When is the fiction in Historical Fiction too much?

[Joanna vander Poele]

Aw, I like Gregory though :P Admittedly I don't follow a word of what she says outside the books, and I am very aware of her historical... leniencies, but her books can eat up my time surprisingly quickly :shocked: Though I will probably never stop being bitter about a certain protagonist of the Wildacre books... :rolleyes:

[Grack21]

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. P

I think that's what really bothers me about the few I've mentioned. It doesn't fell like another world at all, or even the past. Gregory's novels read like, oh whats a polite way to put this.

Bad Showtime smut.

[Rakka]

Changing things is sometimes OK, but that usually requires that the author thinks it through really well. Changes affect everything else, and those things need to be sorted out at least in the author's head. If there are obvious errors in the things I know about and they're not explained, I tend to doubt the verity of the things I don't know about, too, and it pretty much ruins the reading experience for me. I like the less fictional takes on history, overall.

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 don't know about the persons in question, but

corn is just general term for cereal crops. Wheat, barley, oats, etc.

[shadow catlady]

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.

Yes! That is what bothers me. But also, when you are supposed to focus on the one exceptional character's inner conflict as one of the main conflicts of the whole plot and it's a conflict that doesn't fit the time or place, I can't take it. Like if in your hypothetical example, the whole story was about how the gay person wanted acceptance and I don't know, a legal marriage and a position on the town council in some Puritan New England colony. I don't know how common this is in adult historical fiction, but it's all over the place in YA historical fiction (and I've read YA fiction since before I was a "young adult" till decades after so I'm referencing my more recent observations, mostly.)

[Liadin]

Yes! That is what bothers me. But also, when you are supposed to focus on the one exceptional character's inner conflict as one of the main conflicts of the whole plot and it's a conflict that doesn't fit the time or place, I can't take it. Like if in your hypothetical example, the whole story was about how the gay person wanted acceptance and I don't know, a legal marriage and a position on the town council in some Puritan New England colony. I don't know how common this is in adult historical fiction, but it's all over the place in YA historical fiction (and I've read YA fiction since before I was a "young adult" till decades after so I'm referencing my more recent observations, mostly.)

So, is your problem that you'd like to see the characters be more representative of their culture, or just that their goals seem way too modern for anyone in that time period to have taken seriously? Is it that, if you're going to read about Puritans, you'd rather read about conflicts with Indians and bears and cold winters and other more Puritan-specific problems? Or is it that this hypothetical character is thinking about gay marriage and widespread acceptance rather than, say, how to be true to himself while hiding his preferences from the community?

From my experience with YA fiction, which from the sound of it is more limited than yours, I'd say the "pro-tolerance" plotline shows up quite a bit. I can't think of anything as anachronistic as a gay marriage proponent in Puritan New England, though. Seems like when I was a teenager I ran across it a lot in fiction about the Holocaust. (It's kind of hilarious to me that some people think kids can't handle disturbing stuff in adult fiction, because things don't get much more disturbing than that.)

[wolverine]

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.

I am speaking specifically about Cornwell here, not in general. It does not annoy me once, but in every book of his I have read so far the protagonists have unique perspectives for their setting including a pacifist who built Stonehenge.

I would say that Derfel from Warlord Chronicles was his best written character I have encountered so far, even though he often shows a modern morality compared to similar warriors of his station. It is done very well in his case.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Changing things is sometimes OK, but that usually requires that the author thinks it through really well. Changes affect everything else, and those things need to be sorted out at least in the author's head. If there are obvious errors in the things I know about and they're not explained, I tend to doubt the verity of the things I don't know about, too, and it pretty much ruins the reading experience for me. I like the less fictional takes on history, overall.

I don't know about the persons in question, but

corn is just general term for cereal crops. Wheat, barley, oats, etc.

Caesar and Brutus were of the highest Roman aristocracy. They would not have farmed at all. Also, Caesar was 15 years older than Brutus. By the time Brutus was out of diapers, Caesar was in the Army in Asia.

[Grack21]

Caesar and Brutus were of the highest Roman aristocracy. They would not have farmed at all. Also, Caesar was 15 years older than Brutus. By the time Brutus was out of diapers, Caesar was in the Army in Asia.

Yeah, the corn thing wasn't really my point there. Although I do believe they mention "ears" of corn at some point.

But the thing is, when the entire premise of your supposed "historical" novel, is just plain ridiculous and 100 percent at odds with reality, the historical part of "historical fiction" becomes a bad joke. I could go with it if it was considered alt history or historical fantasy or something, but its like having a book where Jesus and Moses conquer the Romans with machine guns and saying its historical fiction. No. Bad.

[Brienne the Beauty]

Yeah, the corn thing wasn't really my point there. Although I do believe they mention "ears" of corn at some point.

In the UK, "corn" is a generic term for grain, and what you probably think of as "corn" is called "sweetcorn." See the "corn laws" which were about the price of wheat. The author of the book referred to is from the UK. "Ears of corn" means "ears of wheat" in that context.

[Grack21]

In the UK, "corn" is a generic term for grain, and what you probably think of as "corn" is called "sweetcorn." See the "corn laws" which were about the price of wheat. The author of the book referred to is from the UK. "Ears of corn" means "ears of wheat" in that context.

Well, you Brits are strange and should speak our language!

[Brienne the Beauty]

Yes! That is what bothers me. But also, when you are supposed to focus on the one exceptional character's inner conflict as one of the main conflicts of the whole plot and it's a conflict that doesn't fit the time or place, I can't take it.

I can't stand anachronistic characterisation either. It's worse than making Brutus the same age as Julius Caesar to me.

