Historical Fiction: Irrelevant and Cozy? (Guardian Article)

Why is historical fiction irrelevant? Is history irrelevant? Some would say so. Some would also say, "Why do I have to learn this algebra stuff? I'm never going to use this in real life." Both might be right in the context of their own limited existences, but wrong in general.

From a factual history book I can learn why the Greeks defeated a superior force of Persians at Marathon. I can learn about their weapons technology, the battle tactics, and the terrain. But if I want to understand why the Greeks and Persians wanted to kill each other in the first place, historical fiction is a better suited tool.

I think there might be something to the link between historical fiction and "chick-lit", but if you think that debases it that's your own prejudice. Historical fiction will bring to light the things the history books left out: family relationships, romances, social circles. These are things that traditionally women have been more expert in, as opposed to men's expertise in technology or treaties. I think they have as much relevance to why a country goes to war, though, or oppresses a race, or builds a castle, or trades goods with a distant land.

Er, historical fiction is by definition fiction. So while you may indeed learn something from a book by an author who does good research, you can't be sure what is actual researched fact and what is embellishment for the sake of the story. I wouldn't rely on historical fiction for actually learning history.

Amadan said:

So? Frocks are a thing. "Chick-lit" is a thing. The fact that she didn't go out of her way to equivocate with equal and opposite male examples doesn't prove a deep and abiding disdain for female-coded things, and even it did, that would be Hillary Mantel, not the book-reading public.

Click to expand...

So you obviously either think that there is no structural gender inequality in the world or that there is, but, magically, it does not carry over into the world of literature. I obviously think you are wrong in either case as I have explained. However, you have not managed to explain what in this particular article makes you think that the fact that it only mentions books aimed at a female audience in a negative fashion has absolutely nothing to do with disrespect for that particular kind of literature but rather disrespect for another category of literature which it does not mention. If you could explain this, then maybe I could see your point.

Flicka said:

So you obviously either think that there is no structural gender inequality in the world or that there is, but, magically, it does not carry over into the world of literature.

Click to expand...

Or, I think that a one-liner from Hillary Mantel does not prove that the book-reading public in general disdains female literature more than male literature, or that female literature is less likely to be published, sell, or win awards, all the benchmarks that really matter.

Amadan said:

Or, I think that a one-liner from Hillary Mantel does not prove that the book-reading public in general disdains female literature more than male literature, or that female literature is less likely to be published, sell, or win awards, all the benchmarks that really matter.

Click to expand...

Oh sorry then, you misunderstood me. I didn't mean Mantel's comment was proof of this attitude, I meant it was an example of this attitude. Again, it would be helpful if you could provide a similar example of how this article mentions male-oriented literature in a similarly disparaging way, because I must be missing it.

I never said that article mentions male-oriented literature in a similarly disparaging way, but I am unconvinced that the fact that it mentions female-oriented literate disparagingly proves that it mentions it disparagingly because it is female-oriented.

It's rather like accusing someone of being a misogynist for criticizing a woman. It's possible the critic is a misogynist, but I'd need to see more evidence than that they criticized a woman and didn't happen to criticize a man.

Amadan said:

I never said that article mentions male-oriented literature in a similarly disparaging way, but I am unconvinced that the fact that it mentions female-oriented literate disparagingly proves that it mentions it disparagingly because it is female-oriented.

It's rather like accusing someone of being a misogynist for criticizing a woman. It's possible the critic is a misogynist, but I'd need to see more evidence than that they criticized a woman and didn't happen to criticize a man.

Click to expand...

Your argument is perfectly legit if someone is addressing a specific book or person. This wasn't the case here. This is more a case of someone criticising people of a certain ethnicity and you saying that this doesn't necessarily mean they don't also dislike people of other ethnicities. That could very well be the case, but it doesn't change the fact that this particular group was singled out in the comment.

You obviously see female oriented literature being singled out as mere chance, whereas I see it as a statement that it is especially worth singling out, and part of a pattern where it is singled out disproportionately often. Either way, at least we are in agreement that this article did only mention "female coded" literature as a negative. As for why and what it means, I think we will have to agree to disagree.

morngnstar said:

From a factual history book I can learn why the Greeks defeated a superior force of Persians at Marathon. I can learn about their weapons technology, the battle tactics, and the terrain.

