This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1jordantaylor
What inspires you to roll your eyes when you're reading historical fiction?
Personally, mine would be...
- A girl in, say, medieval England behaving like a girl from the 21st Century
- "They fell in love at first sight"
- "She was the most beautiful girl he had ever seen (probably the most beautiful girl in the world, too)."
- Unrealistic liberties taken... When the fiction WAY outweighs the historical part
- Cover art or book title that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual book.
What are some of yours?
Personally, mine would be...
- A girl in, say, medieval England behaving like a girl from the 21st Century
- "They fell in love at first sight"
- "She was the most beautiful girl he had ever seen (probably the most beautiful girl in the world, too)."
- Unrealistic liberties taken... When the fiction WAY outweighs the historical part
- Cover art or book title that has absolutely NOTHING to do with the actual book.
What are some of yours?
2annamorphic
When characters who we're supposed to like display modern attitudes of social tolerance etc.
3aulsmith
Getting Catholic ritual, canon law and theology wrong. Or wrong for the time period.
ETA second sentence.
ETA second sentence.
4weikelm
Modern attitudes, like a girl shouting at a room full of men that she won't be bought and sold for marriage like a pig at market and will only marry for love. (She'd shout that at her mother in private, and then her mother would get out the birching rod until the girl stopped acting the fool.)
Obvious anachronisms like tomatoes in Italy and chocolates in France prior to the New World.
Authors assuming that words like "priest" "secretary" or "slave" meant exactly the same thing 600 years ago.
White hats vs. black hats. Where you can tell exactly how good or evil someone is by their gender, class, or religion.
Over the top violence, especially describing things that never would have happened, like monks violating Jewish women in the street and torturing people with knives. (They used everything but knives - like fire -- since they were forbidden from shedding blood.)
Obvious anachronisms like tomatoes in Italy and chocolates in France prior to the New World.
Authors assuming that words like "priest" "secretary" or "slave" meant exactly the same thing 600 years ago.
White hats vs. black hats. Where you can tell exactly how good or evil someone is by their gender, class, or religion.
Over the top violence, especially describing things that never would have happened, like monks violating Jewish women in the street and torturing people with knives. (They used everything but knives - like fire -- since they were forbidden from shedding blood.)
5LA12Hernandez
When the dirt poor character has a pocket watch, mantel clock, ink pen, and writing paper. And when they can read, write and tell time.
6southernbooklady
>1 jordantaylor: When the fiction WAY outweighs the historical part
And the opposite--when the author sacrifices the story so they can show off their research. I don't like historical fiction that treats the reader like they visitors to a museum that forces you to read every single placard beside every single exhibit.
And the opposite--when the author sacrifices the story so they can show off their research. I don't like historical fiction that treats the reader like they visitors to a museum that forces you to read every single placard beside every single exhibit.
7jordantaylor
>6 southernbooklady:, that is very true as well.
8thorold
I'd agree with most of the above, but I think there is a difference between anachronistic facts and anachronistic ideas: obviously, any writer who mentions details of clothes, diet, religious and legal practices, etc. without checking that they match the period sacrifices a lot of credibility with the reader. When we had another thread on this topic a while ago, someone also made the interesting point that writers have to avoid mentioning things that will be likely to strike the uninformed reader as wrong for the period, even if they are actually correct.
On the other hand, we have to accept that historical fiction is being written after the time in which it is set, and is aimed at readers with a set of prejudices and preconceptions totally different from people of the time (even the idea of prose fiction only goes back a few hundred years). The narrator or the viewpoint character has to provide the reader with a bridge into the period, otherwise you would end up with something completely unapproachable for most readers. That means that the writer has to sneak in some anachronistic ideas somewhere. The good ones do it in a way that makes them seem at least plausible, even if improbable, or they foreground the anachronism and use it as a central component of the story (the Connecticut Yankee / French Lieutenant approach); the bad ones pretend to be writing a realistic tale, then hit you over the head with a medieval women's-libber.
My pet hate: writers who try to use archaic language and get it horribly wrong at a really trivial level (e.g. using the wrong verb forms with "thee").
On the other hand, we have to accept that historical fiction is being written after the time in which it is set, and is aimed at readers with a set of prejudices and preconceptions totally different from people of the time (even the idea of prose fiction only goes back a few hundred years). The narrator or the viewpoint character has to provide the reader with a bridge into the period, otherwise you would end up with something completely unapproachable for most readers. That means that the writer has to sneak in some anachronistic ideas somewhere. The good ones do it in a way that makes them seem at least plausible, even if improbable, or they foreground the anachronism and use it as a central component of the story (the Connecticut Yankee / French Lieutenant approach); the bad ones pretend to be writing a realistic tale, then hit you over the head with a medieval women's-libber.
My pet hate: writers who try to use archaic language and get it horribly wrong at a really trivial level (e.g. using the wrong verb forms with "thee").
9Conachair
I recently came across something written as a first person narrative, where the "narrator" commented on common misconseptions he had come across.
while reading this is seemed obvious to me that these misconseptions would have been unlikely to have existed at the time. It was so obvious that this was the modern day author commenting on moderns day preconseptions.
Stuff like that always takes me out of the story.
I also hate chunks of historical information dumped on the reader like they were lifted from a non-fiction book about the subject, without being woven into the narrative.
while reading this is seemed obvious to me that these misconseptions would have been unlikely to have existed at the time. It was so obvious that this was the modern day author commenting on moderns day preconseptions.
Stuff like that always takes me out of the story.
I also hate chunks of historical information dumped on the reader like they were lifted from a non-fiction book about the subject, without being woven into the narrative.
11RockStarNinja
I agree with most of what's been said, but the biggest one for me has to be too much detail. If the plot and the writing are good, I can overlook a few slights against historical fact, but when it's clear the author wants you to know they spent HOURS pouring over facts just to give you their "masterpiece" of history it just kills me. A perfect example is London by Edward Rutherfurd. That first chapter just killed me and after chapter 2 I had to put it down and return it back to the store.