I mostly see it in "anachronistic feminism." I believe strongly in feminism myself, but a belief in women's rights would manifest differently in different places. In historical fiction it generally manifests in generic modern "feistiness" which suggest the heroine watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer growing up.

Another place it shows up is heroes believing in modern democracy before it had even been invented (not Greek city-state democracy.)

Being against slavery in a time when it was unthinkable is another one - this would not be likely to even occur to a Roman, for instance. If it did, even slaves would think he was a nutter - their likely life goal would be to get free and own slaves of their own.

[Liadin]

I mostly see it in "anachronistic feminism." I believe strongly in feminism myself, but a belief in women's rights would manifest differently in different places. In historical fiction it generally manifests in generic modern "feistiness" which suggest the heroine watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer growing up.

That's just poor characterization. A lot of heroines get written "feisty" because the author can't think of another way to write a strong or interesting female character besides giving her lots of energy and sass (and usually they're not even very consistent).

Being against slavery in a time when it was unthinkable is another one - this would not be likely to even occur to a Roman, for instance. If it did, even slaves would think he was a nutter - their likely life goal would be to get free and own slaves of their own.

When people make this argument though, I wonder to what extent it was actually "unthinkable." One need only look around the internet to see how many people in our own time hold fringe positions that the mainstream would scoff at--whether they want to abolish currency, or think war should never be fought for any reason (even in self-defense) or get rid of all government. Granted, there's much more communication and education and free exchange of ideas now than you'd see in the time periods covered by a lot of historical fiction, but I wouldn't be so certain that abolishing slavery would never have occurred to anybody. There are always going to be radicals.

[Grack21]

I think it depends how other characters react to said anachronistic character. If they think he's a loon then I can tolerate it, but if everyone else in like Rome 200BC is like YEAH SLAVERY IS BAD EQUAL RIGHTS WOOO then it's just awful.

[Brienne the Beauty]

When people make this argument though, I wonder to what extent it was actually "unthinkable." One need only look around the internet to see how many people in our own time hold fringe positions that the mainstream would scoff at--whether they want to abolish currency, or think war should never be fought for any reason (even in self-defense) or get rid of all government. Granted, there's much more communication and education and free exchange of ideas now than you'd see in the time periods covered by a lot of historical fiction, but I wouldn't be so certain that abolishing slavery would never have occurred to anybody. There are always going to be radicals.

Of course they existed. However, they'd get the same sort of reaction as those people who want to abolish money or war. They'd be seen as well-meaning but addled crackpots.

Sometimes in historical works, it seems like the hero is not allowed to hold any views common at the time that are reprehensible now. I find this unhelpful in understanding *why* people believed those things, and why we changed. For instance, a crusader hero with representative beliefs of the time who comes to question them is more interesting than a crusader hero who has always thought Muslims are good people and equal to any Christian. A feminist, anti-monarchist, pro-democracy crusader who believes in religious equality and animal rights is just ridiculous.

[wolverine]

Sometimes in historical works, it seems like the hero is not allowed to hold any views common at the time that are reprehensible now. I find this unhelpful in understanding *why* people believed those things, and why we changed. For instance, a crusader hero with representative beliefs of the time who comes to question them is more interesting than a crusader hero who has always thought Muslims are good people and equal to any Christian. A feminist, anti-monarchist, pro-democracy crusader who believes in religious equality and animal rights is just ridiculous.

This is the kind of stuff that annoys me.

[Galactus]

Oh yeah, a historical fiction thread

Mika Waltari's The Egyptian... Oh wait, this isn't a recommendation thread.

That said, I find the above book very interesting precisely because he transports a somewhat "modern" character and problem back into history *without losing the flavour of the time* (now granted, he kind of makes a hatchet job of Suppiluliuma, and the blatant 20th century paralells in general) but it's still well... believable.

Great book. Read it.

[Stego]

I just stick with Dunnett and McCullough and Pressfield and I don't have to worry about this stuff.

[Relic]

I just stick with Dunnett and McCullough and Pressfield and I don't have to worry about this stuff.

Have you read Pride of Carthage? I think you'd dig it.

[Shryke]

When people make this argument though, I wonder to what extent it was actually "unthinkable." One need only look around the internet to see how many people in our own time hold fringe positions that the mainstream would scoff at--whether they want to abolish currency, or think war should never be fought for any reason (even in self-defense) or get rid of all government. Granted, there's much more communication and education and free exchange of ideas now than you'd see in the time periods covered by a lot of historical fiction, but I wouldn't be so certain that abolishing slavery would never have occurred to anybody. There are always going to be radicals.

Yes, some things are "unthinkable". You can argue about specific examples and the extent and so on, but ideas are like any other invention: they stand on the shoulders of giants. And midgets. And other ideas of all sizes.

They aren't birthed from nothingness, they build upon other things. Some ideas would be unthinkable in those contexts because the other ideas that support them haven't been thought yet.

And more then that, the articulation of those ideas is also something that needs to be built up.

[Alexia]

Yes, some things are "unthinkable". You can argue about specific examples and the extent and so on, but ideas are like any other invention: they stand on the shoulders of giants. And midgets. And other ideas of all sizes.

While I totally appreciate your point, I tend to agree with Liadin. For example, I was reading a history book about Rome and Jewish culture from before the destruction of the Temple until after the third rebellion, and one thing that was mentioned (and stuck in my brain) was that a philosopher was adamantly opposed to war and almost ended up as the victim of mob violence by going out and trying to convince a bunch of legionnaires that war is an evil thing. It was an outlandish position for the time and the man was a laughingstock even amongst philosphers.

A Google search shows that the philospher Epictetus not only opposed slavery but also capital punishment, and argued that criminals should be treated as sick people.