Tango01 | 14 Aug 2015 3:22 p.m. PST |
"…How 'accurate' is historical fiction? Novelists who write about the past are often asked about the importance of historical accuracy in their work. This is perhaps a strange question; history, after all, is not an exact science. The past no longer exists, so how could we measure the accuracy of our view of it? Instead, history is a method of attempting to understand the fragments left to us of the past, a set of tools and parameters for interpretation and speculation. But, of course, this isn't really want the question is about. ‘Accuracy' (for want of a better word) in historical fiction is all about accordance with the sources, paying attention to details and not veering off into fantasy. It is about the construction of a plausible view of the past that fits with what we know and does not contain jarring anachronisms. Put like this, the question is much easier to answer, for me at least: ‘accuracy' is extremely important. One of the most fascinating aspects of historical fiction is the constant collision and interplay between the novelistic imagination and the raw matter of the past. Individual stories take root from the greater story of past events, and are constantly fed by it. Beyond the story itself, the structure that will get the characters from prologue to dénouement and hopefully carry the readers along with it, there is the accumulation of supporting details. Historical research provides the furniture of my character's world, the clothes they wear and the food they eat. It provides the thoughts in their heads. It is a liberation, not a chore. The more I know of the period I'm writing about, the more comfortable and confident I feel about imagining the bits I don't know. And, of course, it's those gulfs of the unknown, and the bridges we build to cross them, that makes the exercise so rewarding. But can we take ‘historical accuracy' too far? In this age of the internet, the raw matter of history is available to all, the sources and the speculations about any era easily accessible. So should novelists spend less time worrying about ‘accuracy', and more on telling a unique and engaging story?…" Full text here link Amicalement Armand |
Coyotepunc and Hatshepsuut | 14 Aug 2015 3:57 p.m. PST |
It's called "fiction" for a reason. |
Mako11 | 14 Aug 2015 4:06 p.m. PST |
|
ochoin | 14 Aug 2015 4:13 p.m. PST |
One of the difficult aspects of writing commercially successful historical fiction is dealing with changed sensibilities. For instance, take class subservience. In our laudably democratic society, Jack is as good (if not better) than his master. Not so throughout most of history where the lower classes were bludgeoned into their inferior place. So, if a modern historical novel has a "working class" hero it probably isn't very accurate. And there are others: endemic racism, religious bigotry, the glorification of war etc : all these areas are regarded very differently today from much of the past. BTW does modern "editing" of the past worry me? Not really. I'll judge a novel by its merits….& what PR wrote. |
Extra Crispy | 14 Aug 2015 4:25 p.m. PST |
|
Allen57 | 14 Aug 2015 6:24 p.m. PST |
How accurate is nonfiction history? History is a very complex subject varied by he perceptions of the particapants/witnesses and the bias of the writer. In historical fiction I expect to be entertained. Hopefully the broad picture is also accurate. |
Grelber | 14 Aug 2015 7:27 p.m. PST |
Don't have much patience with plain old stupidity or laziness at doing any research at all. One of those things I just sigh and accept is transportation. For instance, folks in Diana Gabaldon's book Outlander are always rushing around on horses. I don't believe Scotland, which I believe may have a mountain or two, would have had anywhere near the number of horses this would imply, and that, sad to say, if folks wanted to go somewhere, they walked. We all have automobiles and we've watched Westerns where everybody has horses, and we simply can't imagine this. Grelber |
cosmicbank | 14 Aug 2015 7:47 p.m. PST |
Between History Channel and Fox news. |
Dn Jackson | 14 Aug 2015 8:40 p.m. PST |
Cosmic, If everything in your life revolves around your politics, you are going to have a very frustrating life. Try putting it away for a while when it has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. On the original question, I like my historical fiction to be grounded in reality as much as possible. I know it can't be all the time and can accept certain digressions. |
John Treadaway | 15 Aug 2015 2:13 a.m. PST |
Ochoin makes a good point: it even extends beyond the purely historical. For example, the splenid, finely tuned, "period"* relationships between the four main halfling characters in The Lord of the Rings – particularly where they are being introduced in the Inn at Bree – is telling: Mr Underhill, Mr Took, Mr Brandybuck and plain old Sam Gamgee: he's not a Mister – not a gentlehobbit – he's a Servant. But that distinction is totally lost (along with so much else, of course) in Peter Jackson's films because it didn't sit well with the modern sensibilities of (what he assumed was) his audience. In the films they are four 'mates' and all of those relationships in his book – based in part around the real interactions Tolkien had observed between officers an other ranks when he served in the Great War – are all simply ignored. Just one of the (many) reasons I'm not fond of Mr Jackson's efforts to bring LotR to the screen. John T * emulating historical British society |
thehawk | 15 Aug 2015 6:51 a.m. PST |
Fiction requires the creation of a world with rules and laws (the scene). Historical fiction utilizes rules and laws from history. The better the rules and laws, the better the reader immersion into the scene. With historical novels, a lot of readers will buy the book for the history first and the story a distant second. So the history has to be accurate enough to satisfy the average amateur historian. But no-one would be dumb enough to believe that 18th century highland serfs spoke English, would they? Many authors are more interested in writing a plausible story in a setting that personally appeals to them. Many employ other people to do the historical research. The author comes up with a plot and use the research to add historical flavor. So the plots are often modern. The historians might check the finished product for historical errors. There can be a fine line between 'plausible' and 'busted'. An example from TV might be Turn Season 2 (plausible although historically inaccurate) and that other recent AWI show (historically laughable). Regarding Tolkien, I don't think PJ had a clue what Tolkien was actually writing about. He converted the plot into a different setting other than the one Tolkien imagined. Tolkien's work was based on real places that he visited or knew of, a real social structure and real characters albeit extracted from myth. All believable. PJ on the other hand had some of the plot set in real locations (one set of rules), other parts set in a warhammer-like CGI universe (another set) and some dialog, romance and comedy using contemporary views (a third set). Doomed to fail. |