12Conachair
# 11 Rutherford does have a big "info dump" problem. In fact that's what I was referring to in #9. He does drive me crazy sometimes, but I still love his books. I am in the middle of Dublin right now.
13justjukka
When the writer completely fails at archaic speech. No, I won't give an E for effort. If this is your livelihood, take a seminar or something!
14AnnieMod
An author relying on old historical research at the time the book is written - I am not sure if I am more upset with authors that simply had not done their research or with ones that think they had but they failed to get the newest one into consideration...
I am a Tudors fan. And in the last decades a lot of the 'facts' kinda changed after historians started using all the available materials -- and after some materials were made available from private collections (and after the historians actually tried to think outside the box). So if someone's last book on Tudors is from the 60s or based on research from the 60s, they have the facts wrong (for now... noone knows what else is hidden in private collections although a lot of what was discovered cannot be disproved regardless of new found documents).
I can understand an author not using the research from the last decade (ok... I would think that for a decade they should have caught up) but I fail to understand how an author can write a book in the 21st century and not use the research from the last 40-50 years... (Mary of Scotland's last marriage and the actions that lead to it for example; or Dudley's (all of them) place in history; not to mention some of the lesser known people).
Other from this - anachronisms annoy me but I can still enjoy a book with them; not using appropriate archaic language is not a problem (or a lot of books will be unreadable); moral values from 21st century applied to an earlier one annoy me a lot (and might be a reason to hate a book); changing the behaviour of a historical figure so that they match the story is annoying as well...
I am a Tudors fan. And in the last decades a lot of the 'facts' kinda changed after historians started using all the available materials -- and after some materials were made available from private collections (and after the historians actually tried to think outside the box). So if someone's last book on Tudors is from the 60s or based on research from the 60s, they have the facts wrong (for now... noone knows what else is hidden in private collections although a lot of what was discovered cannot be disproved regardless of new found documents).
I can understand an author not using the research from the last decade (ok... I would think that for a decade they should have caught up) but I fail to understand how an author can write a book in the 21st century and not use the research from the last 40-50 years... (Mary of Scotland's last marriage and the actions that lead to it for example; or Dudley's (all of them) place in history; not to mention some of the lesser known people).
Other from this - anachronisms annoy me but I can still enjoy a book with them; not using appropriate archaic language is not a problem (or a lot of books will be unreadable); moral values from 21st century applied to an earlier one annoy me a lot (and might be a reason to hate a book); changing the behaviour of a historical figure so that they match the story is annoying as well...
15rocketjk
As in any writing, but bad historical fiction seem to abound with these: cliches and clunky, over-wrought metaphors.
"Little did they know that it would be twenty years before the laid eyes on each other again."
I'm not a fan of the omniscient narrator in this day and age. If "they" didn't know it, then I, as the reader, don't want to know it either until it comes to pass in the story.
"Little did they know that it would be twenty years before the laid eyes on each other again."
I'm not a fan of the omniscient narrator in this day and age. If "they" didn't know it, then I, as the reader, don't want to know it either until it comes to pass in the story.
16StormRaven
I hate fully armored combatants punching each other. People wore armor for a reason, and that was because kicking and punching someone in armor generally doesn't work.
17orsolina
# 14, yes absolutely! How can authors cheerfully neglect new--even old--discoveries about their period? I'm still wondering how Lauren Haney missed those Egyptian campaigns in Nubia during the joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III--inscriptional evidence for which was published in a major journal back in 1957. Indeed, a text documenting an expedition led by Thutmose in Year 20 had been known for ages--but was emended to year 20 of Thutmose IV (who didn't have a Year 20) by scholars who had already decided that there were no military activities until Thutmose III became sole ruler! (bangs head on desk)
And then there's Eloise Jarvis McGraw, whose two novels on the same period are so full of inaccuracies that I just won't bother--I don't have time. But all her novels set in the 18th Dynasty have characters using coins of some sort, about a millennium too soon.
P.C.Doherty's research on ancient Egypt is not based on out-of-date books and articles. It's non-existent.
And then there's Eloise Jarvis McGraw, whose two novels on the same period are so full of inaccuracies that I just won't bother--I don't have time. But all her novels set in the 18th Dynasty have characters using coins of some sort, about a millennium too soon.
P.C.Doherty's research on ancient Egypt is not based on out-of-date books and articles. It's non-existent.
18justjukka
#16: StormRaven, I completely agree!
Another thing that bugs me is when authors insert their own characters into great historical events. I don't just mean writing about the American Revolution through the eyes of a hypothetical soldier, that's fine. I like that sort of thing. What I don't like is when they write their character having dinner with George Washington, and "giving him an idea" for the Declaration of Independence.
Another thing that bugs me is when authors insert their own characters into great historical events. I don't just mean writing about the American Revolution through the eyes of a hypothetical soldier, that's fine. I like that sort of thing. What I don't like is when they write their character having dinner with George Washington, and "giving him an idea" for the Declaration of Independence.
19mrsbutler87
One thing that upsets me is when they use swear words that weren't used then, or used in a different way.... like saying friggin. OR, when they totally take historical moments in time and jumble them all up out of sequence to fit their novel. And #1, I absolutely agree with you - I hate it when the cover art doesn't match the book or looks nothing like the way the character is described.
But all time hate is when they describe a character looking a certain way, then changing it halfway through. like "lovely golden curls" turns into "she looked at him, her coppery tresses gleaming in the moonlight".... waaaaait a second here....
But all time hate is when they describe a character looking a certain way, then changing it halfway through. like "lovely golden curls" turns into "she looked at him, her coppery tresses gleaming in the moonlight".... waaaaait a second here....
