fter failing so miserably to get my point understood in my post "Mistake Amateur Reviewers Make" understood, this time I am just going to ask the question, not opine on my own behalf. For the record, I was not talking about authors in that post but in essence saying that good books should not be subjected to bad amateur reviewers. OK, 'nuff said. Now on to the debate inadvertently raised by that post.
THE QUESTION: What level of historical accuracy should a novel be held to?
The Positions: None
My oft-quoted (by me)husband would probably say that fiction is ficrion and readers should just understand that. He would say that to demand absolute accuracy is impossible, that for any number of reasons, the fact that history itself is often fiction, the fact that the whole point of a novel is to interpret and to put words in historical figures' mouths, absolute slavish accuracy is not an appropriate goal. He's on one extreme of this debate, and all I will say about that is that I don't agree with him that accuracy is not important at all.
The Positions: Complete Accuracy
The other extreme, the group I called accuracy nerds in my early post, is the other extreme. They will quibble with anything, everything, and often for reasons of their own. They insist that even words that entered the language later than a period should not be used, no matter how little later.
You, dear reader, probably fall somewhere in between these extremes. I do as well. You understand that a historical novel cannot, by definition, meet the standards of historical nonfiction. It is supposed to be an interpretation of what really happened. It is, like all fiction, speculative, guessing at what might have been one person's nature, another person's feelings, and another person's motivation. Nevertheless you have standards for what may be interpreted and what must conform to the record.
So that's question. What must conform? What might one legitimately dither with, what must adhere to known facts?
Susan Higginbotham, author of The Traitor's Wife and Hugh and Bess, offered this to the discussion via comments on the earlier post:
I agree fully that one shouldn't let one's personal prejudices color a review and that writers have to fill in gaps and do a certain amount of interpretation. But having characters alive and kicking five years after they died, or adding or subtracting twenty years from a historical person's known age, or confusing a historical person with his grandfather by the same name or title isn't interpretation, it's just plain sloppy. Worse, it just gives people who hate historical fiction another weapon with which to criticize the genre.
Use the comments section of this post to register your position.
Thank you to all who debated the reviewer post and who are ready to make their points here as well.
13 comments:
If you are writing a historical novel, I expect it to be historically accurate. I don't want stainless steel to be found out of time, I don't expect hansom cabs to be in Tudor England, I don't expect the dock at Bristol to be blue and sparkling, and I don't expect forks, tomatoes, potatoes etc etc to be in an era where they don't exist.
I don't think that makes me an "accuracy nerd" in fact I find that quite insulting - I think that makes me a discerning reader who doesn't expect crap research and doesn't expect to be reading AU without it being labelled as such.
I've heard from readers (particularly in the historical romance genre) "oh I don't CARE if they didn't have tea in 1400 I just want a lovely romance" but I'm afraid that won't do for me.
As I said in the post about reviewing, of course it can't be 100 percent accurate, particurly for the language because past a certain point we'd not understand a word they said, but I don't want to be jolted out, either.
As a writer, I work hard at this, because I respect my reader.
I can't seem to get a break. Erastes, what you say about yourself is not my definition of an accuracy nerd. I thought that by characterizing the opposing positions as "extremes" I made that clear.
Let me give again an example of what I would consider the nerd extreme. I was once informed that there was no word "pitcher" in Anglo Saxon England. Only "jug". I found numerous pictures of pitchers from Saxon archarological sites. So they had them.. and is it wrong to assume they had a term for them to distinguish them from jugs without handles??? The person was confusing the lack of documentation for a term for its not existing at all. That is one of the problems with accuracy nerds.. sometimes they don't know what they are talking about. The fact is that even if there was no word for pitcher, which I won't concede, it would be irrelevant, since there awere no modern English words at all in Old English.
Let me give a couple more examples of criticisms for historical accuracy that I consider nerdish.
When I used to write the Blue Lady Tavern I was informed they had no term "tavern" until the 13th century. Now if I had said "nightclub" or "disco" or "cocktail lounge" I feel this point would be valid. But when you are talking about what is in essence a translation, translating concepts rather than words is perfectly acceptable I think. Alehouses and taverns are not that different. I aghree w2ith you that mesmerism and sadism are too much connected with real people not yet born, but can you honestly tell me tavern is not good enough to use?
In another situation someone asked m e why my Cornish character was quoting Anglo Saxon poetry and not Cornish. There were two reasons. He was talking directly to me, his author, as a self aware fictional character. Plus. Kerrick was making fun of Anglo Saxon poetry.. so why would he speak Cornish?
I hope this helps you see what I meant by "accuracy nerds". I don't mean that every call for accuracy is nerdish.. far from it. But I am sure you run into situations where people hotly deny that there were any homosexuals in Regency England or at most not any who had any expectation of not getting caught and hanged. I specifically read this criticism of the Evergreen GHallants in one of Brandy Purdy's books.. a woman said these homesexuals would all be burtned at the stake. Now wouldn't you object to that criticism?
