tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post3396797372218814172..comments2024-03-23T12:38:46.260+00:00Comments on The History Girls: The problem with historical fiction – Carolyn HughesMary Hoffmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06241989732624913706noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-62899371845498661062019-03-08T01:17:35.211+00:002019-03-08T01:17:35.211+00:00In order to consider when a historical character h...In order to consider when a historical character has a 20th or 21st Century mindset or not, just think how many protagonists of a novel written in the 21st Century who we are meant to root for are sexist, racist, or anti-semitic from start to end, without anyone condemning them for it. None, I suspect. And yet in the past admired people held these views.<br />shttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05087394012634393554noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-28454762865394601122019-02-27T18:33:27.693+00:002019-02-27T18:33:27.693+00:00Rather belatedly, thank you too, jurassicpork, for...Rather belatedly, thank you too, jurassicpork, for your further thoughts on my post. I do agree that accessibility is vital, although I have read historical novels where the language is - to my ears and eyes at least - decidedly INaccessible. Some readers apparently love oldy-worldy language but I think on balance most would quickly tire of it. And I am keen to ensure I put no barriers between my books and my potential readers! Authenticity is important, too, of course, so, yes, getting the balance right between authenticity and accessibility is definitely the aim.Carolyn Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07909929916949700691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-69323271235062029822019-02-24T16:36:51.080+00:002019-02-24T16:36:51.080+00:00At this time in my career, I write almost invariab...At this time in my career, I write almost invariably historical fiction. Generally, it's in the 19th century in Boston, New York or London. I think it was a good choice for me to make considering I've always been fascinated by history. And while Napoleon may've said that "history is a fable agreed upon", it would seem that fiction, especially historical fiction, is a fable that is <i>not</i> agreed upon.<br /><br />And these critics of historical fiction all spring from faulty assumptions or preconceived notions. No, there is no such thing as pure historical fiction because the author cannot be trusted to know what exactly it was like to live in a certain bygone age. But you know something? That also applies to readers and literary critics. We <i>don't</i> know what living in 1888 East London was like and neither does anyone else. But that didn't stop me from writing TATTERDEMALION or readers like Jenny Milchman to say it was a rich, immersive experience.<br /><br />Historical fiction, even the most well-researched and immersive variety, is an illusion but it is certainly not a lie. An illusion is also something that, like Napoleon's view of history, is a fable agreed upon. Like a savvy audience watching a magician do their tricks onstage, we know and accept that what we're seeing is illusion. If we were told the rabbit coming out of the hat is magic, <i>that</i> would be a lie. But magicians don't call themselves magicians, anymore, and prefer to be called "illusionists" and this is the reason why.<br /><br />Carolyn mentioned the 14th century, the time frame of THE NAME OF THE ROSE. It's also the time frame of Bruce Holsinger's John Gower mysteries. Many people then spoke a form of Middle English (Or, in Eco's case, Latin) that would be incomprehensible to most people today. But the default to modern English is certainly necessary and does not sink to the depth of an outright falsehood. Because the deeper into the past a historical novelist delves, the more concessions one has to make. And, in trying to strike a balance between authenticity and accessibility, the author must always default to the latter and never forget that they're writing for a 21st century audience.<br /><br />Get your facts straight, by all means. With information literally at our fingertips, readers can fact check you on a dime. But the intelligent reader will always understand that in a work of historical fiction, some concessions have to be made.jurassicporkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01673461210301442978noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-16320654779720588232019-02-22T11:41:39.855+00:002019-02-22T11:41:39.855+00:00Thank you so much, Margaret and Carolyn, for your ...Thank you so much, Margaret and Carolyn, for your further thoughts. And how intriguing, that snippet about Martin Luther, the “new man”! Your point, Margaret, about treading that line between what is true and what readers might believe is true, is very interesting. For those of you who write about real historical people, it must indeed be a somewhat tricky call. I am