20thorold
... it is astonishing how careless the writers of Utopia are upon these important subjects. I observe that the learned Mr. Laurence Templeton, in his late publication entitled IVANHOE, has not only blessed the bed of Edward the Confessor with an offspring unknown to history, with sundry other solecisms of the same kind, but has inverted the order of nature, and feasted his swine with acorns in the midst of summer. All that can be alleged by the warmest admirer of this author amounts to this,—that the circumstances objected to are just as true as the rest of the story; which appears to me (more especially in the matter of the acorns) to be a very imperfect defence, and that the author will do well to profit by Captain Absolute's advice to his servant, and never tell him more lies than are indispensably necessary.
- Scott (in the persona of Clutterbuck) rolling his eyes about the errors of ... Scott (in the persona of Templeton) at the end of The Monastery. There's nothing new under the sun.
21AnnieMod
>19 mrsbutler87: the golden/coppery tresses
That's careless writing and unfortunately is not just in historical fiction :)
That's careless writing and unfortunately is not just in historical fiction :)
23MarysGirl
Every writer has a cringe-worthy copy editing story. I obsessed over a minor word misuse in my book until I read this in Pulitzer prize-winning Stacy Schiff’s new book Cleopatra: A Life (published by Little Brown and Company), on page 145, describing a meeting between Marc Antony and Octavian:
"In his rich, raspy voice, he reminded the young man before him that political leadership in Rome was not hereditary. Comporting himself as if it were had got Caesar murdered. Antony had run plenty of risks to ensure that Caesar was buried with honors, plenty more for the sake of his memory."
There was another one about a hundred pages later. I'm sure the everyone (and there must be at least five people: author, agent, editor, copy editor, proof editor) involved is pulling their hair out! But that's what second editions are for!
"In his rich, raspy voice, he reminded the young man before him that political leadership in Rome was not hereditary. Comporting himself as if it were had got Caesar murdered. Antony had run plenty of risks to ensure that Caesar was buried with honors, plenty more for the sake of his memory."
There was another one about a hundred pages later. I'm sure the everyone (and there must be at least five people: author, agent, editor, copy editor, proof editor) involved is pulling their hair out! But that's what second editions are for!
24Marissa_Doyle
#20 Scott on Scott
That's wonderful--thank you for posting that!
That's wonderful--thank you for posting that!
25thorold
>23 MarysGirl:
"I come to Bury, Caesar, not to Prestwich", as he said on another famous occasion.
"I come to Bury, Caesar, not to Prestwich", as he said on another famous occasion.
26rocketjk
#25> Or, to quote the punchline of a very old shaggy dog story, "I come to seize your berry, not to praise it!"
27orsolina
A Bronze Age protagonist who is an atheist. I'm thinking of Nick Drake's Nefertiti: the Book of the Dead, in which the detective character is consciously atheistic. Bad enough that the plot is utterly ridiculous--Drake apparently thought that his readers couldn't take the policeman seriously if he actually believed in the gods. (And in KMT magazine, a reviewer praised Drake, claiming that the character was more believeable and sympathetic because of his atheism!)
28Rosa_Saks
This may be besides the point, but I really hate historical fiction with a protagonist who has time traveled from the 20th/21st century, back in time to the French Revolution, the Tudor dynasty etc., and all the "funny" situations he or she gets him/herself into there. I don't think a successful novel with such a plotline exists..
And also, I hate self-indulgent historical fiction of such intricate detail that I feel that I'm being lectured at for 300-400 pages.
And also, I hate self-indulgent historical fiction of such intricate detail that I feel that I'm being lectured at for 300-400 pages.
29AnnieMod
Then don't read such books - I'll admit that I am a fan of both types of novel...
As for successful from the first type - there are more than enough. Doomsday Book for example. Or the classical example: A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
We all are different :)
As for successful from the first type - there are more than enough. Doomsday Book for example. Or the classical example: A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court.
We all are different :)
30Rosa_Saks
I don't read such books. I generally avoid novels with a kind of plotline that I know I won't like.
I was just contributing to the discussion, not complaining.
And it's a good thing we're all different :-)
I was just contributing to the discussion, not complaining.
And it's a good thing we're all different :-)
31PensiveCat
I'm reading a novel about Queen Elizabeth I's later years, and it's not bad, but I cringe at the overabundance of Shakespeare in everyone's lives. (He slept with WHO?) Also, there's a scene where Elizabeth happens to meet a man named Guy Fawkes. Otherwise I don't have any complaints, but these two problems take me out of the narrative.
33PensiveCat
I think it is supposed to be the actual Guy Fawkes, and though it's vaguely possible they could have met, I am not a fan of someone randomly happening to meet someone significant, like the author's winking at us. The book is Elizabeth I: a Novel by Margaret George.
I'm enjoying it otherwise.
I'm enjoying it otherwise.
34AnnieMod
You know - they could have met - so I usually would not be worried if that happens in a book... That one is still on the TBR pile for me :)
Putting a new spin on Elizabeth requires some creative thinking sometimes. ;)
Putting a new spin on Elizabeth requires some creative thinking sometimes. ;)
35PensiveCat
True, and it does happen to be a good book: from someone who has read too many Elizabeth/Tudor books to count, I'd say it's one of the better ones.
37PensiveCat
It's gotten to the point that I have to ignore most of the new releases in the Tudor category. Tudor proliferation: definitely an eye-roller!
38AnnieMod
I cannot make myself ignore them... :) So I end up reading most.
But yeah - almost any author thinks they can do Tudors books... Half of them cannot even figure out who is who at any given moment (all the titles getting around)
But yeah - almost any author thinks they can do Tudors books... Half of them cannot even figure out who is who at any given moment (all the titles getting around)
392wonderY
>20 thorold:
Yeah! Getting the botany and the seasons confused drive me crazy!
I'm reading a contemporary novel set in Georgia. Do daffodils and azaleas bloom at the same time down there? They don't where I live.
Yeah! Getting the botany and the seasons confused drive me crazy!
I'm reading a contemporary novel set in Georgia. Do daffodils and azaleas bloom at the same time down there? They don't where I live.
