This was such a superb exposition of this issue - of which I'm aware because I write historical novels - that I'm saving it. However, I'd be grateful for your permission to quote from it or use excerpts when I'm asked to speak to writing groups, schools, etc. (This doesn't happen very often, but your points are so important, and so cogently stated, that I really can't do better myself and would appreciate being allowed to poach yours. Thank you.
Great article. I also write historical fiction. I had a reader complain that my characters, set in 1650s Massachusetts Colony, were unlikeable because of their beliefs and actions were reprehensible. What can I say? Welcome to the past!
Indeed. If there is one thing that a good history and a good historical novel should both do, it is shake the reader out of their simple moral self-assurance. But, of course, there is more money to be made in confirming people in their simple moral self-assurance. Hopefully you will find readers who appreciate the opportunity you have given them to understand how a person in different circumstances might have very different moral opinions.
On the bright side, you can rest assured that other readers will complain about unrealistic beliefs, so it wasn't like you could have pleased everyone by falsifying it.
Well reasoned and interesting. I am a Canadian though and I was confused by this statement: "Once it was established that free trade led to greater prosperity, imperial powers ceased to defend and maintain their empires, letting some possessions go free and actually kicking some possessions out, as Britain did with certain Canadian provinces that were reluctant to leave. " When did this happen? What provinces were "kicked out" and when?
Hi Mary, thanks for the comment. I was working from memory on this, and did not go back and re-research to topic. But from what I remember of what I read in the past, with a little confirmation from a quick check of Wikipedia:
* First of all, there is the obvious fact that Britain fought to keep America and did not fight to keep Canada.
* Confederation was deeply unpopular with a large section of the Nova Scotia population.
* PEI, despite hosting the Charlottetown conference, did not join confederation until 1873, at the urging of both Canada and the UK, because of their accumulated railway debts. They also they made overtures to the US about becoming a state, which alarmed Canada considerably.
* Newfoundland was not particularly thrilled about joining Canada either, with many preferring to remain a separate Dominion. Britain was pushing them to join Canada.
Of course, the story of Britain's move away from empire is far more complex than can be captured in a sentence or two. But that is the limitation one faces when pulling together examples to support a different point.
Thanks. I was aware that Newfoundland joining Confederation was not really popular with many of its citizens and really came about mainly through the efforts of Joey Smallwood who became Newfoundland's first premier. Confederation itself in 1867 was also met with mixed reactions in all four provinces. I don't think Wikipedia is the greatest place to go for Canadian history though. But don't ask me where to look, I am not an historian LOL.
But I really agree with your points about how very different people in the past thought than we do. Concepts that we consider 'normal' just weren't alive in years gone by. I don't think we can even imagine the mindset of a person in the past, even the fairly recent past.
Well said! One of the joys of historical fiction for me is its flexibility as a medium. It can serve almost any creative end the author has in mind, as long as we remember it's _fiction_. I'm partial to the stories that don't deliberately distort the views and values of the period in an attempt to please modern sensibilities. I strive for that in my own novel. But I recognize that, even with the best research and intense sympathy, no writer can ever fully know the hearts, minds, or motives of people from another era (the past is a foreign country, etc.) We barely understand our own. In the end, we're all educated guessers.
I like this essay. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said and there are some pithy statements that I thought were useful. "We have an inbuilt fear of exclusion, since for most of human existence, exile was a death sentence" is one of them. One odd effect of this is you've managed to make me distrust historical novels and academic history in pretty much equal measure. In the final analysis, it seems we can never do much more than intuit the past in a vague sort of way, and it's hard to say, assuming I wanted to know about the Aztecs, if it would be better to read the novel about the Aztec dishwasher or the scholarly study of Aztec temple architecture. One of my favorite subjects for daydreaming is about time travel to observe events and meet people from the past. (Currently top of my list of people: Anton Chekhov.) Based on your essay, I might suggest the closest thing to an accurate (if subjective view) of history is to read what was considered the contemporary fiction of an era (assuming it exists). Of course, even that is flawed. Chekhov didn't write about stuff he thought was obvious to everybody, though for us much of the unstated would be a revelation. Anyway, enjoyed this. And it's true. The civil war reenactors are all wearing modern underpants!
