tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post2646147862461147522..comments2024-03-23T12:38:46.260+00:00Comments on The History Girls: RICHELIEU'S FACE by A.L.BerridgeMary Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241989732624913706noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-90316646473801824742011-07-21T20:09:05.967+01:002011-07-21T20:09:05.967+01:00I think H.M. Castor is right when she says that hi...I think H.M. Castor is right when she says that historical fiction righters may actually have a duty to get into the heads (figuratively) of historical figures. The further back in history, the more acceptable this is. It may be a few hundred more years before a novelist attempts to write from Hitler's point of view or Osama bin Laden's, or even Mother Teresa's. There is definitely a continuum of offense that you are going to dish out. The more recent and well known the character is, the more people will be offended, and vice versa.<br /><br />For those more recent figures, I like the next best option of making up characters that are close to them, who can talk about what it was like to be near those great (or terrible) people. Those characters can speculate all they want and give less offence.Shawn Robertsonhttp://www.talesofold.orgnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-1800710884617829452011-07-20T18:51:35.113+01:002011-07-20T18:51:35.113+01:00I agree that there are ethical questions, even if ...I agree that there are ethical questions, even if we label this as A Novel... Once we're beyond offending relatives it does get easier.<br /><br />And yet legally you can't libel the dead. Also, I'm not interested in offending readers, and I'm not interested in trashing or caricaturing my characters. BUT I worry, and I find in my own writing, that if you/I shrink from ever writing anything which might offend anyone, even when the project really needs it, the resulting story is ghastly: a sort of sanitised, disneyfied, blancmange of pointlessness. Fundamentally, I don't think that if someone is offended by something I wrote, it's necessarily my fault, as long as I made careful, creative decisions about why I've written it like that, and wasn't just out to shock or offend for the hell of it.<br /><br />And I do think we have a worthwile function, in writing fiction about real historical figures, which isn't just because it's fun (although it is) or easier to sell (which it is too). Byatt also says, comparing Hilary Mantel's A Place of Greater Safety with Simon Schama's Citizens, which draw on exactly the same material, "She tells what Schama can't" - i.e. finding/feeling her way into the inner lives of people who did have a huge impact on the world at large, as well as giving voice to those people - wives, for example - which History (as a discipline) has chosen not to record or explore.Emma Darwinhttp://emmadarwin.typepad.com/thisitchofwriting/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-60893136929221743982011-07-20T12:23:03.811+01:002011-07-20T12:23:03.811+01:00Everyone has already said what I was going to. We ...Everyone has already said what I was going to. We are all agreed that it's a fantastic post though. Really interesting questions raised and answered very well.adelehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15826710558292792068noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-6352806284787510442011-07-20T11:45:54.362+01:002011-07-20T11:45:54.362+01:00Great post and follow on discussions. Re the prese...Great post and follow on discussions. Re the preserved head. When I went to the University of Pavia where da Vinci studied anatomy the preserved head of Antonio Scarpa situated above the door to keep an eye on the students was a feature in one of the labs! Re the ethics of writing about the recently dead and those with relatives still alive this was very much in mind when I was researching Remembrance. A family gave me the personal letters of a great uncle who'd been killed on the Somme. The innermost thoughts of this young man were revealed - his hopes his fears, the tedium of the trenches, his seeking advice from his father about his sweetheart. It was a terrible responsibility,at times I felt he was standing in the room with me. I didn't ask them for these - they were offered on trust that I would in some way bear true witness to his life. As responsible writers of historical fiction isn't that what we do?Theresa Breslinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02240135723649161949noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-57618516453513622272011-07-20T10:33:03.673+01:002011-07-20T10:33:03.673+01:00"Taking Liberties" might almost be the h..."Taking Liberties" might almost be the historical novelist's motto, don't you think? There will always be some reader who thinks we've gone too far and everyone's limit will be different.<br /><br />I think Louise has it absolutely right in talking about intent. There is an implied respect for the subject, even if he or she is someone the writer regards as villainous.<br /><br />If you've ever been interviewed for a newspaper, you will experience the faintly unpleasant feeling of knowing that the journalist (I'm one myself) has put words into your mouth. The next time it happens to me, I shall think of Richelieu!