When is the fiction in Historical Fiction too much?

[Myrddin]

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.

Garbage? Hardly. I'll grant you his Hood books were off (still haven't bothered reading Tuck), but I've read much worse from the "recommended" reading from around these parts. Case in point, I skimmed the last third of Pride of Carthage because I was bored silly. Regardless, I wouldn't Dunham as writing garbage. Just not able to craft the entire story of Hannibal into a narrative I cared to finish, something that rarely happens.

And yes, most of the criticism on the board regarding Lawhead has more to do with how his religious views permeates his writing. I've been reading them for more years than I care to count.

Lawhead isn't without his flaws and he's certainly not for everyone, but writing garbage isn't remotely a defensible blanket claim against him.

[Galactus]

It'd be amore grievous fault to write medieval fiction where characters *weren't* deepy religious.

[Brienne the Beauty]

It'd be amore grievous fault to write medieval fiction where characters *weren't* deepy religious.

Religiousness is expressed in different ways throughout the ages, even within the same religion. A present-day fundamentalist Christian and a devout Christian from the middle ages might be equally religious but their focus would be different.

The devout Christian of the past might be obsessed with death, the afterlife, and mortification of the flesh in a way that would come across as pretty creepy to a present day fundamentalist Christian transported back in time. A devout fundamentalist American transported back to a 15th century monastery would be at least a fish out of water, and possibly burnt for heresy. A 15th century Christian characterized as a modern Christian is as much an error as portraying medieval people as unreligious.

[wolverine]

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.

I am Christian and I think books about any religion are interesting. I thought Byzantium was adventurous and interesting at times, but entirely unbelievable. Characters often change in a book as they should due to their experiences, but the changes in the monk were inexplicable. It seemed like one day he firmly believed one thing and two days later firmly believed something else.

IMO Good historical fiction allows you to travel back in time to the period it is taking place in. It immerses you in the setting and makes you believe the story could have actually happened. Lawhead did not create a convincing story and failed to make me feel like I was transported back to whatever time period it was purported to take place in. Authors who do that for me include: Dunnett, McCullough, Pressfield, Cornwell, Bradshaw, Eco, Clavell...

[Myrddin]

The monk's choices seemed reasonible, if you consider him being a sheltered teenager at the beginning. Like a college freshman, he latched on to every new idea. :) But I understand you issues with it. I've been meaning to reread it. 15 years is long enough to view it with a completely new perspective.

If you did want to try another Lawhead book, I'd recommend his Song of Albion trilogy. It's more of a portal world story to a pseudo celtic one, but well written. If you don't enoy the first one, then I wouldn't recommend you wasting your time with any more Lawhead.

Sorry for the thread jack. :)

I agree with the sentiment that historical inconsistencies in novels are distracting. I will say that I prefer the story be served over accuracy, though (to a point). I read a lot of historical non-fiction for fun, so when I read an historical novel, it's for the characters primarily. A good novel will drive me to by bookshelves for books about that time period.

[AverageGuy]

Somewhat relevant, it looks like any historical fiction is too much in China. Technically time travel in TV, but considering the reasoning, seems like the same thing.

[Lummel]

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.

Although I prefer her older pieces of historical fiction "A Place of Greater Safety" and "The Giant, O'Brien", I still think it's great, worth reading and a fine example of a good piece of historical fiction. I'll be buying the sequel: "Wolf Hall II: attack of the Jane Seymour" when it is published.

I don't mind fiction in the case of something tongue in check like "The Three Musketeers", but in something that takes itself more seriously it can really stick in my craw, for example in Rose Tremain's "Restoration" the quaker studying at university or in "Music and Silence" the financial dealings between Christian IV and his Mum followed by the russian silver mining experts travelling to Denmark via Northern Norway who are mostly eaten by wolves in which the least historically inaccurate part, considering that there is no evidenced case of wolves attacking, killing and eating people, is being eaten by wolves. Apart from that they need historical hazard warnings pasted on the covers they are both very nice little novels.

[Rakka]

To Denmark... to mine silver... via northern Norway... *brain 'splodey* Okay, there's "not doing research" and then there's "never having looked at a map of the area you're using for a setting".

[Seli]

To Denmark... to mine silver... via northern Norway... *brain 'splodey* Okay, there's "not doing research" and then there's "never having looked at a map of the area you're using for a setting".

Well, Norway was in a personal union with Denmark at the time so could be considered 'Denmark'. At the same time Sweden controlled the Baltic and could block Russian access to Denmark by way of the sea. And depending on the time Germany could have been in the middle of the 30 year war making travel through it ever so slightly hazardous.

I am not familiar with the books, but the travel route might make some sense.

[The Iceman of the North]

I haven't read the book, but based Lummel's description, it's set during the reign of Christian Quart, about a century before the start of the Pomor trade. That trade however were delayed by the trade monopoly in Northern Norway. At the same time this takes place before Russia had any Baltic Sea ports, so to get to Denmark they either had to go the northern route through Norway, go through Sweden, or go the southern route through Germany.

Given that the silver mines in question, most likely were the Kongsberg mines in Norway, the northern route isn't that unlikely.

In Norway there is a single documented example of someone being killed by wolves, so it's not exactly likely. But stories about the dangers of wolves were quite common. So for accuracy it would depend on whether the wolf attack were described in the book, or whether their disappearance were simply ascribed to wolves while the actual attack were more likely perpetrated by savage Swedish cannibals.

[Nukelavee]

First - Dunnet. YES. haven't read past the first Lymond (try and find them), but I loved the Niccolo series.

I think the mark of good (even great) historical fiction is when you really can't tell if the writer has made something up or not.