I read that statement and beg to differ. Pierre Briant, a French historian of ancient culture (specifically Persia), has an opening line from his book; From Cyrus to Alexander, where he quotes an artist. “Even if it is not true, you have to believe in ancient history”.
It is a real challenge to convey historical characters authentically without being seen to endorse discriminatory views. One approach I think is to show the characters’ contradictory ideas, as when Ragnar Lothbrok on the TV Vikings series is fine with having a slave but can’t help treating him as loved friend. But, yes the easier option is putting modern beliefs in their mouths, or, for example, having ninth century men with 21st century-values wives.
Well, there's really a wider problem in this, in the sense that the author today is expected to endorse or condemn the views of their characters, rather than just portray them. This is the politicization of literature, and it does enormous damage to the proper function of art, which is to calibrate our minds to reality.
I suppose in the sense that some of the things portrayed in historical fiction are historically valid. The problem then would be to know and which were not, which would require further research. But if an historical novel does lead someone to further research, that's a good thing.
I must say that, as a homeschooling father, I disagree. It seems to me you set a rather high bar on 'learn history', and you seem to leave out some, well, history.
My children read dozens of works by GA Henty, for example. Now, there is no doubt that GA Henty twisted history to fit his desire for the narrative. But, then, so do all historians. So to say that they didn't learn history from Henty is merely to say that one can never learn history.
What most of us mean by 'learn history' is not the high bar abstraction you present, but the act of exposing our children to historical events and views that differ from their own. And historical fiction can do that. Not perfectly, but better than Netflix.
There is another kind of 'historical fiction' which is in an odd place, namely stories written in a previous epoch. Thus they are fiction, and historical *to us*. For example, "Little Britches". Written reasonably extemporaneously, the modern child reading them will not only learn facts which they probably won't know, but attitudes.
As a critique of much modern historical fiction, however, I believe this article is spot on. Too much historical fiction does have their characters wearing modern underpants... and little else.
It is true that all historians have their biases. But the good ones will give credit to the opposing views and to the difficulties of their own interpretations. It is no part of a novelist's business to do that. Their whole business is to tell a story of complete certainty. The historian may fail to give the appropriate caveats, in which case they fail in their craft. But the novelist's obligation to to present a story world in which all things are certain.
You are right, though, that historical fiction can expose children to the past and to views different from their own. These are both very good things. And if that leads them to the study of history, that is also a good thing. But it is not the same thing.
Well, it seems to me that ‘the good ones’ is an issue that must apply to both crafts… and the opposite as well. Bad historians will use their credentials to present a false view of the past. Bad historical fiction writers will do the same thing.
A good historical fiction writer will set their characters and plot in a scene which is as close to the actual history as they can manage. A bad historical fiction writer will write modern underpants.
But for children I believe that the medium of historical fiction (which would include such things as biographies which must, if they are to tell a decent story, have large elements of fiction. We cannot tell what the character ate for breakfast, or what kind of argument he had with his wife… even if we know that he didn’t have a good relationship with his wife, or was very fat) is a much more powerful medium for teaching history than ‘history books’, even with their caveats. (And you can’t caveat everything!).
And, as I mentioned, a very good method of teaching history would be having them read books which are only historical to us… they were written at the time. But they, too, will contain inaccuracies, since all human beings have their biases. A modern child reading Henry Reed will learn about a lifestyle they do not share… even if the author got some facts wrong.
Perhaps some of this is a genre issue. But I believe that the writer of historical fiction for children (at the very least) should hope that the children are learning history from their work. They should even be willing to sacrifice things that they might wish to put in the story for accuracy. And they must be willing to offend modern readers… for accuracy.
But true vs false impressions of the past is not the issue. Certain vs. uncertain impressions of the past is the issue. The responsibility of the historian is to make clear the degree of uncertainty in the impression they give of the past. The responsibility of the novelist to to create a perfectly clear impression of the world and events of their story.