<br /><br />(Mind you, I am almost as repelled by ordinary puppets and vent dummies, but that's another story)Mary Hoffmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06241989732624913706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-77106818561218298072011-07-20T10:25:02.139+01:002011-07-20T10:25:02.139+01:00What a great post. It articulates many of the dil...What a great post. It articulates many of the dilemmas of writing historical fiction. I happened to be interviewing an historian this week and I asked him to what extent did he believe history was fiction (in the sense that it is constructed and woven into narratives by historians). He said that he didn't but it was why he stuck to documents as opposed to memoires when looking for evidence. So, for instance, he would read Saint Simon on Louis XIV but might take what he said with a pinch of salt. I think that as readers of a historical novel we are in a similar position. We have chosen to read a novel rather than an historical account of a particular figure. We do so because we want to enjoy the the drama of a particular historical moment and the insights given to us by entering into that character's mind. But we are also perfectly capable of taking the words put into that character's mouth by the author with a large pinch of salt. If we thought otherwise we would have to start putting warning labels on novels like on cigarette packets: WARNING: PARTS OF THIS HISTORICAL NOVEL MAY BE FICTION...Linda B-Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01599899073420595717noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-50328127798075156162011-07-20T10:00:24.335+01:002011-07-20T10:00:24.335+01:00A fantastic post, and a fascinating discussion... ...A fantastic post, and a fascinating discussion... Sticking my neck out here, I wonder whether it could even be argued, in the case at least of the long-dead, that we OUGHT to try to explore what it might have felt like to be them, why they took the decisions they did? Readers understand, as you say, that writers are not psychics... and different writers will present different conjectures, just as different academic historians present different theories... Isn't our understanding of the past vastly poorer if we don't let ourselves even attempt to make this imaginative leap? Our duty is to do it as well as we can, of course. But we know that - that's why we all sweat blood over our work!H.M. Castorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08716936870601385683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-49689480359166733022011-07-20T09:56:04.580+01:002011-07-20T09:56:04.580+01:00Much to think about here. I love to write about w...Much to think about here. I love to write about what might have happened or what real-life characters might have done. That's the fun in writing. But I do feel that where facts are involved - dates, families and so on - they should be strictly adhered to. Of course this can create problems in a story line and we wish that something had happened a year before or not at all! But if writing historical fiction were easy, everybody would be doing it, wouldn't they? <br />Thanks for an interesting post.Barbara Mitchelhillhttp://barbaramitchelhill.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-32315071004365132662011-07-20T09:31:57.162+01:002011-07-20T09:31:57.162+01:00A fascinating post, and it discusses issues that I...A fascinating post, and it discusses issues that I've sometimes felt uncomfortable about. I think as far as historical figures are concerned, it's exactly as you say - it's trying to get inside their minds, to see why they did what they did, that's interesting - as I said in my post about writing about Alfred the Great. And that's not the same as manipulating the Cardinal's face as an after-dinner joke - the motive is utterly different.<br /><br />Where I do feel uncomfortable is in dramas and films about people who are alive or recently dead. If they're good, I love watching them, mind - Andrea Riseborough as the young Maggie Thatcher, Helen Mirren as the Queen - but there have been times when I've felt uneasy; particularly in the case of The Social Contract, about the founder of Facebook. Quite apart from the question of what it must do to a young man to be portrayed as someone unpleasant (whether he is in actual fact or not), there's just something that doesn't sit quite right about the idea of having a larger than life representation of your life played out in front of millions of people - what does that do to your perception of who you are? <br /><br />Anyway - very interesting - thanks!Sue Purkisshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09084528571944803477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-83362465679266868812011-07-20T09:14:25.289+01:002011-07-20T09:14:25.289+01:00Very thought-provoking post. I suspect the argume...Very thought-provoking post. I suspect the argument will never be decided one way or the other: but the tension between the two sides is healthy!Katherine Langrishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12529700103932422873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-42929023367422776552011-07-20T08:11:24.379+01:002011-07-20T08:11:24.379+01:00Wonderful post! It feels quite cathartic to have a...Wonderful post! It feels quite cathartic to have a fellow-writer describe so viscerally the queasy symptoms that arise when impersonating the once-living dead. The first times I grave-robbed, it was men whose thoughts were minutely diaried - Ruskin and Casanova, the latter having supplied 3000 pages of handwritten memoir, and the former having offered diaries, books and letters. But then I went to a reading given by Andrew Miller, from his novel about Casanova in London, in which he substantially changed a part of the true story involving a desired woman and parrot. Not in anger but in wonderment, I asked him why he did that. And his reply was, 'By the time I wrote that scene, my Casanova was not Casanova's Casanova, and he wasnt capable of behaving the same way.' And given the brilliance of the writing, and the excellence of the novel, I was satisfied with that answer. However, I know that the Beevors and the Byatts would not be.michelle lovrichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01026972300195225090noreply@blogger.com