So, Do I Like Historical Fiction?
Well. The last few days, for me and a few friends at least, have been…. different. A post that I came up with in the shower provoked a huge debate, the huge debate provoked my next post, and that post has provoked this. Now, I find myself being asked questions like; “Why do you hate historical fiction?” and “Have you got it in for authors of historical fiction?”. Both of these questions can be answered very easily- I DON’T and NO.
Allow me to explain.
I adore most historical novels. I have read books by Alison Weir, Anne O’Brien, Susan Higginbotham, Michele Kallio and Melanie Clegg (among others). I loved them all. I love the escapism, I love getting into the minds of historical figures, I love to share their experiences. I think by reading historical fiction, I approach my academic history remembering these people were human. They are not just a name in a book. They were people with thoughts, feelings and emotions. I think it has stopped a bit of judgmental streak I might have once possessed.
One of the things I love about historical fiction is the exploration of the maybes. Did Hugh Despenser the Even Younger (well, that’s what I like to call Hugh Despenser the Younger’s son, anyway) have a mistress before he married Bess? He could have done. George Boleyn, Dean of Lichfield, had a father. But who was he? There were rumours that Elizabeth I, as a young woman, had fallen pregnant. Had she? All of these things can be explored through the work of a novelist. I’ve read novels exploring all these maybes and more.
Here’s my sticking point, though. Exploring the maybes is one thing. Telling lies is quite another. The maybes explored in the novels I reference above are ALL explained in author’s notes at the end of the novel.
Historical novels can be tricky, I am sure. The amount of research to create something that is a pleasure to read must be astonishing, and I appreciate that. I really do. But, as my friend and author Michele Kallio said to me yesterday; “we do no service to future generations to rewrite history to suit current tastes“. I could not agree more. Many people learn history from historical novels. I have seen one comment on a facebook group just this morning from someone who states they learn history from novels. This is where my point about telling lies becomes important (to me, anyway).
If something is added as a fictional element in a novel; a person added, an incident changed, whatever, telling people it is an indisputable fact is irresponsible. It is unfair, to both the readers and the people being written about. I don’t think changing history to suit novels does anybody any favours. Making Roger Mortimer the father of Edward III, having Thomas Cromwell have an affair with Jane Boleyn, having Hugh Despenser the Younger escape his execution because he is rescued by a band of time-travelling magic leprechauns, whatever; is rather a disservice. I know from my own and my friends google searches, people believe what they read in novels or see in films. My friend Kathryn’s blog has literally thousands of hits from people who believe William Wallace is really the father of Edward III. Yes, it is wonderful that people are seeking the truth, but what about the ones that don’t?
Anything that moves away from known historical fact, in my opinion, should be clearly stated in an author’s note.
So, now I’ve got all that off my chest, I will answer the first question; I do not hate historical fiction. In fact, I love it. I just like it to be responsibly told, I like it to be relatively accurate, and I like it when it doesn’t pretend to be something it’s not.
Now, onto my second question.
I have to admit, being asked if I “had it in” for historical fiction authors really scared me. Because, I don’t actually “have it in” for anybody. Over the past few years, after joining social networking sites and becoming active in forums, I have met many authors. I have read their work, reviewed their work, loved their work many times. I am still acquainted with many of them and count several among my friends. In all my experience of talking to authors, online, via email and in person, I have only found one to be rude. That says a lot.
So in a word, no, I do not have anything against authors of historical fiction. I believe them to be one of the most hardworking groups of people I’ve ever come across. They research, plan, write and rewrite, tear out hair, laugh, cry and drink a lot of coffee! For themselves and for the pleasure of others. That is incredible. Every single author I have spoken to, who has been polite, courteous and friendly, I hold great admiration for. What a great bunch of people.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to get back to my latest read. (Bring Up The Bodies, if you’re interested.) You can find a list of historical novels I really liked here.
thirteenthcsarah
Great post Sarah!
Thank you Michele!
Great post (and a lovely photograph)! I get so tired of people equating any sort of criticism of historically inaccurate fiction (or nonfiction, for that matter) with “bullying” or censorship.
Historically inaccurate non fiction is a whole different game! But it is wearing. Any criticism, constructive or otherwise, is bullying? Not always. Sometimes its just readers expressing their disappointment.
I’m glad you like my little hist fic shelf! Most of my fiction is on my kindle now but I still have a few ‘real’ books
Aw, thanks very much! I am of course, highly delighted that you don’t ‘have it in’ for me. Not that I ever thought that you did, but, well, it’s always nice to have that reassurance!
I’m actually about to treat a bit of scurrilous gossip about the parentage of a royal child as fact in my latest WIP about Henrietta Stuart – mainly because I think it’s an interesting premise and also because there was enough talk about it at the time for it to have been a very real possibility in the minds of contemporaries. However, it’s not a known fact and I know it’ll nark a whole bunch of people so I’ll be putting a note in about it at the start of the book to apologise.
I mean, I’d hate to think that someone out there might be using my novels to revise for an A Level exam in Early Modern History (personally I turned to the novels of Jean Plaidy and episodes of Blackadder when I did mine) but as a writer, you have to brace yourself for the worst, I find.
Ha ha, I’m sure an author’s note will satisfy the narkies
I revised by watching Peep Show.
….(Not really!)
What? Was Hugh Despenser rescued by leprechauns? Damn! That must have got past me somewhere
It’s not true anyway. It were ninjas that saved Hugh.
Of course it was ninjas! Whoops!
