold standard for what must have been feasible and would have been done in the past by people interested in doing it.

[Kate]

Yes, I remember that scene in "Witness." You can get quite a thorough bath from a basin if you scrub.

Sorry I did not see your original post, Robin. This has definitely become a long conversation thread!

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Diana, why not just leave telling me what I am alone? Especially in this area, because I can keep this discussion up and engaging eternally--only I don't wish to. Or in other words, I have been try..."

I said last night that I was dropping this line of discussion. Another poster called that lame. I replied and reiterated my statement.

This discussion ended, for me, last night, and my post explains why. ;)

[[deleted user]]

Kate wrote: "You can get quite a thorough bath from a basin if you scrub..."

I think someone on this thread mentioned visiting Mongolia and washing very well with just a little water.

I find I have to keep in mind the availability of water when I'm writing history. Even a (relatively) modern age like 1830's Paris had issues with obtaining water. A daily bath would have been out of reach of most 'normal' people.

...Which brings me to my question: How do you find water availability in, say, London in 1852? Do they have maps with locations of wells? I doubt they had much of a waterworks, but my knowledge of London at that, or any, perior is very slight.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

There's some information on the subject in Liza Picard's Victorian London, and I suspect there are maps out there from the period, such as John Snowe's famous one pairing public water pumps and the cholera outbreak of 1859.

[[deleted user]]

Susanna wrote: "There's some information on the subject in Liza Picard's Victorian London, and I suspect there are maps out there from the period, such as John Snowe's famous one pairing public water pumps and the..."

Thank you, Susanna -
I think the hardest thing is figuring out where to start on a new project. I'll go look.

Thanks again!

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I think the information in this case is actually out there; the Victorians were very big on statistics, maps, etc.

[Diane]

Some had indoor plumbing by this time.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Yes; I believe that Thomas and Jane Carlyle got indoor running water and a bathroom in 1852.

[Steelwhisper]

Definitely out there, there are a couple of well-written books about these topics, e.g.:



London Particulars
Further Particulars

[Ann]

Washing the hair with camel urine, as my Bedouin heroine is obliged to do, or the hands with sand, is me enjoying the sludge of my novels. Some readers have balked. I am perfectly aware that in the Muslim Syrian city, however, the old Roman baths continued with refinements--for which my hero was condemned by the powers in Medina.

[[deleted user]]

Steelwhisper wrote: "Definitely out there, there are a couple of well-written books about these topics, e.g.:

[bookcover:Dr. Johnson's London: Coffee-Houses and Climbing Boys, Medicine, Toothpaste and Gin, Poverty and..."

Wow! Thanks, Steelwhisper! (It's hard getting into a different period and realizing how little you thought correct can actually be substantiated. and I refuse to do the 'latex condom' type (sloppy research) mistakes.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Can definitely recommend Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Life in Victorian England.

[Steelwhisper]

Susanna wrote: "Can definitely recommend Inside the Victorian Home: A Portrait of Life in Victorian England."

Oh yes, it is so wonderfully set up and detailed ;), isn't it?

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

Terrific book.

[[deleted user]]

Great. Another sourcebook to make my shelves groan. (Can't wait to read it!)