But yes, reading books from the period you are studying is an important part of the study of history. But if one reads them as an historian, one reads them in a very different way than if one reads them as a lover of literature.
I'm not denying, of course, that historical fiction can develop an appetite for history in children. Of course it can. Without Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill and Rosemary Sutcliffe's many historical novels, I probably would not have gone on to study history. But exciting an interest in history and studying it properly are different things, and if someone imagines that they have learned history from historical novels alone is sadly mistaken.
Ah, well, I am writing and thinking of it from the standpoint of an educator of children. I wish the books that I write, and the books that I choose for my children to read, to educate the children I write them for in the history of the period they are written and, indeed, in the very idea of history. The very idea that life was different back then, and some of the differences.
So as a historical fiction writer for young people, the story is, in many ways, in service to the history… not the other way around. Yes, I have to invent things, and there are things I don’t know (such as the price of fish and chips on the streets of London in 1889… a problem I had the other day), but I do my best to be as historically accurate as a children’s book may be; and to present history in such a way as to demonstrate the differences to the children I am writing for.
And when I pick historical fiction, or fiction written in old times, I look for the same thing. Thus GA Henty and Ralph Moody, among others.
Very interesting article. I am now writing my first novel and it is set in a kind of gothic-false-Middle Ages, with intended and obvious fantasies (priestesses in the Church, but also other fantasies like demons walking in our world, e.g.) but mixed with historical places and facts. I am doing this on purpose, because I am interested in telling a story about spiritual and metaphysical angst and horror, and the myths that gothic literature associates with that (historically false) era is the perfect ambience for this.
Your article resonates to me, precisely because I have taken the radical path of showing just the historical as myth. I just want to tell a story, a good one if I can. In the end, all fictions are fantasies.
This was such a superb exposition of this issue - of which I'm aware because I write historical novels - that I'm saving it. However, I'd be grateful for your permission to quote from it or use excerpts when I'm asked to speak to writing groups, schools, etc. (This doesn't happen very often, but your points are so important, and so cogently stated, that I really can't do better myself and would appreciate being allowed to poach yours. Thank you.
Certainly. With attribution, if you would be so kind.
No question of that! I always give credit where it's due - and you've earned it.
Hello Ms.Meyers, which historical novel do you consider far-fetched from reality?
Great article. I also write historical fiction. I had a reader complain that my characters, set in 1650s Massachusetts Colony, were unlikeable because of their beliefs and actions were reprehensible. What can I say? Welcome to the past!
Indeed. If there is one thing that a good history and a good historical novel should both do, it is shake the reader out of their simple moral self-assurance. But, of course, there is more money to be made in confirming people in their simple moral self-assurance. Hopefully you will find readers who appreciate the opportunity you have given them to understand how a person in different circumstances might have very different moral opinions.
On the bright side, you can rest assured that other readers will complain about unrealistic beliefs, so it wasn't like you could have pleased everyone by falsifying it.
Well reasoned and interesting. I am a Canadian though and I was confused by this statement: "Once it was established that free trade led to greater prosperity, imperial powers ceased to defend and maintain their empires, letting some possessions go free and actually kicking some possessions out, as Britain did with certain Canadian provinces that were reluctant to leave. " When did this happen? What provinces were "kicked out" and when?
Hi Mary, thanks for the comment. I was working from memory on this, and did not go back and re-research to topic. But from what I remember of what I read in the past, with a little confirmation from a quick check of Wikipedia:
* First of all, there is the obvious fact that Britain fought to keep America and did not fight to keep Canada.
* Confederation was deeply unpopular with a large section of the Nova Scotia population.
* PEI, despite hosting the Charlottetown conference, did not join confederation until 1873, at the urging of both Canada and the UK, because of their accumulated railway debts. They also they made overtures to the US about becoming a state, which alarmed Canada considerably.
* Newfoundland was not particularly thrilled about joining Canada either, with many preferring to remain a separate Dominion. Britain was pushing them to join Canada.
Of course, the story of Britain's move away from empire is far more complex than can be captured in a sentence or two. But that is the limitation one faces when pulling together examples to support a different point.
