When is the fiction in Historical Fiction too much?

[Brienne the Beauty]

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.

Any idea you can imagine is and always has been held by someone. The problem in historical fiction comes when the norms of our society replace the norms of older societies.

We find it hard to conceive of a hero who owns slaves, since it is completely antithetical to all modern morality, and only a monster would do it these days. The ancient Romans would have had no problems with this at all. A hero who was against slavery would need more complex motivations than "He just didn't think it was right" because that gut feeling is entirely based on our current culture. If he lived by that maxim anyway, he would be treated by others as eccentric, not virtuous.

Authors who fail to understand this tend to write "Ren faire" versions of history, in which the externals are historical, but the character motivations are all contemporary (except for bad guys.)

[Stego]

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

Hell yes, a million times better than Durham's fantasy, IMO.

(I read some crap Historical Fiction too, I was just trying to be pithy.)

Durham told me he is going back to historical fiction and taking on Imperial Rome.

[Grack21]

Authors who fail to understand this tend to write "Ren faire" versions of history, in which the externals are historical, but the character motivations are all contemporary (except for bad guys.)

This. Oh I love this. Ren faire history. I'm going to use that in a conversation this week I swear. You nailed it on the head there my friend.

[Liadin]

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.

Complex ideas, mathematics and science and art and such, yes. But it doesn't take "standing on the shoulders of giants" for somebody to say "Facet X of our society is wrong." Anybody can do that. And when it's an aspect of their culture that causes lots of human suffering, like slavery, I'd be surprised if it didn't occur to plenty of people that perhaps there was something wrong with it. The difference is that not all well-meaning people would come to that conclusion, or make an effort to change it if they did, and the framework they'd analyze it through would be totally different than the one we use, since we start with the assumption that slavery is wrong and they don't.

It definitely looks bad when authors just gloss over it though, for instance by taking the Roman hero's anti-slavery views for granted, or having characters start with our cultural assumptions rather than their own. I agree with Brienne that just giving a character a "gut feeling" about something entirely contradictory to the way they've been brought up and not going into any detail on the matter is bad writing.

[Grack21]

Complex ideas, mathematics and science and art and such, yes. But it doesn't take "standing on the shoulders of giants" for somebody to say "Facet X of our society is wrong." Anybody can do that. And when it's an aspect of their culture that causes lots of human suffering, like slavery, I'd be surprised if it didn't occur to plenty of people that perhaps there was something wrong with it. The difference is that not all well-meaning people would come to that conclusion, or make an effort to change it if they did, and the framework they'd analyze it through would be totally different than the one we use, since we start with the assumption that slavery is wrong and they don't.

It definitely looks bad when authors just gloss over it though, for instance by taking the Roman hero's anti-slavery views for granted, or having characters start with our cultural assumptions rather than their own. I agree with Brienne that just giving a character a "gut feeling" about something entirely contradictory to the way they've been brought up and not going into any detail on the matter is bad writing.

It really depends, to me, on how the rest of the society being portrayed deals with the characters ideas. If someone in Rome thinks slavery is bad, OK, but if he starts telling people about it and they just go HEY YEAH GOOD IDEA IT IS BAD, then it becomes unrealistic. It also depends a lot on how a character comes across said idea. If there's some background/personal issue that leads to it, yeah that is OK. But when someone is just walking down the street one day and thinks HEY WOMAN SHOULD VOTE it comes off as not only bad writing, but kind of patronizing.

[Galactus]

It really depends, to me, on how the rest of the society being portrayed deals with the characters ideas. If someone in Rome thinks slavery is bad, OK, but if he starts telling people about it and they just go HEY YEAH GOOD IDEA IT IS BAD, then it becomes unrealistic. It also depends a lot on how a character comes across said idea. If there's some background/personal issue that leads to it, yeah that is OK. But when someone is just walking down the street one day and thinks HEY WOMAN SHOULD VOTE it comes off as not only bad writing, but kind of patronizing.

There's also a bit of how you react. I mean, a lot of people realized slavery was bad, but their reaction tended to be "You should treat your slaves better!" not "Slavery should be abolished!"

Again, The Egyptian. Read it. Love it.