sure that I would really WANT to reveal such a surprising fact about my hero, but I can see that it might raise sceptical eyebrows! I’d love to know what you decide(d)...Carolyn Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07909929916949700691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-44476276010971718832019-02-21T16:55:10.983+00:002019-02-21T16:55:10.983+00:00Fascinating to examine all three arguments surroun...Fascinating to examine all three arguments surrounding historical fiction. As a historical fiction author, I seek to portray the human nature and how it responds to stimuli. The stimuli may change, the nature of humans--desire for love and to be loved, etc--remains much the same. Thus, the best historical characters are not only imagined, but empathized with by the author.Carolyn Burns Basshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04911080340568409718noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-32738236898320730172019-02-21T08:38:08.988+00:002019-02-21T08:38:08.988+00:00As an historical writer I distinguish between accu...As an historical writer I distinguish between accuracy and authenticity. For me there are several issues. 1)We cannot be accurate about many aspects of the past - even some 'facts' for example the date of a real historical character's death are subsequently suggested / proved to have been inaccurate. 2)We weren't there, but even if we had been what we write would be coloured by our background, attitudes, belief system, pre-conceptions and so on and would therefore reflect to a greater or lesser extent our own bias. (This issue also applies to a contemporary writer.) So what can we do. We can strive for authenticity - to attempt to give a 'you are there' experience to the reader, firstly by getting the details right - of clothing, housing, modes of transport, religious beliefs, social mores and so on; secondly by not judging our characters against the standards / attitudes of our own era, but rather by their own era; and thirdly by recognising our potential for bias, understanding ourselves and thus being better prepared to avoid it. Sometimes we find out surprising things about a character - for example from a letter they wrote, a speech they made, an action they took. Do we avoid or ignore it because it will 'seem' wrong to our readers? That's a tricky one. I've found some evidence that Martin Luther (16th c reformer) was very modern in some of his attitudes to his marriage, wife and children - for example prepared to change a nappy - which makes him very much a 'new man'. Will my readers believe me, or decide I am not a serious historical writer? Do I play safe and give a less than rounded depiction of him as a man? I would never claim accuracy, but I am passionate about authenticity and that includes both unpalatable details of life in an earlier century and unexpected ones.M Skeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12293351204499362841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-42551120045211815642019-02-20T18:39:46.284+00:002019-02-20T18:39:46.284+00:00Thank you all for your thoughts about my article. ...Thank you all for your thoughts about my article. I don’t think I had ever considered histfic (any more than any other type of fiction) was “a lie” until I saw those musings of Henry James and, in particular, the perhaps somewhat unmindful comment by that critic. Of course all fiction is, well, fiction, whatever its genre or period. That a few people have felt it pertinent to somehow denigrate historical fiction seemed baffling to me as well as irritating, when I so much enjoyed reading it and so many excellent writers produce such fascinating and absorbing stories! I have certainly read historical novels whose characters do not seem “of their time”, but I have also read very many that seem to do it well (IMO). I don’t think it is easy to capture the mindsets of the past but, yes, we must do our best, out of respect for that past and from a wish to bring that world to life as “authentically” as possible. Why else write (or read) histfic at all?Carolyn Hugheshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07909929916949700691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-67539201212038664322019-02-20T17:26:33.651+00:002019-02-20T17:26:33.651+00:00The extent of my experience falls back into a bit ...The extent of my experience falls back into a bit more than 100 years past, so I have little knowledge about worlds prior. However I strongly believe people - at least those of whom we possess any written works - have always held similar hopes, fears, wishes, desires, pain, loss and comforts. Therefore entering these past worlds is not a question of how the worlds effected their inhabitants but how the inhabitants shaped their worlds. Practicalities of the past are the clothing and tools and work and social and political elements we hang on the frame of emotion and thought. <br /><br />If we were to find ourselves 100 years past (again, my experience is limited); or 100 years into the future (baring any unrecoverable devastation); we would immediately be lost but soon find ourselves adapting not based upon what that world imposes on us but how we are able to fulfill our internal lives and external goals within the structure of that world. Possibly we would fail, just as we now sometimes struggle to understand the daily lives of those so strange to us as to be alien; but if attempting literary time-travel, I believe we should look for similarities in human condition upon which we drape and tailor distinctions of these past (or future) worlds.