40pre20cenbooks
What bugs me so far (as I have read really one historical novel in my life and have started a second, Space by James A. Michener is the sex scenes of ficticious characters lives. Other than saying who fathered who, and who the babies mama is, etc. for family line background and which 1st cousin married which, I can do without the intimate details.
41AnnieMod
>40 pre20cenbooks:
But some people (not me... most of the time) read these books exactly because of these scenes :)
Seriously though - there is a whole genre of historical romances so if you do not like the type, just skip them.
And then depending on the period, some of those things need to be there in a regular book because they show the difference between now and then in some cases and sometimes they just pinpoint something in the time/character.
PS: And welcome in the world of Historical fiction
But some people (not me... most of the time) read these books exactly because of these scenes :)
Seriously though - there is a whole genre of historical romances so if you do not like the type, just skip them.
And then depending on the period, some of those things need to be there in a regular book because they show the difference between now and then in some cases and sometimes they just pinpoint something in the time/character.
PS: And welcome in the world of Historical fiction
42pre20cenbooks
>41 AnnieMod:
Believe me I do skip HRs. And thank God for Dust Covers that give me an idea of what a book is about or a paperback backcover that is informative.
Thank you for the welcome to the world of historical fiction. My catalog is filled with a variety
Now...back to the theme...
Believe me I do skip HRs. And thank God for Dust Covers that give me an idea of what a book is about or a paperback backcover that is informative.
Thank you for the welcome to the world of historical fiction. My catalog is filled with a variety
Now...back to the theme...
43orsolina
Writers who set their books in ancient Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty and locate the court at Thebes (or Akhetaten, of course), without any acknowledgement that the court would have traveled from time to time. Memphis was the traditional administrative capital, where the king and his family would have lived for a good part of the year. Other royal residences were also in use. I detect a certain lack of diligence here!
44DocWood
Whoa, #28! Diana Gabaldon has made a career out of her series, and what about Mark Twain's A Yankee in King Arthur's Court? This is a long tradition in historical fiction!
I don't mean you have to like them, of course--to each her own!--only that there's plenty of successful time-travel historical novels out there.
(edited for tact)
I don't mean you have to like them, of course--to each her own!--only that there's plenty of successful time-travel historical novels out there.
(edited for tact)
45KayEluned
Like a lot of people here have said the things that irritate me about certain historical fiction novels are bad historical research, plots and characters that are just a modern drama transposed into the past with no real understanding of the period, corny love stories, too much liberty being taken with well known historical figures or events, and of course the ubiquitus 21st century headstrong teenage girl in a big frock.
Also as someone else has pointed out, when an author wants to make it clear which characters we should be rooting for and does this by making their outlook on life much more modern than those around them, with no real explanation for this, particularly male characters in relation to a woman's role in society.
Also as someone else has pointed out, when an author wants to make it clear which characters we should be rooting for and does this by making their outlook on life much more modern than those around them, with no real explanation for this, particularly male characters in relation to a woman's role in society.
46Violette62
when the author uses the language/slang of the respective period too heavily that it becomes so cumbersome that I cannot read the book. Less is more here.
47SusieBookworm
#45: Historical fiction as excuses for transposing modern drama and corny love stories into the past is my biggest pet peeve. I read historical fiction for the history, not the drama.
48Gbilly
I prefer historical fiction with a good balance of character development, dialogue, and historical fact/detail. I just finished Madame Tussaud by Moran...too much dialogue and not enough of the rest. It was a "cute" read, but not one I would recommend. An example of a more well rounded HF read would be Earthly Joys by Gregory. You can also have HF books that are so complex that most people can't enjoy them. An example of this would be anything by Dorothy Dunnett...sorry all you Game of Kings fans. Hated it.
49Barton
I have two books in my TBR list, Balackout and All Clear. Has anyone read them? If so what opinion do you have?
50Marissa_Doyle
@49 I loved 'em, but then again I'd probably happily read Connie Willis' grocery list. I think they were a little long for non-rabid Willis fans, but I enjoyed trying to work out what was going on and as always, loved her characters and her deep compassion for humanity that shines through.
51MarysGirl
I've had those two on my radar for a while, but haven't picked them up. Love Connie Willis. Thought her To Say Nothing of the Dog was brilliant!
52JRTomlin
As a non-anglophile, I get beyond irritated at the idea in much HF that England was the center of the universe and that any conquest the English made was justifiable and good. *eye roll*
Other pet peeves have been mentioned: HF that has no real history in it is high and women who are 21st century transposed to another century. I can go along with modifying the attitudes *slightly* for modern sensibilities but only slightly.
Other pet peeves have been mentioned: HF that has no real history in it is high and women who are 21st century transposed to another century. I can go along with modifying the attitudes *slightly* for modern sensibilities but only slightly.
53Nickelini
#39 Yeah! Getting the botany and the seasons confused drive me crazy!
I'm reading a contemporary novel set in Georgia. Do daffodils and azaleas bloom at the same time down there? They don't where I live
Botany errors drive me crazy too. However, here in western Canada (Vancouver and Victoria) there are some azaleas that bloom at the same time as daffodils for sure.
I'm reading a contemporary novel set in Georgia. Do daffodils and azaleas bloom at the same time down there? They don't where I live
Botany errors drive me crazy too. However, here in western Canada (Vancouver and Victoria) there are some azaleas that bloom at the same time as daffodils for sure.
54Gbilly
I travel to London every month for work and I can assure you the anglophiles feel that way today ;)
56Samantha_kathy
This message has been deleted by its author.
57DocWood
I've been reading these posts carefully, as I am working on sort of a historical novel of my own, and would like to learn what to avoid. (Not much of a reader of historical novels myself, I have formed few opinions of my own on this matter.)
I agree with almost everybody who has said that major historical ignorance on the part of the author will put me right out of the story, too. On the other hand, dear readers, these are novels. When I want history, I read history; when I read a novel, I'm there for the fiction!