I enjoyed reading all three of the posts in question. Will come back to read more!
Great to hear from you, Pat!
I agree about needing to ensure readers know when license has been taken. It’s what annoyed me about how a lot of books, movies & tv shows were presented as historical fact. If it’s a factual show, then it’s a documentary!
The Borgias is the show that finally opened me up to historical fiction, as it doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is – fiction, based on real people & events, but FICTION all the same!
I’m now hooked, & have started to finally start reading historical fiction, with the same precursor – tell me the truth, & I’ll buy your book. Lie to me, by claiming your fantasy is real, & your book will gather dust in the bookshop until they recycle it…
I trust Sarah, so I trust her recommendations. I’m not a historian, but I’ve always loved history. I’m so glad I’ve found someone who can point me in the right direction while I explore yet another way to enjoy my favourite subject.
Thanks Dee
It was a rather strange anon email that led to this (hopefully) final post in my recent dramas.
You know I’m right there with you with The Borgias! What a cracking good show!
Of course one can love historical fiction and still hate the bad apples in the basket.
Movies and TV series are actually worse. I have yet to find an apple there that doesn’t at least have a few wrombites.
Sarmatians in Britian in AD 410, seriously. And that one was proclaimed as the true story of Arthur. :O
BTW That whole FB shenagian (I don’t go there so I first found it mentioned on a blog) has led to some interesting blogs to add to my reading list. Something good comes out of everything.
I’ve come across some excellent new blogs for my reading list too recently.
) Thanks for your comments.
(And a few times this week, I’ve kind of wished I wasn’t on facebook too!
Great point! However, I do believe, “Historical Fiction’s” are to to be found under Fiction, and people should not be confused with the non fiction reads.
Well done for putting things into perspective Sarah.
Haven’t you just stirred the pot?!
Maybe there’s a need for a new category “Historical Fantasy Fiction”!
I’m an analyst by day, which means I spend a lot of time going over facts and assembling them to tell a coherent story about a particular firm and its strategy. (Actually, I just made a business case for a sabbatical likening the work I do to the research required to write an historical fiction novel.) In my work, after the public record stops, an assessment begins where I have to outline my assumptions – what the facts tell me might be in the case, then it is put to the acid test with colleagues to see whether I’ve actually stretched too far from the facts. I think that in a lot of historical fiction novels authors stretch too far and editors or agents or good friends have not pulled them back with a “what are you thinking?”
I saw these “10 Commandments for Writinng Historical Fiction” on Sharon Kay Penman’s blog and and sharing the link… http://sharonkaypenman.com/blog/?p=324 I think this speak to the “what are you thinking!”
If we don’t have our facts down, or if we ignore them to suit the story we want to tell then we end up making a hot mess of history. And therefore people go around thinking William Wallace fathered Edward III or Elizabeth I had three or more children (the film Anonymous)…and on and on.
I hate inaccurate historical fiction — I returned an historical fiction novel about Mary Queen of Scots to the bookstore because by page 50 there were so many inconsistencies I could not read on. So I get it. I hate when people place fast and loose with facts, and I see this more egregiously in films than in books (“Anonymous” anyone?). There are, however, so many great authors who get it right — Sharon Kay Penman, Margaret George, Alison Weir, Susan Higginbotham, Anne Easter Smith.
This is a long way of saying I agree with you.
Geri
Hi Geri, thanks for your comment
My friend Kathryn, who owns the blog I link in my post, wrote those 10 commandments
I haven’t seen Anonymous and from what I’ve heard, I don’t think I will. Braveheart and The Other Boleyn Girl made me spit.
At the time Braveheart was made I didn’t know from William Wallace, so I could just go with a good Hollywood story, well told and well acted — which has its place. Still think it is a great movie.
As for the Other Boleyn Girl, I knew enough to know what was fact and what was fiction, but I really did (and do) admire Philippa Gregory’s take on Mary Boleyn (arguably catapulting her from a footnote in history to real fame). I still thinking it was a thumping good, exciting read. But I just watched the movie again–this week in fact–and struggled with it more than the book. I could still enjoy it, and didn’t audit it as such (which I have been known to do). At least they got the ending right
Now there was no excuse for the Tudors to run roughshod over history in the series…they had ample time to devote to the real story. But that’s another discussion!
It’s not only the facts, a writer should also try to understand the way people back then thought. Not always an easy task, I admit, but having a Roman patrician woman go on a modern US slave freeing campaign is so far off the author should have known better. The way the existence of slaves is trated in Roman fiction is a good measurement for Staying to the Time’s Mores anyway: Evil character = flogs slaves, good character = doesn’rt really have any, or if he does, they are good freinds? Sorry, but that’s a D.
Arranged marriages ia another matter that’s often not really understood, to name just another example.
Arranged marriages is a tough one isn’t it? I hate the word ‘pawn’. Why are the women always pawns? They were probably really happy to make advantageous marriages. And people never seem to feel sorry for the men- there were two people in an arranged marriage, after all.
Geri, don’t you think history itself is flawed? A written history is much better than verbal but both have a common denominator, us. I am writting a historical fiction based on my tour of duty in Iraq…although, most of the story is based on truth, my truth, and may not be the truth of the Army or government. So, History handed down by man is always going to be slanted one way or another…
Paul, that sounds like a fascinating book. My brother has served in Iraq with the British Army and cannot talk about it. I’d love to read it when it is published.
Sarah, I’ll be delighted to get your feed back on my book…when I finish it. Love your blog by the way.