<br /><br />I have often wondered if it would be 'easier' to find ourselves back in time, or forward into the future?<br /><br />Also, I hope others join with me that in our comments agreeing to consider our language and choice of words as appropriate to all.abigail briesonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07172870971608080421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-86012959069212792822019-02-20T11:58:09.751+00:002019-02-20T11:58:09.751+00:00Good article. I am glad to see that an author is c...Good article. I am glad to see that an author is concerned about capturing the inner lives of the characters with respect to their time. Why else would one want to read HF? That is what I ask, yet so many people read it just to see their modern views blossom in the past.<br /><br />I am surprised that you don't believe that majority of contemporary HF fails to reflect the strangeness of the past. Every time I pick a HF set in MA, I find characters full of shocking modern sensibilities while they strut around in authentic clothes. I quit such books. I have scoured the internet and I cannot find any "serio-historical" fiction. (I read Penman, Undset, Flynn, Druon, Kingsnorth, Eco, Dunnett - these are 20th century writers) <br /><br />"Yet isn’t imagining the inner lives of characters (historical or fictional) for readers to experience exactly what historical novelists attempt to do?"<br /><br />It should be, but most of the contemporary (21st century) authors are not imagining the inner lives of people from the past. Most are pushing their own modern views into an era where such views have no place. This makes historical fiction a lie to me. Less educated then go on spreading these lies as facts. That's how you get lies like (people didn't bathe, everything was dark, women were chattel). I would love nothing more than read a book that takes me back to 13th century. Sadly the writers are too worried to offend or alienate sensitivities of a group of readers who frankly don't give a fuck about the past. These writers write to voice a popular views of 21st century and they find Medieval Era a perfect playing ground for their "heritage and props"stories. Yeoman captures it very well, and I am glad you quoted him. hahah he is not harsh about P. Gregory. Just honest.<br /><br />Of course we cannot truthfully capture the mindset of our long gone ancestors, BUT WE CAN TRY, out of the respect and love for the past era. A HF writer fails when she doesn't try. <br /><br />I can forgive if a writer makes factual error about a year, or a fabric - the surface of the past, I cannot forgive when they don't even try to capture the mindset. spagyricshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02983119849576690534noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5502671101756463249.post-69164298674449728532019-02-20T11:18:34.256+00:002019-02-20T11:18:34.256+00:00Interesting blog, but I've never understood th...Interesting blog, but I've never understood the problem.<br /><br />All fiction is a lie! So what?<br /><br />All history is a lie, written by the victors -- and even where people in the past were attempting to write honest reports of what they saw (eruption at Pompeii, for instance) or writing in diaries, they still wrote with 'unwitting bias' because all of us have a bias. Again, what's new?<br /><br />Who sits down to read any fiction, set in any period, with the expectation that it's all true? -- It's a kind of game played between writer and reader and a reader may be disappointed if the writer stumbles by, say, having a character express ideas that they think are too modern for the period. But that's the game. You play it as well as you can. Nobody expects or even wants it to be 'true.' -- What about 'alternative history' and 'steam punk?'<br /><br />'The way people thought in XXXX' is also a fiction. Some Romans hated the killing in the arena. Not all Victorians were prudes -- or child rapists either. In the early Middle Ages, church authorities rebuked people for bringing charges against witches because 'witches don't exist.'<br /><br />Carolyn -- just write what you want to write, the way you want to write it, so we can read it. You'll never please everybody, but you can please yourself -- and some of us.Susan Pricehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07738737493756183909noreply@blogger.com