I think also that there may be room for disagreement as to what constitutes historical accuracy anyway, at least in some areas. For example, there have been women as far back in recorded history as I'm aware of who have stepped outside of prescribed gender roles. Some of them, of course, were burned as witches, but still.
I agree with almost everybody who has said that major historical ignorance on the part of the author will put me right out of the story, too. On the other hand, dear readers, these are novels. When I want history, I read history; when I read a novel, I'm there for the fiction!
I think also that there may be room for disagreement as to what constitutes historical accuracy anyway, at least in some areas. For example, there have been women as far back in recorded history as I'm aware of who have stepped outside of prescribed gender roles. Some of them, of course, were burned as witches, but still.
58AnnieMod
docwood,
If the novel's characters behave like people from the 20th century, why would a writer put them in the 12th? There is a difference between inaccuracies which are acceptable and inaccuracies that are just blatantly obvious. I am not searching history in a novel but if you set something in an era, I expect to read something about this era, not a nowadays novel that just uses the politicians names of times past instead of the current ones and so on:)
If the novel's characters behave like people from the 20th century, why would a writer put them in the 12th? There is a difference between inaccuracies which are acceptable and inaccuracies that are just blatantly obvious. I am not searching history in a novel but if you set something in an era, I expect to read something about this era, not a nowadays novel that just uses the politicians names of times past instead of the current ones and so on:)
59DocWood
@58--agree, 100%. If that's what the writer is doing, there should be a good answer as to why, and laziness doesn't count as a good answer!
60JRTomlin
There is a reason why it is called HISTORICAL fiction. Deciding that the history doesn't matter is like deciding the fantasy doesn't matter in a fantasy novel.
You don't read and, one must assume, you don't like historical fiction (in spite of which you have evidently decide to write the genre). However, you have just seen a whole string of people who DO like historical fiction say that ignoring historical accuracy will NOT please them.
You might want to take that as a hint. That is exactly an attitude that makes me both roll my eyes and decide to never buy another work by an author.
You don't read and, one must assume, you don't like historical fiction (in spite of which you have evidently decide to write the genre). However, you have just seen a whole string of people who DO like historical fiction say that ignoring historical accuracy will NOT please them.
You might want to take that as a hint. That is exactly an attitude that makes me both roll my eyes and decide to never buy another work by an author.
61thorold
>60 JRTomlin:
I think Docwood has a point: what we say we want is historical accuracy, but what we really want is probably a good story with historical plausibility. If we are enjoying ourselves and you don't bring in anything that clashes with our expectations of the period, 98% of us won't bother to go and look up obscure details to catch you out. I think we all accept that a good story may require some bending of the rules.
Submissive, silent women don't usually make good characters in a 21st century novel. There are a few standard clichés that writers use to get around this: make your central female character submissive in public, subversive when she's sequestered with her maid and the young hero; make her the amanuensis of her blind, elderly father; write about a lower-class woman or a social outcast (prostitutes are great because they give you an excuse to titillate the reader, witches and foreign slave-girls are good too); set the book in a convent; have her dress up as a boy and join the army...
If you can think of a new way around this classic problem, you're probably onto a good thing!
I think Docwood has a point: what we say we want is historical accuracy, but what we really want is probably a good story with historical plausibility. If we are enjoying ourselves and you don't bring in anything that clashes with our expectations of the period, 98% of us won't bother to go and look up obscure details to catch you out. I think we all accept that a good story may require some bending of the rules.
Submissive, silent women don't usually make good characters in a 21st century novel. There are a few standard clichés that writers use to get around this: make your central female character submissive in public, subversive when she's sequestered with her maid and the young hero; make her the amanuensis of her blind, elderly father; write about a lower-class woman or a social outcast (prostitutes are great because they give you an excuse to titillate the reader, witches and foreign slave-girls are good too); set the book in a convent; have her dress up as a boy and join the army...
If you can think of a new way around this classic problem, you're probably onto a good thing!
62DocWood
>61 thorold:: Good morning, thorold!
I think you touch on a good point with the phrase, "our expectations of the period". Part of what attracted me to these particular ancestors as subjects for a story was that their lifestyles--and those of several members of their immediate community--were well out of bounds for what I had thought were the Victorian sensibilities of the time. So I thought to myself, "There's a good story in that!" Part of the conflict for my main character is that he seems to have been, in real life, surrounded by all these little proto-feminists and he's got to deal with that.
I like Marge Piercy's remark about everything in Gone to Soldiers having actually happened to someone, somewhere, sometime in that war. I think it's a good standard, if high. (One reason I don't seek out HF as my first choice of genres for pleasure reading is that so few authors are willing to work that hard.) I decided at the outset that I would take my characters as I found them. And then, as I was beginning my research, I discovered that there are hundreds of documented cases of women dressing as men and joining the army in that era. Historians have estimated that the actual number might have been in the thousands. So now of course I have to have one in my story! It was irresistible.
Unfortunately, somebody, somewhere is going to read my book and say, "Aw, all that could never have happened back then!" But it did.
I think you touch on a good point with the phrase, "our expectations of the period". Part of what attracted me to these particular ancestors as subjects for a story was that their lifestyles--and those of several members of their immediate community--were well out of bounds for what I had thought were the Victorian sensibilities of the time. So I thought to myself, "There's a good story in that!" Part of the conflict for my main character is that he seems to have been, in real life, surrounded by all these little proto-feminists and he's got to deal with that.
I like Marge Piercy's remark about everything in Gone to Soldiers having actually happened to someone, somewhere, sometime in that war. I think it's a good standard, if high. (One reason I don't seek out HF as my first choice of genres for pleasure reading is that so few authors are willing to work that hard.) I decided at the outset that I would take my characters as I found them. And then, as I was beginning my research, I discovered that there are hundreds of documented cases of women dressing as men and joining the army in that era. Historians have estimated that the actual number might have been in the thousands. So now of course I have to have one in my story! It was irresistible.