Click to expand...

Or you can come to Marathon next October, when we will be reenacting the battle on the beach where it actually took place We will also be conducting practical experiments to explore different theories of how they fought, practicalities of arms and armour, and how a campaigning army would have lived at our living history camp. One of the things reenacting can teach that you cannot get from a book is how fecking scary it is to be faced by a phalanx of hoplites running at you across the sand (I experienced this in 2011, the first time we commemorated the battle on the 2500th anniversary, and I can tell you, it doesn't seem like pretend)

This is why I think some of the finest historical novelists are also reenactors (Christian Cameron being the one that springs to mind, as he reenacts every period he has written in).

morngnstar said:

But if I want to understand why the Greeks and Persians wanted to kill each other in the first place, historical fiction is a better suited tool.

Click to expand...

Or just read Herodotus - although the jury is still out as to whether he was writing history or historical fiction (never mind that he coined the term in the first place)

Kallithrix said:

Or you can come to Marathon next October, when we will be reenacting the battle on the beach where it actually took place

Click to expand...

That sounds SO COOL.

I did US Civil War reenacting in high school, so I learned early to appreciate the research and detail that goes into reenactment. I use a lot of reenactment society information in my writing. I had a duel scene that I wanted to make accurate, and YouTube had a ton of videos from reputable reenactors. It was so helpful.

mayqueen said:

That sounds SO COOL.

Click to expand...

Looks cool too - this was us in 2011



And that's not including the Persians, which is the side I was fighting on. We hope to have even more numbers next year. Come see!

P.S you see the guy standing out front in the shiny white chiton and bronze plated cuirass? That's Christian Cameron

Stop making me jealous, Kalli.

Yes, historical fiction and re-enactment have similar methods. Strict history can never provide complete information. It may record the number, armaments, and arrangements of troops, but not the sound of shield crashing into shield, the digging of heels into mud. Those things can only be filled in between the recorded facts by imagination. Yes, it's a fiction, but we have nothing more reliable. The raw facts are too sparse to be of any use on their own. Some interpretation is necessary.

morngnstar said:

Yes, historical fiction and re-enactment have similar methods. Strict history can never provide complete information. It may record the number, armaments, and arrangements of troops, but not the sound of shield crashing into shield, the digging of heels into mud. Those things can only be filled in between the recorded facts by imagination. Yes, it's a fiction, but we have nothing more reliable. The raw facts are too sparse to be of any use on their own. Some interpretation is necessary.

Click to expand...

Are you saying journals and memoirs published by the people who survived or lived during these event is nothing? I'm pretty sure they're a lot more damn accurate than just making up how someone would feel and many use them as part of their research. If you're working with a specific person in history, journals tell you what they were really like. Helps you base their actions during your story on them so they aren't out of character.

Lillith1991 said:

Are you saying journals and memoirs published by the people who survived or lived during these event is nothing? I'm pretty sure they're a lot more damn accurate than just making up how someone would feel and many use them as part of their research.

Click to expand...

Who said anything of the sort? Lillith, I get that you're a passionate person with strong opinions, but you do seem to love defending viewpoints that no one has ever attacked, creating strawman arguments to knock down. But you don't need to be so antagonistic all the time. We're all friends and history lovers here, just trying to hang out and be groovy, ok?

Kallithrix said:

Who said anything of the sort? Lillith, I get that you're a passionate person with strong opinions, but you do seem to love defending viewpoints that no one has ever attacked, creating strawman arguments to knock down. But you don't need to be so antagonistic all the time. We're all friends and history lovers here, just trying to hang out and be groovy, ok?

Click to expand...

Not trying to do that this time Kalli, dear.

I'm just responding to what I see as morngnstar implying that the only way to know how people of the time felt is through fiction. But yes, I am passionate. Sometimes too passionate for my own good truth be told. Wouldn't say I enjoy creating strawmen though, and in this particular case I don't view it as such. She said, and the bolded bit is what I took exception to:

morngnstar said:

Those things can only be filled in between the recorded facts by imagination. Yes, it's a fiction, but we have nothing more reliable.

Click to expand...