So I ask you all to read what I write, not react to it. Chances are I did not at all say what you are reacting to so hotly.
OK?
I'm reasonable in my expectations of historical fiction. I don't condemn an author for making the occasional mistake (having made them myself), and I don't expect fiction writers to do doctoral-dissertation-quality research, though I've known several who do. I do expect fiction writers to make use of the research materials that are readily available to them, and in cases where a figure is controversial, I'd like to see some indication that the author has consulted materials from varying points of view, not just those that support her own interpretation of events.
I don't get particularly excited if potatoes appear on a medieval menu, though I might be more bothered if a heroine lives on a potato farm. Same with forms of address and to some extent fashion. When an author gets basic genealogical facts wrong, like the types of things I mentioned in my comment quoted above, that irritates me.
Mindset anachronisms, or what Sharon Penman on her blog very aptly described as "Plantagenets in Pasadena," do bother me. I read one novel a couple of years ago, set in medieval Scotland, when a Jewish heroine married a Christian hero, with neither party converting to the other's faith, and none of the sympathetic characters so much as raised an eyebrow. The novel might as well have been taking place in 1970's Long Island.
And I've said this on my own blog, but what bothers me more than anything else is when a writer deliberately distorts a historical fact and doesn't tell the reader, or when a writer distorts facts in such a way as to smear a historical figure's reputation. For instance, the heroine in my last completed novel was a mere child when she married her husband, but at least one novel portrays her as being in her twenties at the time and as sexually molesting him.
I find I agree with Susan Higginbotham. Here's why. If, as the author you claim to have written "historical fiction" then I expect you to have done your research and to be as accurate as is possible--but minor discrepancies won't bother me.
If you don't want to do the research, or if your story won't work if you stick to the facts, then don't call it historical. In his 'Song of Ice and Fire' series, George R. R. Martin roughly paralleled the Wars of the Roses--but the events, characters, and setting were different. Since he called it fantasy, I didn't expect the "history" to accurately portray the Wars of the Roses. Even so, it was evident that he had more than a passing knowledge of the real historical events.
Bottom line, if the book is going to be labeled "historical" then I expect the history to be fairly accurate as far as it is known.
Joan
For me as a reader of historical fiction one of the delights of the genre is seeing how different authors portray the real historical figures they write about. Look at all the different depictions of Piers Gaveston, Cleopatra, Marie Antoinette, etc. It would be rather dull if each one were the same cookie-cutter characters spouting only the historically documented lines. As an author, for me to take on a project I have to feel I can bring something special or different to it. I don't do this just to tell the reader what they can find in an encyclopedia.
As for accuracy, I admit that anything that disrupts the flow, jars me out of the story annoys me. For instance, I read a novel set in Biblical times recently where some witnesses to a crucifixion use some rather modern slang such as "kid" and "chat," it read as awkward and distinctly out of place.
I don't know where I fall on this continuum. If I see potatoes and tomatoes on a medieval menu(and I do remember reading a romance novel where there was a sack of potatoes on a Viking ship), that bothers me very much. Why? Because no one in that era would have known of potatoes and tomatoes. Forks in Tudor times is a different matter. Forks were known, though I believe they originated in 14th century Italy, and slowly spread. So some people might actually have used them. OTOH, I much prefer "modern standard" to what some people call "writing forsoothly"(Sharon Kay Penman has a tendency to do this, which makes me grind my teeth at her, at times). The reason for that is, whatever language people were speaking at the time, sounded "modern" to them! There are other ways you can suggest time and place without resorting to "fake poetic" language. As for "mindsets", again, that depends on what you mean. In the case of the Jewish woman marrying the Christian man in medieval Scotland and everybody was okay with it. . . .well, that's "not so hot". Because that sort of thing just didn't happen back then. Finally, the "story v. historical accuracy" problem. Many readers of historical fiction claim they want a "completely accurate" piece of fiction, but often, especially with biographical fiction, the "facts" don't make the best story. I'm reviewing one author at the moment, who is writing fiction about a historical character I know absolutely nothing about, but the story is. . . well, episodic, though very interesting in a way. But it isn't quite a novel. However, if a writer goes the "biographical fiction" route, it's important to stick to the trajectory of that person's life. The trick is to make it dramatic enough to keep the reader's interest. With other kinds of historical fiction, my feeling is,"story comes first",even if some minor facts get bent -- a little. I'm not talking about major gaffes like putting historical characters in the wrong geographical region, or getting kinship relationships wrong(yes, I've seen that, too). Or just not getting your basic facts right at all! So, dear bloggers and commentators, where do you think I belong?