Unfortunately, somebody, somewhere is going to read my book and say, "Aw, all that could never have happened back then!" But it did.
63Samantha_kathy
This message has been deleted by its author.
64thorold
Yes, I think the dressing as men and joining the army plot is a nice example of something implausible but supported by historical evidence. Probably not least because it's been misused in so many bad books and films. Not to mention operas...
Terry Pratchett did a wonderful send-up of women dressing as men and joining the army in fairly great numbers in Monstrous regiment.
Terry Pratchett did a wonderful send-up of women dressing as men and joining the army in fairly great numbers in Monstrous regiment.
65rocketjk
Regarding seemingly implausible things supported by historical evidence, one of the very first things you're taught in creative writing seminars (I have a masters degree in Creative Writing/English Lit from San Francisco State University, not that I've ever done much with it) is:
The fact that something really happened doesn't make it good fiction.
That rule of thumb applies for more personal details ("But my aunt really did eat rattlesnakes for lunch every day!" is the sort of comment you'd often hear in the first-year writing seminars) and historical details like women dressing as men to fight in the army, etc.
My personal opinion (as a reader; I pretend no expertise as a writer) is that if you have to rely on footnotes or afterwards to make a story seem plausible, well, then that's not a strong enough story. The story needs to stand up on its own, is what I'm saying. However, I could see using a one-page introduction so that the reader, while reading, knows he/she is reading about a fictional rendering of an historical event. Better to supply that information ahead of time. But that still doesn't excuse the writing from supplying a plausible story, and sometimes reality is just not very plausible.
The fact that something really happened doesn't make it good fiction.
That rule of thumb applies for more personal details ("But my aunt really did eat rattlesnakes for lunch every day!" is the sort of comment you'd often hear in the first-year writing seminars) and historical details like women dressing as men to fight in the army, etc.
My personal opinion (as a reader; I pretend no expertise as a writer) is that if you have to rely on footnotes or afterwards to make a story seem plausible, well, then that's not a strong enough story. The story needs to stand up on its own, is what I'm saying. However, I could see using a one-page introduction so that the reader, while reading, knows he/she is reading about a fictional rendering of an historical event. Better to supply that information ahead of time. But that still doesn't excuse the writing from supplying a plausible story, and sometimes reality is just not very plausible.
66JRTomlin
Well, sometimes you let the reader assume what they please. I never say the medieval Scots in my novels wore kilts and in a few scenes describe what they did, in fact, wear. That may not keep the reader from imagining them in kilts.
People are convinced they did and it really isn't my business to convince them they're wrong. They are. Kilts were not worn until about the 1600s. They almost certainly did use a plaid as a cloak, but I refuse to put in kilts.
Does it really matter to the story? No, not really.
It's a compromise I can live with.
Edit: I can't say I agree with the statement that : "so few authors are willing to work that hard..." It is hard work, but there are a fair number who do (or have done) it: Sharon Kay Penman, Robert Low, Nigel Tranter, Hilary Mantel, to name a few.
@aulsmith Do you know a good source for medieval church ritual? The priests I've talked to are surprisingly (or not depending on how you look at it) ignorant on the topic.
People are convinced they did and it really isn't my business to convince them they're wrong. They are. Kilts were not worn until about the 1600s. They almost certainly did use a plaid as a cloak, but I refuse to put in kilts.
Does it really matter to the story? No, not really.
It's a compromise I can live with.
Edit: I can't say I agree with the statement that : "so few authors are willing to work that hard..." It is hard work, but there are a fair number who do (or have done) it: Sharon Kay Penman, Robert Low, Nigel Tranter, Hilary Mantel, to name a few.
@aulsmith Do you know a good source for medieval church ritual? The priests I've talked to are surprisingly (or not depending on how you look at it) ignorant on the topic.
67mnleona
I recently read a book that had the word (if you want to call it a word) "ain't" in it and I am not sure if this word was used in the time period of the book.
68DocWood
>63 Samantha_kathy:: ". . .put in a notes section at the end of the book. I love those sections in historical fiction books. . ."
Oh, me, too! Forewords and Acknowledgements, too, for the same reason. In the absence of a notes section, I'll sometimes Google something I'm interested in learning more about, or if I simply want to know if it was fiction. Either outcome is usually fun: I can appreciate the author's thoroughness, or her creativity.
But on the other hand,
>65 rocketjk:: "The fact that something really happened doesn't make it good fiction."
That, too. The best history can be dull as dishwater in the wrong hands. Which brings me back to the original thread topic, to wit, things that make eyes roll. Authors can do excellent research, seemingly know their period inside and out, and have stuff left over that's completely extraneous to the story but so juicy they just can't stand to leave it out. So they shoehorn it in somehow, usually, unfortunately, in the form of stilted, overlong monologues. Sometimes they use a character's musings, as in "She knew, of course, that this was where King Who-Cares III had been assassinated in eleventy-seven BC, and that his widow had thrown herself on the pyre, blah, for a whole paragraph, blah. . . It was said that her ghost still etc." I'm not sure which is worse.
Oh, me, too! Forewords and Acknowledgements, too, for the same reason. In the absence of a notes section, I'll sometimes Google something I'm interested in learning more about, or if I simply want to know if it was fiction. Either outcome is usually fun: I can appreciate the author's thoroughness, or her creativity.
But on the other hand,
>65 rocketjk:: "The fact that something really happened doesn't make it good fiction."
That, too. The best history can be dull as dishwater in the wrong hands. Which brings me back to the original thread topic, to wit, things that make eyes roll. Authors can do excellent research, seemingly know their period inside and out, and have stuff left over that's completely extraneous to the story but so juicy they just can't stand to leave it out. So they shoehorn it in somehow, usually, unfortunately, in the form of stilted, overlong monologues. Sometimes they use a character's musings, as in "She knew, of course, that this was where King Who-Cares III had been assassinated in eleventy-seven BC, and that his widow had thrown herself on the pyre, blah, for a whole paragraph, blah. . . It was said that her ghost still etc." I'm not sure which is worse.