That is patently untrue, the words of these people still survive. I find their words to be a reliable representation of how at least one person felt, and the similarities in what they think compared to other members of the same society gives a picture in a psychological sense of the time and place in which they lived.

Lillith1991 said:

I'm just responding to what I see as morngnstar implying that the only way to know how people of the time felt is through fiction. [snip]

That is patently untrue, the words of these people still survive. I find their words to be a reliable representation of how at least one person felt, and the similarities in what they think compared to other members of the same society gives a picture in a psychological sense of the time and place in which they lived.

Click to expand...

This may be true for more modern eras, but I'm afraid nothing of this nature exists for the ancient cultures (this comment was made within the context of a discussion about ancient Greece, I believe). Ancient historical accounts may have preserved facts, but very rarely the sort of psychological insight of journalistic commentary, like you describe. So, you are both correct, depending on which era you're referring to.

Kallithrix said:

This may be true for more modern eras, but I'm afraid nothing of this nature exists for the ancient cultures (this comment was made within the context of a discussion about ancient Greece, I believe). Ancient historical accounts may have preserved facts, but very rarely the sort of psychological insight of journalistic commentary, like you describe. So, you are both correct, depending on which era you're referring to.

Click to expand...

Was it ancient Greece only? There was also mention of Civil War reenacting at some point during the conversarion, so I'm a bit confused. You're 100% right if the assertion is entirely related to the ancient world. My bad if it is. If it was a blanket statement concerning all eras (I sorta wish star would say if it was), then it is unfortunately wrong. Like you've said, it's only true if the conversation is completely about ancient cultures or even events of which we have no written record.

I was never talking about Civil War reenactment. Someone else was. Kallithrix was talking about ancient Greek reenactment and I was replying to him.

I think my claim applies to all eras, though, varying only in degree. We may have personal accounts from some important person, but not another, or from officials, but not ordinary people, or ordinary people, but not officials. One could easily point out many potential sources of bias. I stand by my statement that no era of history has complete information. I don't know how anyone could dispute that.

There also might be quite a lot of it, and much of it might be letters complaining about mothers-in-law. Somebody's gotta sift through that, but once done by one or a few people that oughtta be enough. A historical fiction writer can distill it down to the common themes of the era. Also, I didn't specifically say that reading historical fiction was the best way to learn about history. Writing it is an even better way, as it will stimulate questions for you to research, and your research should involve personal accounts, if available. But it should also be guided by some thesis, and that, though it may be an apt one, is something you make up - a fiction.

morngnstar said:

I was never talking about Civil War reenactment. Someone else was. Kallithrix was talking about ancient Greek reenactment and I was replying to him.

I think my claim applies to all eras, though, varying only in degree. We may have personal accounts from some important person, but not another, or from officials, but not ordinary people, or ordinary people, but not officials. One could easily point out many potential sources of bias. I stand by my statement that no era of history has complete information. I don't know how anyone could dispute that.

There also might be quite a lot of it, and much of it might be letters complaining about mothers-in-law. Somebody's gotta sift through that, but once done by one or a few people that oughtta be enough. A historical fiction writer can distill it down to the common themes of the era. Also, I didn't specifically say that reading historical fiction was the best way to learn about history. Writing it is an even better way, as it will stimulate questions for you to research, and your research should involve personal accounts, if available. But it should also be guided by some thesis, and that, though it may be an apt one, is something you make up - a fiction.

Click to expand...

Oh, I can easily and do disagree with the bolded. If we are talking the civil War era in the US, plenty of "unimportant" people kept diaries, sent letters from the battle front etc. And then in the later victorian and the Edwardian eras as well, and up to the ever popular world wars. Heck, we certainly have a fair few diaries from the late 18th century and Regency from throughout much of the west at our disposal. And I would hazard a guess that most from non-western countries just haven't been translated to English or other western languages. These documents exist and in pretty extensive quanties.

And if that doesn't persaude you in any way, I highly doubt AC Doyle and others on both sides of the Atlantic writing memoirs for fictional characters weren't being influenced by a memoir and diary loving culture. They didn't come from some dusty old manuscript those people once saw, but their everyday lives . For this I will give the obvious example of Sherlock Holmse by AC Doyle.

