Historical Fiction: Irrelevant and Cozy? (Guardian Article)

Interesting. I have been giving a lot of thought lately about the state of the historical fiction market as I wrap up querying my third historical novel (with very limited success). This boom that everyone seems to think is happening in historical fiction 1) doesn't seem to be happening and 2) seems to center entirely around Hilary Mantel. Maybe it looks different in the UK (I am in the US)? I sort of assume that Mantel is positioned implicitly against Gregory, who does seem to get a bad rap? There aren't a lot of publishers putting out Renault-style historical fiction these days, in my opinion.

I don't know. Now I'm just getting off-topic with my thoughts on the current state of the market.

Slightly off-topic: Something about that article rubbed me the wrong way. I am a little bit tired of how we always seem to have to claim a genre is legitimate by emphasising that it has nothing to do with "books for girls". It's not "chic lit with wimples", you know. Rarely, if ever, do I see anyone rush to assure that it's not "James Bond with wimples", or "Tom Clancy in breeches". Because books for boys are real books, but anything tainted by femininity is, you know, just for the air-headed little girls and you need to define yourself away from that.

I personally much prefer Hilary Mantel to Philippa Gregory, but if you think historical fiction is full of crap writing with modern people in farthingales, say so. Don't imply that "crap" is a female quality.

Edited because I realised the writer of the article was male (I misread it on my phone). However, the chick lit quote is by Mantel – could just be highbrow vs lowbrow but my point is that I almost never see military books dismissed out of hand the way romance is although neither are 'literary'

To elaborate (now that I got the 'girl' chip off my shoulder); I think HF is an excellent forum for treating complicated issues (just like fantasy or SF can be). It's easy to make the conflicts easier, the stakes higher and people are quite often able to approach it without some of the bias they usually carry with them.

But it also makes it easy to disguise your agenda. Just look at Shakespeare who did that quite cleverly - his historical plays often treat contemporary issues under the guise of history.

I have been surprised when I have realised how much the American political rhetorics have in common with the Parliamentarian/Puritan rhetoric of the early 17th century. That's not very strange considering the background of the early settlers that shaped the early American society, but sometimes that makes it difficult not to accidentally venture into modern politics when I really don't want to. Same goes for the ongoing religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants (and between Protestants of different varieties). That sometimes runs the risk of venturing into religious and political issues that I, a lightweight writer, would rather stay out of because if I go there, I'll have to be serious and it'll be a whole other book (one that the Guardian would probably prefer but not one I want to write).

Flicka said:

I personally much prefer Hilary Mantel to Philippa Gregory, but if you think historical fiction is full of crap writing with modern people in farthingales, say so. Don't imply that "crap" is a female quality.

Click to expand...

I so agree with everything you said.

gothicangel said:

As for Hilary Mantel, I don't think readers see her as a historical novelist, but an author of literary novels, three of which have been written in historical setting (French Revolution, then Tudor England.)

I don't think anyone is putting out Renault style HF, otherwise it's missing my attention. I've never read any Renault before, and have been told there are similarities with Sutcliff, so I've pre-ordered the first Alexander book (yes, I have expectations now .)

Click to expand...

I think that's probably true re: the literary designation. The same is true for Catton, I think.

I've read Renault and enjoyed the Alexander books. I just don't think you see that sort of thing much anymore, though.

gothicangel said:

It is also an interesting topic about how modern politics affect writing about the past. For my current WIP (set in Roman Judaea) I've been researching modern arms trade and anxieties about the (religious) radicalization of young men.[/SIZE]

Click to expand...

Flicka said:

To elaborate (now that I got the 'girl' chip off my shoulder); I think HF is an excellent forum for treating complicated issues (just like fantasy or SF can be). It's easy to make the conflicts easier, the stakes higher and people are quite often able to approach it without some of the bias they usually carry with them.

Click to expand...

I think this raises an interesting point that maybe gets at these misconceptions of HF, especially in the US. We here in the US tend to not like history, or at least we are obsessed with having a clean bright break between that was then, this is now, and we don't always try to see links between the past and present. People back then were just totally different than us today, and all that.

But that's probably just my gripe as a historical sociologist.