69JRTomlin
That has nothing to do with anything except bad writing. Science fiction writers do it with scientific info dumps. Fantasy writers do it with world building info dumps.
That does NOT mean that historical fiction writers should ignore historicity.
That does NOT mean that historical fiction writers should ignore historicity.
70Iudita
In response to #10 Tess_I_am48
I have been enjoying reading this thread but I laughed out loud at your posting and I couldn't agree more.
I have been enjoying reading this thread but I laughed out loud at your posting and I couldn't agree more.
71thorold
>67 mnleona:
I think "ain't" has been around for a long time, especially in North America, although the OED only lists the first use in print as 1845. The writer could have had perfectly good historical reasons for using the word (assuming we're not talking about a book set in ancient Egypt...), but it obviously didn't fit your expectation of the way that person would have talked in that place and time. Another classic problem of historical fiction...
I think "ain't" has been around for a long time, especially in North America, although the OED only lists the first use in print as 1845. The writer could have had perfectly good historical reasons for using the word (assuming we're not talking about a book set in ancient Egypt...), but it obviously didn't fit your expectation of the way that person would have talked in that place and time. Another classic problem of historical fiction...
72AnnieMod
On the other hand you really do not want people to talk in books in the way they really talked... not in most cases anyway.
73thorold
>72 AnnieMod:
True.
True.
74AurelArkad
With English being one of the main international languages, and thus used by millions as a second, third, fourth, etc language, it is sometimes tempting for multi-lingual authors able to write in fluent English to write historical novels with earlier UK settings.....without fully appreciating the several traps lying in wait to trip up the unwary.
Even talented and otherwise highly competent American authors, whose first language would anyway usually be English, can fall into these traps:
1) the evolving BRITISH CLASS SYSTEM, with all its subtle nuances;
2) BRITISH NAMES - placenames, surnames, personal names;
3) the BRITISH system(s) of HONOURS / PEERAGES.
We can all think of laughable, ludicrous and breathtakingly awful examples.....
Is it that the praiseworthy American (and global) spirit of egalitarianism makes it difficult to truly grasp how society used to be ordered and ranked in earlier centuries, so that the modern writer can then go on to write historical novels that are successfully in synch. with that bygone spirit?
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
Even talented and otherwise highly competent American authors, whose first language would anyway usually be English, can fall into these traps:
1) the evolving BRITISH CLASS SYSTEM, with all its subtle nuances;
2) BRITISH NAMES - placenames, surnames, personal names;
3) the BRITISH system(s) of HONOURS / PEERAGES.
We can all think of laughable, ludicrous and breathtakingly awful examples.....
Is it that the praiseworthy American (and global) spirit of egalitarianism makes it difficult to truly grasp how society used to be ordered and ranked in earlier centuries, so that the modern writer can then go on to write historical novels that are successfully in synch. with that bygone spirit?
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
75thorold
>74 AurelArkad:
Yes, endless fun! You could add ecclesiastical titles (all those Jane Austen films with "Reverend Collins"), army and navy ranks, money (how many farthings to the angel?), the legal system (Sergeaunt to the Pees or Serjeant of the Coif?), ...
But I don't think modern British writers have much of a head-start over Americans. Most of it isn't exactly everyday knowledge. The American way of using Reverend is so common in England now that few people would be aware that it is an Americanism. And there are about a hundred thousand commoners to every peer, so most British people never have to confront the question of whether to say My Lord, Your Lordship, or Fred.
Yes, endless fun! You could add ecclesiastical titles (all those Jane Austen films with "Reverend Collins"), army and navy ranks, money (how many farthings to the angel?), the legal system (Sergeaunt to the Pees or Serjeant of the Coif?), ...
But I don't think modern British writers have much of a head-start over Americans. Most of it isn't exactly everyday knowledge. The American way of using Reverend is so common in England now that few people would be aware that it is an Americanism. And there are about a hundred thousand commoners to every peer, so most British people never have to confront the question of whether to say My Lord, Your Lordship, or Fred.
76rocketjk
#72> Yes, I agree with this as well. In the same way we don't like authors cluttering up narratives with extraneous, even if historically accurate, details, we, or at least I, don't want authors putting stumbling blocks into the narrative in the form of historically accurate but nowadays puzzling expressions.
So, for example, it doesn't bother me if an author used "ain't" in a novel set 100 years before the term came into regular usage. Even if I knew it was historically out of place, I would just assume that it was being used to stand for whatever the era-accurate colloquialism is that, if actually used, I would have to slow down and puzzle over.
Here's the wikipedia entry on the etymology of "ain't," by the way. Evidently it evolved more or less simultaneously from two different usages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractions_of_negated_auxiliary_verbs_in_English#...
So, for example, it doesn't bother me if an author used "ain't" in a novel set 100 years before the term came into regular usage. Even if I knew it was historically out of place, I would just assume that it was being used to stand for whatever the era-accurate colloquialism is that, if actually used, I would have to slow down and puzzle over.
Here's the wikipedia entry on the etymology of "ain't," by the way. Evidently it evolved more or less simultaneously from two different usages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contractions_of_negated_auxiliary_verbs_in_English#...
77AurelArkad
>75 thorold: Yes, Thorold, even unwary Britons can fall into those 3 traps I mentioned above (in74).
I guess that we should not expect all writers of historical fiction to have previously had doctoral dissertations accepted in whatever milieu they choose to set fiction in, any more than one can expect brilliant historical fiction will as a matter of course flow from the pens of professors of history.
But, *sigh* 'tis undeniably a very great pleasure for us readers when such abilities are combined within the same fragile human frame.
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
I guess that we should not expect all writers of historical fiction to have previously had doctoral dissertations accepted in whatever milieu they choose to set fiction in, any more than one can expect brilliant historical fiction will as a matter of course flow from the pens of professors of history.