A great example of this is Neal Stephanson, and the Baroque Cycle. Some things are clearly made up, some things are fact and easy to see... but there is a lot of stuff in there where the facts are just as over the top as the fiction. I ended up learning enough about William II of Orange that I was able to write a 12k word essay on him...(for my roomate, lol). I started reading up on him because his exploits in teh book were so over the top...and then the history books told me, no, he WAS that amazing.

David Drake does amazing historical stuff with Rome, and his "the Dragon Lord", about Arthur, is worth reading.

The thing is, I can deal with "alternate" history, if it's billed as such. It's when people start making sloppy mistakes or just ignoring huge elements to make their point that I give up.

not a fan of Lawhead, Jack Whyte is better, but still has a style it's easy to get tired by.

[Galactus]

I haven't read the book, but based Lummel's description, it's set during the reign of Christian Quart, about a century before the start of the Pomor trade. That trade however were delayed by the trade monopoly in Northern Norway. At the same time this takes place before Russia had any Baltic Sea ports, so to get to Denmark they either had to go the northern route through Norway, go through Sweden, or go the southern route through Germany.

Given that the silver mines in question, most likely were the Kongsberg mines in Norway, the northern route isn't that unlikely.

In Norway there is a single documented example of someone being killed by wolves, so it's not exactly likely. But stories about the dangers of wolves were quite common. So for accuracy it would depend on whether the wolf attack were described in the book, or whether their disappearance were simply ascribed to wolves while the actual attack were more likely perpetrated by savage Swedish cannibals.

No self-respecting swedish cannibal would ever eat anyone tainted by contact with norwegians!

That's downright unhealthy!

[Galactus]

I haven't read the book, but based Lummel's description, it's set during the reign of Christian Quart, about a century before the start of the Pomor trade. That trade however were delayed by the trade monopoly in Northern Norway. At the same time this takes place before Russia had any Baltic Sea ports, so to get to Denmark they either had to go the northern route through Norway, go through Sweden, or go the southern route through Germany.

Given that the silver mines in question, most likely were the Kongsberg mines in Norway, the northern route isn't that unlikely.

In Norway there is a single documented example of someone being killed by wolves, so it's not exactly likely. But stories about the dangers of wolves were quite common. So for accuracy it would depend on whether the wolf attack were described in the book, or whether their disappearance were simply ascribed to wolves while the actual attack were more likely perpetrated by savage Swedish cannibals.

No self-respecting swedish cannibal would ever eat anyone tainted by contact with norwegians!

That's downright unhealthy!

[matt b]

David Drake...and his "the Dragon Lord", about Arthur, is worth reading.

No, no it's not.

[Grack21]

No, no it's not.

Yeah. David Drake's popularity baffles me. He's also a smug stuck up prick.

[Nukelavee]

Wow. I'm going to have to ask - Why don;t you like Drake, and where did you get the idea he's a smug prick?

His historical details are first rate, the guy definately knows the periods he writes about. He doesn't create prissy little vignettes of a history that wasn't, he gives a view of just how brutal things were.

So far as Dragon Lord goes... it might not be the standard glowing image of Arthur and his men, but it seems pretty acceptable as a version of the legend.

Like I said, I'm really going to have to ask you to do more than just say "I don't like him".

[Grack21]

Wow. I'm going to have to ask - Why don;t you like Drake, and where did you get the idea he's a smug prick?

His historical details are first rate, the guy definately knows the periods he writes about. He doesn't create prissy little vignettes of a history that wasn't, he gives a view of just how brutal things were.

So far as Dragon Lord goes... it might not be the standard glowing image of Arthur and his men, but it seems pretty acceptable as a version of the legend.

Like I said, I'm really going to have to ask you to do more than just say "I don't like him".

I can't comment on his historical fiction, but Lord of the Isles was one of the worst pieces of fantasy I've read in a long time. Farm boy on an island has magic powers etc. It was so clearly trying to cash in on The Wheel of Time it almost makes me sick. As for the author himself, he was on a panel not long ago ranting about how fantasy authors shouldn't write such long novels and how those that do don;t have talent, etc etc. Going on amd on about his "craft". I wanted to slap him. There's a video of it over on pat's blog.

Edit: This: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2010/11/continued-viability-of-epic-fantasy.html

[Liadin]

Edit: This: http://fantasyhotlist.blogspot.com/2010/11/continued-viability-of-epic-fantasy.html

So the panel, consisting of David Drake, John Fultz, Blake Charlton, David B. Coe, and Freda Warrington, concludes that epic fantasy is no longer viable.

I think I've heard of one of those people, and not in a complimentary way.

[Nukelavee]

I'll have to watch that...

Lord of the Isles isn't one of his best works, I totally agree. I enjoyed them, but more because I took them more as a series of linked novella's or longer short stories.

Personally, I found them very repeatative.

On the other hand, without seeing that vid, I'm going to say this - "epic" series tend to suck at points in their cycle. Wheel of Time? Some great stuff in there, a few of the books are downright amazing... but so many of them ARE dragged out and so "same old same old" it makes me want to scream. The problem, tho, with any epic series, is that once you learn to recognize that writer's "boilerplate", you realize how much of any given book is actually just filler.

For the record - I like the style of the guy finishing WoT. It's not Jordan, but it doesn't ruin the story, in fact, I find it breaths new life into the characters, and, thank God, he's not wasting pages and pages of the tiresome women vs men crap. Plus, he makes the story move faster than it had been. It's a shame, tho, Jordan seemed to have found a second wind with the last one he wrote, things were moving and interesting again.

But, stating LotI was a knock-off of WoT? Srry, don't see it, other than being "epic" fantasy.

[Grack21]

RISE FROM THE GRAVE YE OLD THREAD OF MINE

Check this out. I think my IQ dropped looking at it,