As for your assertion no era has complete information, and some primary documents like memoirs, and diaries will show the bias of the writer. That is correct. But it is those biases and whether they're common across documents written by everyone from a farmers daughter to an important official that a historical writer should be examining. If they're consistent across a large swath then they're most likely an extremely common way of thinking. That tells you something important, namely that your character has to have a solid reason to not hold a view so widely held. This means you have to look at the other common themes in those primary sources of course, and the events surrounding the period to figure out why the character thinks in that manner. To discount them because they're biased is unreasonable when one of your complaints is how dry straight facts can be even when you enjoy research facts about an event or era.

Back to the lack of completeness in history. Far as I'm concerned, to expect history to be complete is not reasonable at all. Of course it isn't. What is important is that we utilise a complete complimentary of research materials, both various manner of primary and secondary relative to the time in which the story is set.

Lillith1991 said:

But it is those biases and whether they're common across documents written by everyone from a farmers daughter to an important official that a historical writer should be examining.

Click to expand...

You're not really disagreeing with me. I'm saying historical fiction is a good way to get to know history, including the process of writing historical fiction, including researching whatever is available. You're saying historical writers should review personal diaries. Those two statements are in accord.

morngnstar said:

You're not really disagreeing with me. I'm saying historical fiction is a good way to get to know history, including the process of writing historical fiction, including researching whatever is available. You're saying historical writers should review personal diaries. Those two statements are in accord.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Miracle, I know. We do appear to agree in a great many ways, just not every way. I don't agree that your claim in the first post I responded to applys to all eras, if only to varying degrees or not. To me we have eras or events without such personal accounts, and ones that include them. They're simply either there or haven't survived/never existed. But reading HF is certainly good for teaching some things like how to include facts in an interesting manner, and create interesting stories for readers from history.

I suspect we're slightly different readers from the importance you place on learning about history through HF. For me, I look at a book and if it's about something I don't know about yet, I research what it is about. If the information itself still interests me, I know the book in theory will have a good shot. I'm not inclined to read something if even cursory research on it is boring to me. It's what I suspect is a reversal of the process for a lot of readers, but it works for me.

I took mornngnstar's statement as being generally applicable to most historical fiction. And it is. The few eras and cultures from which we, especially in the English written world, have written records from all walks of life are dwarfed by the vast number of eras and cultures from which we have not only no written records from different walks of life, but no written records at all. It's down to archeology or people from other cultures writing about the era we're interested in.

The luxury of having diaries and letters from many walks of life is rather recent. The sweep of historical fiction is immense.

Even when we DO have a lot of contemporary history to draw from--I'm working in 1810 England frex--we still have to extrapolate for fiction things we cannot find from even this incredibly-rich-in-written-documents era.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

I took mornngnstar's statement as being generally applicable to most historical fiction. And it is. The few eras and cultures from which we, especially in the English written world, have written records from all walks of life are dwarfed by the vast number of eras and cultures from which we have not only no written records from different walks of life, but no written records at all. It's down to archeology or people from other cultures writing about the era we're interested in.

Click to expand...

Most is not all. I don't think it is wrong per se, just wrong to apply it to all times, places, and cultures. It's like how people say ALL Ancient Egytians did this or that when the time period for just that one culture is of a signifigant scale. They're known for doing things a certain way in general, but what they did evolved as their society did.

The luxury of having diaries and letters from many walks of life is rather recent. The sweep of historical fiction is immense.

Click to expand...

As is history itself, which is why I bristle at applying something across the board other than an idea like "Cultures/Civilizations rise and fall, and ours will one day join the ones that have already risen and fallen." I find that to be one of few 100% truths in regards to history, that everything has its day.

Even when we DO have a lot of contemporary history to draw from--I'm working in 1810 England frex--we still have to extrapolate for fiction things we cannot find from even this incredibly-rich-in-written-documents era.

Click to expand...

Of course we do, that's the nature of writing about the past. I'm not saying we don't need to because we have this documentation, just that the amount of extrapolation is different. It's harder to know how true to life you're being when the story is from a place or time without that particular form of primary source, than from a well documented time. And unless someone proves vampires are real, we won't ever really know how true to life something is baring interview with those who lived during a more recent time period and still are alive as part of our research.