[Liadin]

It really depends, to me, on how the rest of the society being portrayed deals with the characters ideas. If someone in Rome thinks slavery is bad, OK, but if he starts telling people about it and they just go HEY YEAH GOOD IDEA IT IS BAD, then it becomes unrealistic. It also depends a lot on how a character comes across said idea. If there's some background/personal issue that leads to it, yeah that is OK. But when someone is just walking down the street one day and thinks HEY WOMAN SHOULD VOTE it comes off as not only bad writing, but kind of patronizing.

This is important too. A lot of times in bad historical fiction you get the impression that only the villains are pro-slavery/misogynistic/classist/think violence is a good way to solve their problems/whatever, even though historically most people in the society would have felt that way. Plenty of authors could get historical accuracy points at very little cost just by changing the views of their non-evil secondary characters.

ETA: I should say that the opposite of the problem we've been talking about also bothers me. This pops up most often in medieval fiction, whether historical or fantasy, where the author uncritically adopts the monarchist views of the characters. While one would expect the majority of characters in such a setting (especially if it's early-medieval) to believe in divine right of kings, it gets weird when the "real" heir to the throne is always also the best-qualified potential ruler and the only one with his heart in the right place, and anyone who schemes against the king (even if for reasons we'd normally consider quite acceptable, like ending serfdom or something) is automatically classified as "evil." It's one thing to accurately portray a setting, another to start advocating for absolute monarchy, or solving problems through violence, or what have you.

Most of the time I'm not sure authors realize that they're doing this. But I notice.

[Shryke]

There's also a bit of how you react. I mean, a lot of people realized slavery was bad, but their reaction tended to be "You should treat your slaves better!" not "Slavery should be abolished!"

Again, The Egyptian. Read it. Love it.

Exactly. It's not just about the idea, but it's expression (although I'd argue the 2 ideas are different). Things like "universal human rights" and the like aren't universal.

The slavery example isn't the best (feelings of nationalism are some I find far more anachronistic), but to run with it, the idea that "slaves are people to and don't deserve to be slaves" would just not fit in back then imo. It'd be "yeah, they are people to, sure. Slave people.".

[Galactus]

This is important too. A lot of times in bad historical fiction you get the impression that only the villains are pro-slavery/misogynistic/classist/think violence is a good way to solve their problems/whatever, even though historically most people in the society would have felt that way. Plenty of authors could get historical accuracy points at very little cost just by changing the views of their non-evil secondary characters.

ETA: I should say that the opposite of the problem we've been talking about also bothers me. This pops up most often in medieval fiction, whether historical or fantasy, where the author uncritically adopts the monarchist views of the characters. While one would expect the majority of characters in such a setting (especially if it's early-medieval) to believe in divine right of kings, it gets weird when the "real" heir to the throne is always also the best-qualified potential ruler and the only one with his heart in the right place, and anyone who schemes against the king (even if for reasons we'd normally consider quite acceptable, like ending serfdom or something) is automatically classified as "evil." It's one thing to accurately portray a setting, another to start advocating for absolute monarchy, or solving problems through violence, or what have you.

Most of the time I'm not sure authors realize that they're doing this. But I notice.

Actually, early-medieval people wouldn't believe in the divine right of kings very much, they knew the king's power came from being elected by the local nobles :P

[AzureOwl]

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.

I completely agree. This is a reason I liked Shōgun so much. Clavell knew he needed to introduce some fairly large changes into the events for the sake of the plot, so he turned all the historical characters into fictional ones that still closely resembled the real live ones.

Other than this I would say that my knowledge of the period influences the amount of bullshit I’m willing to put up with. Related to this, I think the age of the internet has made it more difficult to enjoy historical novels. In the older days only the very few people with a special interest in a specific time period were ever likely to notice serious discrepancies between the fiction and the history. Nowadays anyone with an internet connection can fact check what the author wrote and be disgusted by the blatant tampering.

[Grack21]

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.

Oh feel free to know recs out there. I only habe Cornwell and Saylor to enjoy at the moment, although i have Dunnet, Pargith, Penmen, Kane, and McCullough sitting here on my to be read pile. I some Arthur tale from someone who starts with an H but I don't want to go look at my shelf right now. Hollick?

Oh and I thought Chadwick's The Greatest Knight was decent. And The Road to Jerusalem by Some Swedish Guy.

Igguldun and Gregroy make me ill.

Think I have Robert Harris in the pile too.

I like Rome.

