Jump to content

When is the fiction in Historical Fiction too much?


Grack21

Recommended Posts

This question has been bugging me for a while. Mostly, I'm OK with inaccurate and made up stuff in my historical fiction novels, I mean they're fiction right? But there has been a few instances lately where I really feel the author has gone too far. Conn Iggulden's Rome stuff I've gone off on on other threads but the one that has really driven me batty Lately is The Other Boelyn Girl. The worse par tot me is that the author has defended her book as being accurate, while anyone who's read more then 2 pages of English History can tell you that's absolute bullshit. Her list of sources is a joke too, mostly a secondary sources like Alison Weir and maybe a memoir or too. What do you guys think> When does historical in-accurateness in books start to bug you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When the author's made up character starts out performing or proves to be the 'real' source behind someones famous deed. It doesn't even have to be a strictly fictional character, just a player in a historical event whose role is greatly expanded beyond the reality of the historical events. Outside of parody it really is quite naseauting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Presumably like most, I tend to judge historical fiction based on the plausible mutability of the respective period/event/person. For example, something as amorphous as human motivation has great room for realistic interpretation and presentation, whereas an established "fact" (so far as that may be defined) that is substantially altered by an author detracts from the work's appeal to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently become a fan of historical fiction when I picked up Bernard Cornwell's The Saxon Stories series. The main character is entirely fictional buy lives in a mid to late 1st century historical setting. There are things that are changed but the author addresses each one individually and explains the reasoning for the deviation.

It is the same guy who writes the Sharpe novels which I hear have gotten a little out of hand but this series is still very grounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Philippa Gregory is just horrible. Usually I'm not too puritanical about historical accuracy, especially if there are some fantasy elements added that would necessarily change things (see eg. Naomi Novik) but even that starts to grate if taken too far - as in, the close parallels between Novik's historical timeline and the real one get really creaky after a while when you consider how little the addition of DRAGONS has changed actual history...

As with most things, it's all in the context. A good writer with a compelling story can allow me to forgive a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i thought that bakker botched up his history of the crusades by including all that fictional religious crap; it really detracts from the presentation of the history of black semen.

What?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have recently become a fan of historical fiction when I picked up Bernard Cornwell's The Saxon Stories series. The main character is entirely fictional buy lives in a mid to late 1st century historical setting. There are things that are changed but the author addresses each one individually and explains the reasoning for the deviation.

It is the same guy who writes the Sharpe novels which I hear have gotten a little out of hand but this series is still very grounded.

Yeah, I LOVE Cornwell. Not only does he point out what he's changed at the end of each book, he tells you why. Honestly, its not the changes that get me so much as when authors refuse to acknowledge the changes at all. Having someone one start quoting "facts" they got from The Other Boleyn Girl at you, because the author claims it's all true, makes me want to kick babies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What?

I think they are referring to how Prince of Nothing has a holy crusade in it.

When I read the thread title Conn Iggulden was the first thing that came to mind for me. What bothers me is changing things that do not need to be changed that do not improve the story in any way. Like how Mongols lived/fought/thought.

The other thing that annoys me is when every good guy or protagonists have to have a modern philosophy/morality/personality that is anachronistic of their time period. It seems like Cornwell does this in every book of his that I have read. Arthur is basically an atheist, Thomas Hookton is extraordinary in his beliefs, the main guy in Stondehenge has ridiculous beliefs for his time in history.

I can see why an author would do this. It makes his character more attractive to modern readers but it is just jarring for me to read. I can respect a barbarian 2500 years ago even if his morality does not match mine. To me it belittles the reader, as if you could not accept a protagonist unless they had a modern morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good topic. For me, it's too much fiction when I start to notice inaccuracies. (Or, when the inaccuracies are ridiculously blatant, as with Philippa Gregory--I don't personally know much about the Tudors, but that's all the more reason not to read her books because I might not be able to tell the fact from the fiction.) Pretty subjective as I learn more about history as I go, but basically, an author needs to do the research, and any deviations need to be deliberate and with good reason, not a result of sloppiness. And if major deviations are required, maybe they should write fantasy instead/write fictional characters rather than historical figures/whatever they need to do to not mislead people.