But, *sigh* 'tis undeniably a very great pleasure for us readers when such abilities are combined within the same fragile human frame.
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
78thorold
...when such abilities are combined within the same fragile human frame.
Amazed, the gazing rustics ranged around...
Amazed, the gazing rustics ranged around...
79AurelArkad
>78 thorold: Amazed, possibly, Thorold. More like, spoiled rotten on those occasions when such pleasurable experiences come our way.
An irrelevant aside, I know, but whenever I see your signature I think of the C19th C. of E. Bishop of Winchester, ?Anthony? Thorold. Sorry.
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
An irrelevant aside, I know, but whenever I see your signature I think of the C19th C. of E. Bishop of Winchester, ?Anthony? Thorold. Sorry.
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
80thorold
>79 AurelArkad:
There have been plenty of distinguished Thorolds, going right back to the 11th C Sheriff of Lincolnshire who may or may not have been Lady Godiva's father or brother. There's a town of that name in Ontario, apparently named after the famous 18th C bibliophile Sir John Thorold. Characters called Thorold appear, inter alia, in Kingsley's Hereward the Wake and Philip Pullman's His dark materials. Take your pick!
There have been plenty of distinguished Thorolds, going right back to the 11th C Sheriff of Lincolnshire who may or may not have been Lady Godiva's father or brother. There's a town of that name in Ontario, apparently named after the famous 18th C bibliophile Sir John Thorold. Characters called Thorold appear, inter alia, in Kingsley's Hereward the Wake and Philip Pullman's His dark materials. Take your pick!
81AurelArkad
>80 thorold: One lives and learns, M. H. My only previous encounter was the Bishop of Winchester aforementioned, who was a pal of A. K. H. Boyd, one of the authors in my collection.
Is 'Thorold' perhaps of Danish origin, from the time of the Danelaw?
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
Is 'Thorold' perhaps of Danish origin, from the time of the Danelaw?
‘Aurélien Arkadiusz’
82thorold
>81 AurelArkad:
Very likely, given that the name mostly seems to appear in Lincolnshire and Norfolk. But I don't think there's any real evidence.
Very likely, given that the name mostly seems to appear in Lincolnshire and Norfolk. But I don't think there's any real evidence.
84justjukka
I understand that morality has changed with the advent of human rights movements, but it bothers me when authors use the excuse, "This is how things were," to explain the abuse, mistreatment, or coercion of certain characters. There's a difference between proper execution and making excuses. This is especially pitiful when dragons, mages, demons, etc. are prominent in the story. I'm pretty sure their presence would change the socio-economic climate of the times.
85DocWood
>84 justjukka:
". . . when dragons, mages, demons, etc. are prominent in the story. I'm pretty sure their presence would change the socio-economic climate of the times."
/snigger/ Yes! Being "realistic" is hardly a defense under such circumstances, is it?
". . . when dragons, mages, demons, etc. are prominent in the story. I'm pretty sure their presence would change the socio-economic climate of the times."
/snigger/ Yes! Being "realistic" is hardly a defense under such circumstances, is it?
86rocketjk
#84 & 85> I was recently tutoring a junior high fellow in creative writing. He was working on a fantasy story (elves, talking wolves, etc.) and a halfway decent writer for his age. At one point, though, he expressed his exasperation that most bookstores shelve the fantasy and the science fiction together in one section.
"There are no dragons in space!" he exclaimed with annoyance.
"You don't really know that for sure, though, do you?" I replied.
To his credit, I did get a laugh out of him.
"There are no dragons in space!" he exclaimed with annoyance.
"You don't really know that for sure, though, do you?" I replied.
To his credit, I did get a laugh out of him.
87thorold
A couple of paragraphs from the opening page of a novel I was looking at with the Amazon "look inside" feature:
The narrator is supposed to be Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but the author (despite presumably having read at least some of EBB's poems and letters) has evidently failed to grasp that a Victorian poet could never write with the leaden foot of a high-school student deaf to the music of language. Or that EBB would never have been able to bring herself to write lightly about her brother's death. Or that tragic irony requires subtlety. Or that someone in the habit of sighing with a grape in his mouth a century and a half before the invention of the Heimlich manoeuvre would be very unlikely to survive long enough to drown.
How do I make thee roll thy eyes? Let me count the ways...
Although I had celebrated a childhood of good health, the journey through my teen years, my twenties, and now my thirties had been greatly spent in a position of recline. And decline.
Bro popped a grape into his mouth and sighed. "No-one can die here, Ba. Torquay is the happiest place in southern England. The sea will not allow such talk. So I must insist you desist." The grape met its demise and another was plucked as Bro's next victim.
The narrator is supposed to be Elizabeth Barrett Browning, but the author (despite presumably having read at least some of EBB's poems and letters) has evidently failed to grasp that a Victorian poet could never write with the leaden foot of a high-school student deaf to the music of language. Or that EBB would never have been able to bring herself to write lightly about her brother's death. Or that tragic irony requires subtlety. Or that someone in the habit of sighing with a grape in his mouth a century and a half before the invention of the Heimlich manoeuvre would be very unlikely to survive long enough to drown.
How do I make thee roll thy eyes? Let me count the ways...
89thorold
>88 KayEluned:
It even got some favourable reviews on LT, which is why I was looking at it in the first place. Maybe it gets better.
It even got some favourable reviews on LT, which is why I was looking at it in the first place. Maybe it gets better.
93thorold
>92 joyceshaughnessy:
I think people often forget how long new technology used to take to become established. And what big differences there were in the time it took to become accessible to people in different places or social classes. You can always spot the American writer by the way ordinary British people have telephones in their homes or take civil flights decades before that became normal (even the otherwise very well-researched The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society falls into this trap).
I think people often forget how long new technology used to take to become established. And what big differences there were in the time it took to become accessible to people in different places or social classes. You can always spot the American writer by the way ordinary British people have telephones in their homes or take civil flights decades before that became normal (even the otherwise very well-researched The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society falls into this trap).