Anne G
Just as a addendum, I will blog once again, about the "accuracy" issue, but it's getting late and I have a yoga class early tomorrow, so you'll all have to wait to see my words of wisdom. However, don't worry(this is for Nan), I'll link to this article
I didn't see your reply, Nan, until today because you have no "inform me of any replies" function - is it possible to add that?
Firstly, it's very silly to say "I just can't get a break" when people respond to your post. I'm not getting at you personally, for heaven's sake. If you don't want discuss, Nan, why ask for it?
I agree with you about concepts - in fact I said as much. There may be no word pitcher, but there probably would be a word. My editor found hundreds of words that were anachronistic for 1640;s and we worked through them individually. Perhaps then you would categorise me as a nerd, and rightly so. I probably wouldnt use tavern though - when there were other words to describe it. A pitcher is a certain kind of jug. A pub is an inn is an alehouse is a tavern.
I don't understand your point about the poetry, I'm afriad - never heard of a character talking to the author!
I haven't met anyone who has denied there were homosexuals in Regency England, but luckily there are many documented cases to prove otherwise. MJ Pearson did have at one point a page on her site which said that gay men lived happily in Regency times without fear of arrest, but I think she's since taken that down with the rising swell of gay historical fiction.
I'm not sure of your point regarding the Evergreen Gallants - are you saying that homosexuals wouldn't be burned at the stake? Please clarify - I've not heard of the Evergreen Gallants, and the google search turned up a het historical by Jean Plaidy. Homosexuals were widely burned at the stake throughout Europe at that point.
By all means, Erastes and everyone els, react to, discuss, disagree with things I or anyone else writes... just please make sure the point of contention wa actualy expressed.
THAT was what I meant by not catching a break I don't mind debating wht I wrote... but only if I actually wrote it. I this case I did not say all attenion to accuracy is nerdish..
rustrated in Seattle
You would probably consider me a nerd. I don't expect utterly accurate period language (ghod help us all with Chaucer or earlier) but if someone in 1801 asks, "Are you okay?" or if a page brings Elizabeth I a bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich, yeah, I'll squawk.
Anachronisms relating to the European invasion of the Americas stand out like a sore thumb to me because I've done a fair bit of research on indigenous North American people. Food crops are important because food is central to life, and what things were called is important, too. "Corn" to an Englishman in 1500 was not what we roast on the grill, pineapples in the 1700s were so rare they were rented for parties... these things are not critical to the plot, but they are part of world-building. As others have said, historical fiction is like sci-fi in that it is sent in a world that is similar to our own, but alien in many small ways.
Accuracy is important. It's difficult to quantify, and varies from one writer to another. As you say, some readers don't care--they imagine that people long ago were exactly like they are, only without Ipods. Some writers don't care either, and don't want to do the research. Those readers will enjoy those writers' work.
Readers who care about detail won't, and I think some of that's intrinsic to the personality of the reader/writer and probably can't be altered. Personally, I enjoy learning this stuff. I adore "English Through the Ages," which says 'tavern' was used for a wine shop by 1290 and by 1350 a bar was a 'taverner,' shortened to 'tavern' by 1440.
If I'm writing a period story, I'll try to find contemporary, first-person accounts of events (for me, it's mostly sailors in the early 1800's) and try to get a feel for the flavor of how people spoke and wrote, the terms they used and how they constructed their sentences. I know I won't get it all perfect, but I want it to be as good as I can make it.
My next book, now at the publisher, went to a few trusted readers for nit-picking. I got schooled about English attitudes toward horsebreeding (not surprisingly, they mirror period attitudes toward human 'breeding') so to make my character who I wanted him to be, I had to make him a bit of an eccentric in that regard. Another character had an Irish name, so in that era and that class, he needed a bit of family history to explain it. I appreciate my friends pointing out these errors out because I enjoyed fixing the details. I hope my readers will like the results. Some probably won't notice. That's okay.
I have to wonder at the idea that using the right word doesn't matter, since words are the essential substance out of which we create stories. A 'car' is not quite a 'flivver' is not quite a 'ride,' and it has nothing to do with the differences between a Model T and a Maserati.
For the examples you use, I wouldn't have noticed 'pitcher.' I might have wondered at 'tavern.' (I tend to use 'inn' because it's been around since the 1400's without much change). If there's been no effort to sift out anachronisms, that will bother me. But then, I spelled 'waggon' with an extra g to give a flavor of an earlier time. I don't remember if the editor took that out because it wasn't a critical detail.
Yes, there are reviewers who pick too much at trifles. There are reviewers who mark a book down if there isn't a hawt sex scene every ten pages or so, who don't even notice or care if the details are accurate so long as there's plenty of heavy breathing. There are, alas, a lot of inept reviewers. I've read reviews that would've been given a C- by my freshman English teacher and it bothers me that writers are being criticized by people who can't produce a coherent sentence.