Historical fiction as a genre seems to be very firmly divided by the presumed sex of the readers which is very sad.

gothicangel said:

I don't think anyone is putting out Renault style HF, otherwise it's missing my attention. I've never read any Renault before, and have been told there are similarities with Sutcliff, so I've pre-ordered the first Alexander book (yes, I have expectations now .)

Click to expand...

I read her first Alexander novel and didn't think much of it. There was too much character study and not really enough plot for my liking. I didn't get on with her poetic style either, because I like my prose like I like my armour - polished but utilitarian

But then I read her Last of the Wine, set during the Peloponnesian war, and I was in bits. So, so moving and poignant, but I also loved her characterisation of Alkibiades (who we all know I have a bit of a crush on). Now reading Rosmary Sutcliff's The Flowers of Adonis, another Alkibiades novel. I'm gonna be getting twitchy to start writing mine soon

gothicangel said:

As for Hilary Mantel, I don't think readers see her as a historical novelist, but an author of literary novels, three of which have been written in historical setting (French Revolution, then Tudor England.)

Click to expand...

Well, to be fair there's a slight difference between something that is straight genre and something that is lit of one stripe or another. And I say this as someone who reads both genre and lit, as well as genuinely loves both. The feel of one vs the other is different for me. I can pick two of books on the same event in history, and whether something is also meant to be Literary in addition to Historical becomes obvious in the first chapter. There's a certain feel to a Literary novel, no matter its other classifier. It's not good or bad, it just is.

There are actually four Mantel historicals - the fourth is The Giant, O'Brien. Her eight other novels to date are all contemporaries or set in the recent past. Having said that, Mantel is a major bestseller when she's writing about Thomas Cromwell at the court of Henry VIII, with a stage play, a BBC television adaptation in a couple of months and the third volume of the trilogy on its way. I don't know how much of an effect that Wolf Hall is having on the sales of her other novels.

And let's not forget that Hilary Mantel is writing about the ever-popular Tudors. It seems the world's appetite for Tudor stories may never be sated. Granted, Mantel is a good cut above many other Tudor-era historical novels, but I don't think we should discount how much the time period has played into the broader success of Wolf Hall. After all, A Place of Greater Safety is, in my opinion, equally as good but didn't make quite the splash partly because (again, in my opinion) it's not about the Tudors but about French revolutionaries (and not, for instance, about Marie-Antoinette!).

Flicka said:

Slightly off-topic: Something about that article rubbed me the wrong way. I am a little bit tired of how we always seem to have to claim a genre is legitimate by emphasising that it has nothing to do with "books for girls". It's not "chic lit with wimples", you know. Rarely, if ever, do I see anyone rush to assure that it's not "James Bond with wimples", or "Tom Clancy in breeches". Because books for boys are real books, but anything tainted by femininity is, you know, just for the air-headed little girls and you need to define yourself away from that.

Click to expand...

I have seen plenty of dismissiveness of military fiction, and swollen historical epics like those written by James Michener and James Clavell - maybe not specifically as "Tom Clancy in breeches" but in similar terms. It's highbrow vs. lowbrow, not necessarily a gendered thing.

gothicangel said:

As for Hilary Mantel, I don't think readers see her as a historical novelist, but an author of literary novels, three of which have been written in historical setting (French Revolution, then Tudor England.)

Click to expand...

Lillith1991 said:

Well, to be fair there's a slight difference between something that is straight genre and something that is lit of one stripe or another. [snip] There's a certain feel to a Literary novel, no matter its other classifier. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Click to expand...

Aren't you both saying the same thing, but from slightly different angles?

And I thought Mary Renault was considered sorta literary too...

Amadan said:

I have seen plenty of dismissiveness of military fiction, and swollen historical epics like those written by James Michener and James Clavell - maybe not specifically as "Tom Clancy in breeches" but in similar terms. It's highbrow vs. lowbrow, not necessarily a gendered thing.

Click to expand...

It's both, that is my firm opinion. If you doubt it, compare how people usually react to a woman reading a "boys own"-adventure vs a man reading romance, and it should be fairly obvious it is much more than highbrow vs lowbrow. "Female" lowbrow fiction rates below lowbrow "male" fiction, just as male coded stuff are awarded higher status than female coded stuff in almost all walks of life.