Thanks. I was aware that Newfoundland joining Confederation was not really popular with many of its citizens and really came about mainly through the efforts of Joey Smallwood who became Newfoundland's first premier. Confederation itself in 1867 was also met with mixed reactions in all four provinces. I don't think Wikipedia is the greatest place to go for Canadian history though. But don't ask me where to look, I am not an historian LOL.
But I really agree with your points about how very different people in the past thought than we do. Concepts that we consider 'normal' just weren't alive in years gone by. I don't think we can even imagine the mindset of a person in the past, even the fairly recent past.
Agreed. I went as far as to put a disclaimer in the front of my “historical” novel that it was a work of fiction, not history.
Well said! One of the joys of historical fiction for me is its flexibility as a medium. It can serve almost any creative end the author has in mind, as long as we remember it's _fiction_. I'm partial to the stories that don't deliberately distort the views and values of the period in an attempt to please modern sensibilities. I strive for that in my own novel. But I recognize that, even with the best research and intense sympathy, no writer can ever fully know the hearts, minds, or motives of people from another era (the past is a foreign country, etc.) We barely understand our own. In the end, we're all educated guessers.
Only a few, but pointed words - Spot on, brother.
I like this essay. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what you said and there are some pithy statements that I thought were useful. "We have an inbuilt fear of exclusion, since for most of human existence, exile was a death sentence" is one of them. One odd effect of this is you've managed to make me distrust historical novels and academic history in pretty much equal measure. In the final analysis, it seems we can never do much more than intuit the past in a vague sort of way, and it's hard to say, assuming I wanted to know about the Aztecs, if it would be better to read the novel about the Aztec dishwasher or the scholarly study of Aztec temple architecture. One of my favorite subjects for daydreaming is about time travel to observe events and meet people from the past. (Currently top of my list of people: Anton Chekhov.) Based on your essay, I might suggest the closest thing to an accurate (if subjective view) of history is to read what was considered the contemporary fiction of an era (assuming it exists). Of course, even that is flawed. Chekhov didn't write about stuff he thought was obvious to everybody, though for us much of the unstated would be a revelation. Anyway, enjoyed this. And it's true. The civil war reenactors are all wearing modern underpants!
You make a lot of good points, especially the point about how modern writers tend to project modern ways of thinking onto past people.
I read that statement and beg to differ. Pierre Briant, a French historian of ancient culture (specifically Persia), has an opening line from his book; From Cyrus to Alexander, where he quotes an artist. “Even if it is not true, you have to believe in ancient history”.
It is a real challenge to convey historical characters authentically without being seen to endorse discriminatory views. One approach I think is to show the characters’ contradictory ideas, as when Ragnar Lothbrok on the TV Vikings series is fine with having a slave but can’t help treating him as loved friend. But, yes the easier option is putting modern beliefs in their mouths, or, for example, having ninth century men with 21st century-values wives.
Well, there's really a wider problem in this, in the sense that the author today is expected to endorse or condemn the views of their characters, rather than just portray them. This is the politicization of literature, and it does enormous damage to the proper function of art, which is to calibrate our minds to reality.
Sometimes you can, but that's a logical accident. Far more often I have seen an error ripple through a genre because they use each other as research.
I suppose in the sense that some of the things portrayed in historical fiction are historically valid. The problem then would be to know and which were not, which would require further research. But if an historical novel does lead someone to further research, that's a good thing.
I must say that, as a homeschooling father, I disagree. It seems to me you set a rather high bar on 'learn history', and you seem to leave out some, well, history.
My children read dozens of works by GA Henty, for example. Now, there is no doubt that GA Henty twisted history to fit his desire for the narrative. But, then, so do all historians. So to say that they didn't learn history from Henty is merely to say that one can never learn history.
What most of us mean by 'learn history' is not the high bar abstraction you present, but the act of exposing our children to historical events and views that differ from their own. And historical fiction can do that. Not perfectly, but better than Netflix.
There is another kind of 'historical fiction' which is in an odd place, namely stories written in a previous epoch. Thus they are fiction, and historical *to us*. For example, "Little Britches". Written reasonably extemporaneously, the modern child reading them will not only learn facts which they probably won't know, but attitudes.