"How much accuracy is enough..." That's going to be different for every reader. But I do think if that criticism comes up with any sort of regularity, it's probably got some truth in it, same as any other complaint, and I do prefer reading a story where a writer steers as close as she can to the known facts.
As a speech teacher, one of the assignments I have students do is an informative speech. Sometimes students will try to whine (I say that most lovingly!) their way out of choosing their own topics by claiming they don't know enough about anything to be expert enough to give a speech. That has caused me to be preemptive and to set before them the standard of "responsible knowledge." Simply put, applying "responsible knowledge" to their speech topic consists of making an honest effort to find the most complete and up-to-date information they can to support their speech. That means no relying on one website that is five years old to be the single source for the speech.
I think this same standard can be applied to writing historical fiction. I believe we as writers have a responsibility to present the past as accurately as we can, given reasonable effort on our part to discover the "truth" of history (although I DO acknowledge the subjective nature of much of what we call history). We need to make an honest effort to find out the best and most reliable version of events, people, and cultures, realizing that we can't know everything. Only this morning, I wished (again) for a time machine so I could take a little visit to the 1820s. I've done a lot of reading, both of academic research on the period and of period letters and newspapers, but there are still gaps in what I know, gaps that can only be filled by being there and seeing things with my own eyes.
Here's an example: I found an obituary notice for an actual historical character who will appear in my WiP. It stated he died of a "violent illness lasting two or three days." How I wish there were an accurate medical diagnosis! But the truth is, I will never know what killed him. Never. Responsible knowledge requires me to stick with the fact that it was illness that killed him, not a fall from a horse.
However, I believe I have the creative license as a writer to decide whether dysentery or influenza was the "violent illness" that killed him. Let's say, though, that I want to have him have been poisoned. Unless I can show something in the historical record that indicates he had some enemies who hated him enough to poison him, or that his wife quickly remarried someone who was rumored to be her lover, I think I might be stretching things too far if I represented the poisoning as fact. If I like the poisoning storyline and want to use it anyway, I believe I owe it to my readers to tell them that I am speculating on what might have been, and that there is no historical support for my plot (or minimal support, as the case may be). I know as a reader, I appreciate knowing to what degree I can trust the information that is being presented to me and to what level I need to suspend my disbelief to enter the story.
It's a big world, with room for lots of different viewpoints. Some people want the accuracy of strict academic research; some people don't mind anachronisms as long as the story is "good." Others of us can slide along the scale in between, but I think in the interest of "responsible knowledge" the writer should be honest about communicating where on the scale his/her work falls.
For the record - my own response. Probably not what you decided I think.
I agree wholeheartedly with what Augustina and several of you said. Historical accuracy is vital. Wherever a fact is truly known it is the responsibility of the author to stick to it unless it is so trivial it doesn't matter to the story.. and even then the author should fess up. I nodded approvingly when in the author's note for Lords of the White castle Chadwick informed the reader she had changed the order of when her heroine was in one place or another.. she made the right literary call and was also responsible about noting what she had done. That was the best thing to do.
I support the call for maximum accuracy. I have a proviso. An awful lot of "history" is already fiction. Those critics who rely n specious sources get no support from me... and sometimes the best intentioned are nevertheless wrong For years scholars used as primary sources a correspondence between Ivan the Terrible nd a childhood friend.. which turned out to be forgeries. I suggest we try to be humble about how accurate we can be even in the best of situations. That's one reason the I get so ticked at some reviewers who seem to think they have the corner on knowledge or morality or insight. Balderdash.
I also reserve the right to interpret where there is no incontrovertible proof one way or another and to interpret what historians of the past said based on my judgment of their motivations. The last historian I am going to credit is a churchman talking about women's lives.
Allow me to clarify Nan's reference to The Evergreen Gallants. In my upcoming novel The Boleyn Wife (previously published as Vengeance Is Mine) Anne Boleyn has a circle of close man friends, which includes her brother George Boleyn, Sir Francis Weston, Sir Henry Norris, and Sir William Brereton, and hovering on the periphery but not an actual part of the circle, the lute player Mark Smeaton. Those familiar with the saga of Anne Boleyn will recognize these names as the men who were accused of adultery with Anne Boleyn and executed on those charges. In a scene in my book Anne dubs these men her Evergreen Gallants because of their loyalty to her. In my novel some of these men indulge in homosexual or bisexual affairs, though this is not a major part of the book. One reader who vehemently objected to my novel, dimissing it as pornographic and trash, said, if memory serves correctly, that there would not have been homosexuals allowed at the Tudor court, that these men would have been burned at the stake. Though that was a punishment for homosexuality, these men, except Smeaton, were all nobly born, and if they conducted themselves discreetly and were in the good graces of royalty, I think it unlikely such would have been their fate.
Post a Comment