Flicka said:

It's both, that is my firm opinion. If you doubt it, compare how people usually react to a woman reading a "boys own"-adventure vs a man reading romance, and it should be fairly obvious it is much more than highbrow vs lowbrow. "Female" lowbrow fiction rates below lowbrow "male" fiction, just as male coded stuff are awarded higher status than female coded stuff in almost all walks of life.

Click to expand...

I would say men rate "female lowbrow fiction" lower, and women rate "male lowbrow fiction" lower.

I think the idea that fiction for men is more esteemed is an oft-stated but rarely-supported opinion. Both best-sellers and literary award winners are not nearly so segregated.

There are plenty of women who dismiss women-coded fiction (Romance) more than men-coded fiction (Clancy, O'Brian, Cornwell). It's not just the guys.

Says she who used to do this before I got better.

ULTRAGOTHA said:

There are plenty of women who dismiss women-coded fiction (Romance) more than men-coded fiction (Clancy, O'Brian, Cornwell). It's not just the guys.

Says she who used to do this before I got better.

Click to expand...

It is probably true that more women like to read "men-coded" fiction than men like to read "women-coded" fiction.

The fact that romances have a large but rather homogeneous audience does not support the theory that fiction for women is automatically treated as inferior.

"Men-coded fiction" has traditionally been: adventures, thrillers, superhero comic books, action novels, etc. As more women become interested in it, more women are writing it and writers of both sexes are writing female protagonists.

There are few corrolaries in romance. Nicholas Sparks, maybe.

I maintain that even active disdain for romance novels (while perhaps narrow-minded) is not automatically a disdain for female things because they are female. Women who think James Bond is misogynistic trash or superhero comic books are stupid, juvenile power fantasies are not generally accused of hating on men in general.

Kallithrix said:

Aren't you both saying the same thing, but from slightly different angles?

And I thought Mary Renault was considered sorta literary too...

Click to expand...

I believe you're right, Kalli! Pardon me, my poor brain was exhausted by then. There's a similar thing about Sarah Waters, and for the Horror part Joyce Carol Oats.

Lillith1991 said:

Well, to be fair there's a slight difference between something that is straight genre and something that is lit of one stripe or another. And I say this as someone who reads both genre and lit, as well as genuinely loves both. The feel of one vs the other is different for me. I can pick two of books on the same event in history, and whether something is also meant to be Literary in addition to Historical becomes obvious in the first chapter. There's a certain feel to a Literary novel, no matter its other classifier. It's not good or bad, it just is.

Click to expand...

I believe the difference isn't between straight genre and anything meant to be literary. I doubt anything of quality has ever been written by intending to write the book in some mythical "literary" manner.

There is a difference between one novel and another, but the difference is in the talent and skill of the writer, not in genre versus literary.

Most of the classics we know and love, and that the critics label as literary, were pure genre when written, but the writer was simply better at his job that others around him.

Flicka said:

It's both, that is my firm opinion. If you doubt it, compare how people usually react to a woman reading a "boys own"-adventure vs a man reading romance, and it should be fairly obvious it is much more than highbrow vs lowbrow. "Female" lowbrow fiction rates below lowbrow "male" fiction, just as male coded stuff are awarded higher status than female coded stuff in almost all walks of life.

Click to expand...

I don't believe there is such a thing as highbrow or lowbrow. Men love romance as much as women, we just tend to shy away from category romance, as do an awful lot of women.

I also believe that status isn't bestowed, it's earned. Roughly ten percent of category romance readers are men, and I'm one of them, but when you have that much fiction of any kind, most of it is going to be pretty bad.

Theordore Sturgeon said that nnety percent of everyting is crud, and I have no doubt he was correct. If this applies to category romance, then thousands of cruddy novels are going to hit the shelves every year.

The same percentage holds true for so-called "male-coded" fiction, and few genre have more than a handful of writers who continually produce quality fiction.

Category romance has some wonderful writers, and quite a few of them, but it's such a large genre that it also has a heck of a lot of poor writers who say the same thing over and over.

I dunno about all this male-coded versus female-coded stuff. I likes what I likes. I love nothing more than a good category romance (even the really cheesy ones, if they're well written) because I am a hopeless romantic at heart. But I also like action-packed historical epics about battles and politics and court intrigue and whatnot. My favourite ones manage to include a romantic subplot somewhere too.