[Galactus]

The Road to Jerusalem by Some Swedish Guy™.

Jan Guillou he's... A character.

[Grack21]

Jan Guillou he's... A character.

Yeah. I'm kind of glad I read the book before I read about him. He uh, has some interesting opinions on, uh, things.

[shadow catlady]

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? [...]

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.

To your question, I don't need characters to be more representative of their culture, but I'm not going to buy into a plotline that involves an inner conflict that is anachronistic. It's like me complaining about the existence of the phrases "slut" and "male slut." I might have intelligent reasons to find these terms offensive, but lots of people in my place and era tend to just think I'm whining. Same thing with an upper-class Victorian girl complaining that no one understands how much she loves the stable boy; "why can't I marry him?" sounds like whining.

I actually think what you said further along the thread describes it for me. (I bolded that part.)

[...] for somebody to say "Facet X of our society is wrong." Anybody can do that. And when it's an aspect of their culture that causes lots of human suffering, like slavery, I'd be surprised if it didn't occur to plenty of people that perhaps there was something wrong with it. The difference is that not all well-meaning people would come to that conclusion, or make an effort to change it if they did, and the framework they'd analyze it through would be totally different than the one we use, since we start with the assumption that slavery is wrong and they don't.

This, too, addresses why I don't like that certain kind of anachronistic inner conflict.

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.

And I agree with your assessment, lots of YA historical fiction is about the good guys full of some forward-thinking tolerance, and only the villians representing the views that are prejudiced and backwards through our historical hindsight. Sometimes this is done more or less effectively, but when it isn't...

[wolverine]

Oh feel free to know recs out there. I only habe Cornwell and Saylor to enjoy at the moment, although i have Dunnet, Pargith, Penmen, Kane, and McCullough sitting here on my to be read pile. I some Arthur tale from someone who starts with an H but I don't want to go look at my shelf right now. Hollick?

Oh and I thought Chadwick's The Greatest Knight was decent. And The Road to Jerusalem by Some Swedish Guy.

Igguldun and Gregroy make me ill.

Think I have Robert Harris in the pile too.

I like Rome.

I would move Dunnet and then McCullough to the top of your pile, but I have not read all the others.

I read Byzantium by Stephen Lawhead and what a steamy squishy mountain of turd. This book kind of sums up everything I don't like in historical fiction. The main character is a monk whose religious views change about 6 times during the book without any believable character development. Then somehow at the end he is a born again Christian and founds Christianity in Norway. His inexplicably anachronistic views were so annoying for me. Also the plot was entirely unbelievable. Other than that it was a slightly entertaining adventure.

Are all his books bad?

[Stego]

Are all his books bad?

Yes.

[Grack21]

Anyone have any opinions on Wolf Hall? I see that one everywhere but I've heard different things about it on the amazon. But, well, it's amazon.

[Myrddin]

Are all his books bad?

No.

Though given your view of Byzantium, you probably won't like them. I enjoy his prose and his Christian focus doesn't bother me. It's been 12 or more year s since I've read it (so my memory isn't as fresh as yours), but the character flip flops his religious views because he's trying to reconcile his beliefs. He goes from Irish monk, to captured by vikings, to being taken down the Volga to Byzantium and serving the emperor, to being exposed to Islam. That's alot of changes and reasons for being uncertain about what you believe.

Anyway. I really like most of Lawhead's books, but he's not popular on this board because most of his main characters are Christian.

No, I do not like" Christian" fiction. Stories where the whole goal is a coversion of the protagonist bores me to tears.

[Stego]

Anyway. I really like most of Lawhead's books, but he's not popular on this board because most of his main characters are Christian.

This is utter and complete nonsense. I read his Arthur books when I was a church going little trooper, and I still hated them. They are garbage. I honestly did not notice that he had a Christian leaning. I had no clue until I just read it here.

I read the Arthur books as a kid (I read everything) and tried to read his Robin Hood books recently. They were unreadable garbage.

[Spring Bass]

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn might be a good example on how to avoid the "anachronistic gut feeling that X is wrong" situation. If I recall correctly, Huck's conscience - his "gut" - tells him he needs to turn in Jim the runaway slave, but he refuses to do it. Having a character find their way to a better moral position from our standpoint in an older setting makes for very good stories.

As for the OP, it's tricky. The boundary between historical fiction and alternate history can get blurry.