Historical novels - How much does veracity matter?
There was discussion last week at our writing group about historical novels playing around with history to the point of being unreliable as a reference. Someone was unhappy about Hilary Mantel’s Thomas Cromwell, who apparently was not such a fine character in real life. Others didn’t care because Wolfe Hall was a marvellous novel and Cromwell a wonderfully drawn character; if it’s fiction, it’s OK. Clearly, some veracity has to obtain otherwise why write about the subject in the first place? But how much?
Anyway, lighter discussion ensued about titles of novels/films that might offer a very different view of history. How about: Ivan, The Really Rather Nice? Do Clouders have any more suggestions?
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
40 Comments
Titles? "Vlad the Tickler"
This reminds me of a book I read years ago, but I can't remember the name of the author. If anyone reading this knows who it was, could you let me know as I'd love to read it again.
It's called The King's Concierge. King George V sends a Russian speaking soldier into Russia to rescue his cousin Tsar Nicholas and family. I can't remember the name of the soldier! But he meets Lenin and eventually manages to rescue Anastasia. I'm not sure if at the time this was written it was still believed that Anastasia coud have escaped, but the facts behind the plot seemed to tie in with actual events apart from Anastasia being rescued (So did offer a different view of history). If anyone knows the name of the author I'd be very grateful. I read it when I was in my early 20's and would have probably bought it second hand ! So not sure when it was written.
As Alan says, the actual story can be made up as long as it *could* have happened, but the surrounding factual details? No sir, not on my bookshelf. I heard tell that J.G. Farrell's "The Siege of Krishnapur" was stonkingly innaccurate historically and I'm sooo disappointed. But I may have heard wrong. I hope so, and please tell me if I have. Sorry J.G. I want to be friends.
Titles? How about: "Alfred the Who?"
I'm an archaeologist and could take a really hard line with accuracy. However, I do not like a novel which is in effect just an info-dump, with some sort of story tacked on for good measure. I don't take historical fiction as historical reference, and it merely serves as a channel to get me interested in an era. It's great when the voice is authentic, and the history spot on, but it's still an intepretation of the facts. No one can know what Thomas Cromwell was actually like in real life, but it's great when the author has given it a good go and written within known events.
Just don't get me started on King Arthur though ...!
Realism is terribly important to me if I read a historical novel, like you Minx, I like to learn more about the era and enjoy the story. Story is still just as important in historical fiction; even more so! Phillipa Gregory's The Red Queen is a good example for this blog, and also The White Queen.
As to the character of historical figures, I think a writer has some scope here. People are neither all good, nor all evil. There are many sides to every story, and it depends where you are viewing it from, and which version of history you are referencing.
Anne Bolyen:
1. Home wrecking, adultery, incest, liar, criminal?
2. Naive, family pawn, chaste, wrongly accursed, victim?
I like my facts to be as accurate as possible. Sometimes gaps have to be filled - as I had to in mine.
Suggestons: Thomas de Quincy: Confessions of an English Cupcake Eater.
'The Great Pretender. Someone else can suggest who this might be?
The secret, I think, is to have fictitious characters involved in real historical events. People seeing epic historical events happening before their eyes, without knowing the significance at the time.
Cornwell's novel of the Battle of Waterloo is a perfect example. The whole book covers three days leading up to and during the battle. There is plenty of documented eveidence for him to work with, and he weaves Sharpe into the story without twisting facts at all.
William the Capitulator?
History, of course is not the factual account we often take it for. It is merely the received version of various past writers' interpretations of what they have either observed, or more often, been told occurred at the time in question. It is no more factual than two differing witness statements describing the same event in modern times, or two, perhaps politically divergent, newspaper reports of the same current happening. Unless we are present at an event ourselves, whatever we think we know of it from reading other's accounts, we can never be sure what really happened in detail. Even when we are present, unless it is a very small-scale occurance, we can not be sure we have seen everything we need to have seen in order to describe what happened accurately to others.
However, having established that what we regard as 'historical fact' is not necessarily 'fact' at all, I do hold with the views of those above that believe historical settings in books should reflect accurately the traditionally held views of the period and events. (Unless, of course the book is deliberately setting out to suggest a radical re-interpretation of certain events.) As regards real people, writers have even more leeway. There are only so many ways an actual event can be described or interpreted, but as to the makeup of someone's character, the possibilities must be endless.
There are also things that are true, even if they don't form part of general knowledge - the existence of colour photography 100 years ago and such like. New insights are interesting, but I only trust them if the surrounding structure rings true to me. Ditto with people - indeed, I don't think they're so very different today in motivation, worries, pleasures than they were back in the mists, and nor is there only one view of events, whatever received wisdom may be at any one time.
But I have a problem where I'm being deliberately or carelessly misled so that I don't know which bits are true and which aren't. I know what I mean.
Whisks - I know what you mean and I agree with you
Thanks Kiki - that's two of us; are we on the way to a quorum? (Norm - don't ask).
Whisks - definately! Lol
Norm - you need a dictionary! lol
How about 'The Specific Strike of 1926' or 'The Wall Street Near Miss'?
Truth; to tell Norm (who knows what veracity is).
Did you know if you order a 'cookie' (biscuit) in a fast food restaurant 99 times out of a hundred, Americans will eat it plain without any cream or topping? - it's just not done. Toast - not in a fast food outlet. Plates - no - unless they are paper plates.
Fireworks - not associated with football. Hot dogs stalls - no - concession stands - car park - no - parking lots. Grass - unlikely, now Astroturf. Athlete's singlet - no - Sweats
And then, remove all double "ll" from words and change 's' into 'z' - it just went on and on. My sense of humour - sorry humor - was wearing thin - sorry we don't use that expression in this country. You say States - we say country. It a'int helpful - sorry most Americans unless you're a hobo do not use 'ain't. And not hobo -homeless person.
As my helpful? editor said 'England and America are separated by a common language.'
King Arthur and the Knights of the IKEA flatpack table?
Click here to sign up now.