As a critique of much modern historical fiction, however, I believe this article is spot on. Too much historical fiction does have their characters wearing modern underpants... and little else.
It is true that all historians have their biases. But the good ones will give credit to the opposing views and to the difficulties of their own interpretations. It is no part of a novelist's business to do that. Their whole business is to tell a story of complete certainty. The historian may fail to give the appropriate caveats, in which case they fail in their craft. But the novelist's obligation to to present a story world in which all things are certain.
You are right, though, that historical fiction can expose children to the past and to views different from their own. These are both very good things. And if that leads them to the study of history, that is also a good thing. But it is not the same thing.
Well, it seems to me that ‘the good ones’ is an issue that must apply to both crafts… and the opposite as well. Bad historians will use their credentials to present a false view of the past. Bad historical fiction writers will do the same thing.
A good historical fiction writer will set their characters and plot in a scene which is as close to the actual history as they can manage. A bad historical fiction writer will write modern underpants.
But for children I believe that the medium of historical fiction (which would include such things as biographies which must, if they are to tell a decent story, have large elements of fiction. We cannot tell what the character ate for breakfast, or what kind of argument he had with his wife… even if we know that he didn’t have a good relationship with his wife, or was very fat) is a much more powerful medium for teaching history than ‘history books’, even with their caveats. (And you can’t caveat everything!).
And, as I mentioned, a very good method of teaching history would be having them read books which are only historical to us… they were written at the time. But they, too, will contain inaccuracies, since all human beings have their biases. A modern child reading Henry Reed will learn about a lifestyle they do not share… even if the author got some facts wrong.
Perhaps some of this is a genre issue. But I believe that the writer of historical fiction for children (at the very least) should hope that the children are learning history from their work. They should even be willing to sacrifice things that they might wish to put in the story for accuracy. And they must be willing to offend modern readers… for accuracy.
But true vs false impressions of the past is not the issue. Certain vs. uncertain impressions of the past is the issue. The responsibility of the historian is to make clear the degree of uncertainty in the impression they give of the past. The responsibility of the novelist to to create a perfectly clear impression of the world and events of their story.
But yes, reading books from the period you are studying is an important part of the study of history. But if one reads them as an historian, one reads them in a very different way than if one reads them as a lover of literature.
I'm not denying, of course, that historical fiction can develop an appetite for history in children. Of course it can. Without Kipling's Puck of Pook's Hill and Rosemary Sutcliffe's many historical novels, I probably would not have gone on to study history. But exciting an interest in history and studying it properly are different things, and if someone imagines that they have learned history from historical novels alone is sadly mistaken.
Ah, well, I am writing and thinking of it from the standpoint of an educator of children. I wish the books that I write, and the books that I choose for my children to read, to educate the children I write them for in the history of the period they are written and, indeed, in the very idea of history. The very idea that life was different back then, and some of the differences.
So as a historical fiction writer for young people, the story is, in many ways, in service to the history… not the other way around. Yes, I have to invent things, and there are things I don’t know (such as the price of fish and chips on the streets of London in 1889… a problem I had the other day), but I do my best to be as historically accurate as a children’s book may be; and to present history in such a way as to demonstrate the differences to the children I am writing for.
And when I pick historical fiction, or fiction written in old times, I look for the same thing. Thus GA Henty and Ralph Moody, among others.
I mean this seriously, have you read “Abraham Lincoln Vampire Slayer”?
Very interesting article. I am now writing my first novel and it is set in a kind of gothic-false-Middle Ages, with intended and obvious fantasies (priestesses in the Church, but also other fantasies like demons walking in our world, e.g.) but mixed with historical places and facts. I am doing this on purpose, because I am interested in telling a story about spiritual and metaphysical angst and horror, and the myths that gothic literature associates with that (historically false) era is the perfect ambience for this.
Your article resonates to me, precisely because I have taken the radical path of showing just the historical as myth. I just want to tell a story, a good one if I can. In the end, all fictions are fantasies.