But I guess I do tend towards male authored HF. I don't know why, but the books I've enjoyed most have all been written by men - Bernard Cornwell, Wilbur Smith, Tom Holt, Steven Pressfield, Robert Harris. Do I consciously seek out male authored HF because of that? I don't think so, I just tend to find that men more often write stories I want to read.

Also, could not get through one page of Hilary Mantel. I hated the writing style so much it made me want to claw my eyeballs out. Generally me and literary do not get on.

I should make it clear that I am not defending romance as a genre. I have no horse running in that race, but I do have quite a lot invested personally in respecting women as writers and readers and people in general, and this article rubbed me the wrong way.

Amadan said:

I would say men rate "female lowbrow fiction" lower, and women rate "male lowbrow fiction" lower.

I think the idea that fiction for men is more esteemed is an oft-stated but rarely-supported opinion. Both best-sellers and literary award winners are not nearly so segregated.

Click to expand...

Amadan said:

I maintain that even active disdain for romance novels (while perhaps narrow-minded) is not automatically a disdain for female things because they are female. Women who think James Bond is misogynistic trash or superhero comic books are stupid, juvenile power fantasies are not generally accused of hating on men in general.

Click to expand...

First, I did not in any way imply that men who think romance is trash are "hating on women in general". I said that I found this – this particular article – to hoist hist fic by emphasising that it is not "books for girls". I was in particular thinking of this quote (by Hilary Mantel who is, AFAIK, a woman):

The accusation is that authors are ducking the tough issues in favour of writing about frocks. There is a certain strand of historical fiction of which this is certainly true; it is chick-lit with wimples."

Click to expand...

She is pinning down female things such as "frocks" and "chick-lit" as what she is trying to define hist fic away from. I see no references to "spies", "rapiers" or "military-fetish" in that article. I only see these two, specific examples, and they appeared to me as two more instances of something that I often see.

Literary snobbery is a thing. Men are traditionally considered superior to women. In my experience, these two things together tend to mean that popular literature for females is usually considered to be at the the bottom of the food chain. I have read both and I know which I will be ridiculed for by both men and women equally. I cannot back this up with statistics as it is my experience and I don't keep notes on my conversations (or online review reading), but there's quite a lot of feminist theory of literature that agrees with me. Obviously, that doesn't make me right and you wrong.

But fact remains, Hilary Mantel dissed writing about frocks and chick-lit in that article and no one dissed male coded literature.

ETA: I loved Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies with a vengeance. Absolutely riveting, brilliant writing. I never thought of it as literary though, just absolutely outstanding storytelling.

Flicka said:

She is pinning down female things such as "frocks" and "chick-lit" as what she is trying to define hist fic away from.

Click to expand...

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.

I'm with Flicka here. There is a high brow versus low brow thing going on here, but to claim that has nothing to do with gender is kind of short-sighted. The prestige-mongering that goes on in the literary world which leads to dismissing genre as "low brow" IS very much a gendered thing. Like Flicka said, Mantel specifically dismissed "chick-lit in wimples," not military fiction. Mantel won a major, super-prestigious prize for that novel. That means something.

You often see writers like Philippa Gregory get dismissed as chick stuff (hell, I had a copy of THE OTHER BOLEYN GIRL from the library that had a blurb about how you shouldn't be embarrassed to carry this "serious" book around!), but you don't see the same, thorough-going dismissal of writers like Bernard Cornwell. Things that are feminine do get dismissed simply for being feminine in ways that things that are masculine do not.

At the individual level, sure, we like what we like. I'll read Mantel, I'll read Gregory, I'll read Cornwell. I don't read a lot of romance because my heart is a cold stone. But we're not just a bunch of individuals running around bumping into one another.

mayqueen said:

The prestige-mongering that goes on in the literary world which leads to dismissing genre as "low brow" IS very much a gendered thing.

Click to expand...

How many science fiction and fantasy novels have been nominated for Pulitzers and Man Bookers?

Salman Rushdie and Margaret Atwood both sneak genre fiction into the literary category by pretending it's not genre fiction.