The other thing that annoys me is when every good guy or protagonists have to have a modern philosophy/morality/personality that is anachronistic of their time period. It seems like Cornwell does this in every book of his that I have read. Arthur is basically an atheist, Thomas Hookton is extraordinary in his beliefs, the main guy in Stondehenge has ridiculous beliefs for his time in history.

Eh, I'm of two minds about this. Again, deviations need to be deliberate and they shouldn't be absolutely ridiculous. But at the same time, often the most interesting people to read about are those who are unusual in their own society, and no society is homogenous, so the fact that something was a majority belief doesn't mean it's unrealistic to have a character who believes differently. I've seen authors go too far with it, but at the same time, I'm reading novels, not history books. Making a character more palatable to the audience while remaining within the bounds of plausibility is fine. I wouldn't have a problem with a medieval atheist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have a problem with it at all when it comes to historical fantasy/scifi. I mean if you have giant robots in world war II, yeah, somethings are going to be different. It's when an author presents things that are just blatantly wrong as facts that my blood starts to boil. Using good old Iggulden as an example again, it's complete obvious they guy has NO idea what hes talking about.

I mean

spoilers for Gates of Rome

Caesar and Marcus Brutus growing up ON A CORN FARM TOGETHER? I coundn't come up with something so out there if I tried.

I could also have field day with Gladiator and 300.

As to characters with anachronistic personalities, I'm fine with that as long as they are FICTION characters. When you have a book where, I dunno, Napoleon is a fun loving hippie or something, then I get pissed. *Unless it's parody or something, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not literature, but HBO's Rome did a great job working in everything historically accurate.

Titus Pullo indeed saved the Republic and fathered Caesar's child with Cleopatra! Thirteen!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I tend to like female protagonists in historical fiction, I've got a gripe that's similar to what wolverine and Liadin mentioned already: When you have these totally empowered women in an era where that wouldn't be likely. I agree that you need unusual characters and that exceptional people make a good story, so I can take a little bit of anachronism, but it depends. One thing I liked about some of Tracy Chevalier's books (and I guess these aren't necessarily high lit but I admit I enjoyed these) is that the main character could be smart and exceptional and interesting and still just suck it up and marry whomever she was supposed to, or accept the grunge work that was connected to her class and station. It seemed realistic that she had no choice in these instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since I tend to like female protagonists in historical fiction, I've got a gripe that's similar to what wolverine and Liadin mentioned already: When you have these totally empowered women in an era where that wouldn't be likely. I agree that you need unusual characters and that exceptional people make a good story, so I can take a little bit of anachronism, but it depends. One thing I liked about some of Tracy Chevalier's books (and I guess these aren't necessarily high lit but I admit I enjoyed these) is that the main character could be smart and exceptional and interesting and still just suck it up and marry whomever she was supposed to, or accept the grunge work that was connected to her class and station. It seemed realistic that she had no choice in these instances.

That goes to the difference between having one or two unusual characters (and there will always be unusual people) and changing the society (i.e. making everyone unusual). I don't mind if an author sticks a gay person in any setting really--homosexuality isn't cultural and it's weird to me when people complain about this--and even if it's a culture that doesn't acknowledge gay people exist, I don't mind if a couple people manage to accept it. I do mind if they're openly gay and nobody cares, if that doesn't fit what we know about the setting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Histocial fiction is probably my favourite genre. Genral rule of thumb is I go into every book thinking nothing is going to be accurate but the general background/era if that makes sense. I'm just in it for the story and good characters, and historical fiction is a good way to be transported to another world, 'the past is a foreign country' is a saying that comes to mind. Plus the fact I have a history degree, so I have a better inkling of when things are going off the facts. I find litrature set in modern times quite dull bar a few exceptions, historical fiction can take you to any time and any place and be completely alien, which is appealing to me at least.

But most times I find historical fiction, books or films, as a good spring board into learning about that particular era. In a way it makes it more intresting and flavours an era up if it has a good story that then inspires me to go and find the true story and facts behind it, parts of history I might never have even thought of reading 'proper' history books about. (James Clavell's Shogun springs to mind as do some Flashman's which deal with lesser known parts of Imperial History. The John Adams minseries has got me reading a lot about the American Revolution at the moment, something I know next to nothing about)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...