Garryowen | 15 Aug 2015 1:00 p.m. PST |
I read a lot of Napoleonic nonfiction, particularly on French cavalry. David Johnson wrote both fiction and nonfiction on Napoleonic cavalry. There were two nonfiction books and a series of articles called "Sabres in Hand" for the old 1960s British publication, Tradition. His first fiction work, Sabre General (also published under the title The Proud Canaries in the U.S.), was a very accurate book on the exploits of General Lasalle as told through the eyes of a fictional aide-de-camp. It is probably my favorite novel. The second novel, Bonaparte's Sabres, dealt with French Cavalry in Egypt and Napoleon's return to France. That period I do not know enough about to comment on the historical accuracy. All great. Tom |
Inkpaduta | 15 Aug 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
I would say it depends on the author. Some really try hard to get the history right. Still, they do have to work within a fiction framework. |
Hafen von Schlockenberg | 06 Jan 2016 11:58 a.m. PST |
Thought I posted comment here,maybe got deleted fortuitously, won't repeat. Hey,John Treadaway,again,one little change,we would have had a faithful movie, haha. Frodo would never have sent Sam away,least of all on the testimony of Gollum. And Sam would never have left him,unless he was dead,as he thought he was at Cirith Ungol.In fact probably wouldn't have even then,if not for the Ring. In the extended edition,which I am finally forcing myself to watch,Peter Jackson says at one point that they attempted to "get away from" Tolkien's story,if I have that quote right,but kept being forced back to the original plot. The mind reels at what might have been… Come to think of it,what "might have been" turned out to be "The Hobbit" |
Ottoathome | 06 Jan 2016 3:02 p.m. PST |
History is the study of change in human society to make generalizations about the past. We take real events and try and make conclusions and maxims and statements. Fiction is the creation of the puppet master / author who can make his characters and reality dance to whatever tune he wishes. It's fun, it's nice to read, as for generalizations about reality and the past, it's as useful as Harry Potter, that is , worthless. I don't waste my time with it. I'd rather study real history. |
sumerandakkad | 10 Jan 2016 6:18 a.m. PST |
Doesn't it depend on both your knowledge of the period in question and what you presume of the period? |
Tyler326 | 14 Feb 2016 7:04 a.m. PST |
Historical Fiction- means it takes place in a period of history that is real with "fictional" characters and events. See: Sharpe's Rifles, Gladiator, Saving Private Ryan. List goes on. |
vtsaogames | 17 Feb 2016 6:29 a.m. PST |
Some can be really good, and some can be People magazine set in the past. |
49mountain | 17 Feb 2016 1:35 p.m. PST |
History is written by the winners and the revisionist. Who can say what is and is not "fiction"? |
ochoin | 23 Feb 2016 3:34 a.m. PST |
I'm not sure what history Ottoathome reads but it is as least as open to manipulation as any work of fiction &, here's the rub, for far less honourable motives. I would suggest Ottoathome turn away from Young Adult works such as the Harry Potter series & read some literature. It may change his rather narrow perceptions. For example, Jane Austin's novels will tell you more about Regency England then any "history" book. There are multitude examples I can offer but as Ottoathome is, I think, an American, here's one closer to home: 'To Kill a Mockingbird', as a treatise in apartheid & racial prejudice in the American South. "Real" history? What does this, if anything, mean? |
ochoin | 24 Feb 2016 3:25 p.m. PST |
|
Deuce03 | 11 May 2016 4:46 a.m. PST |
One of my favourite historical novel series is Robert Harris's Cicero series. In one of those he talks a bit about his process, and says, essentially, that while he can't pretend that everything in the books happened, as far as he's aware, nothing in the books definitely *didn't* happen. I think that's essentially the way historical fiction should be, although it does preclude the introduction of original characters, so maybe there's room for a bit of leeway. Still, it allows for the author to present their own interpretation on events and characters while still remaining fundamentally historically accurate. |
Ottoathome | 11 May 2016 3:42 p.m. PST |
Dear Ochoin Read them when I was nine. Also read more literature than you know about. Also read it in German and French original. Literature is not fiction. The type of fiction you guys are talking about is barely above Harlequen Romances. By the way if you REALLY want to know what Tolkein was writing about,read Norman Cantor's "The Inventing of the Middle Ages", the chapter on "The Oxford Fantasts." |
Weasel | 12 May 2016 9:04 a.m. PST |
Historians often don't agree on what history is, what chance does a novelist have? I buy fiction for a good read. |
14Bore | 14 May 2016 4:41 a.m. PST |
I've read historical novels my who life. I still would argue War and Peace is the best and greatest example of what it should be. But on my second Aubrey /Maturin book and Patrick Obrien may have taken it upon a notch. |
Russ Lockwood | 20 May 2016 6:08 p.m. PST |
For me, as long as history isn't stretched too far, the flavor is enough for a good historical novel. Fiction has to flow, moving plot and characters from one situation to another, preferably with a twist or two for hero and/or villain so they can be, er, heroic and villainous. Some fiction books read like a filled-in outline where the writer makes sure the reader knows the writer did research -- and that research is going to be stuck in no matter what. The better writers let the hard research ebb and flow through the novel as needed to move plot or character. The very best non-fiction writers present their information "similar to" (in quotes) a good novelist. They grab your attention with situation and characters, follow through with events and analysis backed by research, and draw to a conclusion. These can satisfy information and entertainment. |