Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
1:47 pm
June 24, 2009
Offline
The question is: should serious historians perhaps consider taking a vow of celibacy in regard to the temptations of reading historical fiction?
Well, yes, I know this is a silly question. And I don't expect anyone to provide a direct answer – especially in the affirmative. But it is a question that is worth asking, nonetheless. There are, for instance, historians on a certain Yahoo Tudor forum that I belong to who become anxious when they recall something that they have read, but are not quite sure if it was a factual first-hand source or a work of fiction. They are plagued by guilt. Moreover, there seems to be a bit of a battle raging there between those who like to quote from works of fiction quite frequently and those who become very upset and are constantly reminding others that fiction is not fact! Well, that is also pretty obvious. Fiction is not fact. But why then do some of us persist in referring to fictional works on forums like this? Now that is a question worth answering … and so here goes.
Historical fiction is immensely valuable and a lot of people love it. It provides us with the advantage of being able to speculate, to hypothesize, to imagine how things felt for those who experienced history at the time. It brings history alive. Authors take liberties with the facts from time to time, sure – and some more so than others – but that is not an obstacle to understanding history. We understand history all the better when we think about its implications for those who experienced it. And that's where imagination and a little bit of flare comes in handy. Alison Weir has been a reasonably clever historian, but is also now a wonderful author of fiction, loved my millions. With her, there was always a story-teller waiting to burst out and become a wonderful new creature of imagination and discovery. We are all the more enriched because this occurred. As long as we recognize the distinction between Weir the historian and Weir the fiction writer, all should be well.
Dickens’s 'Tale of Two Cities' might also have had one or two inaccuracies in a purely academic sense, but it certainly helps us to imagine what the people of those times went through. It was already history when he wrote it, of course – at a distance of half a century or so, yet we feel we are there, and our understanding of the past is enriched by the experience of being privy to the thoughts of his characters.
So no … historians aren't quite at the point where they need to take vows never to read or refer to fiction ever. We are not quite ready for the confessional just yet. And long may that continue. As us Brits say … let's have our cake and eat it! Live and let live, too!
What do you think?
2:42 pm
February 16, 2009
Offline
He he! When I read the title of the thread it made me wonder if you were saying that historians should be properly celibate and concentrate on history rather than the things that may distract them!!
I definitely see your point as I do get lots of questions thrown at me about historical fiction and \”The Tudors\”, with people taking them as fact. However, this gives me chance to set the story straight and \”educate\” people about the truth. I really enjoy reading historical fiction to wind down, but actually much prefer reading a biography or factual book. I also see your point about historians being worried that they will confuse fact with fiction and this must be so easy to do. I'm always checking Ives and Warnicke when I'm writing about Anne!
It's very easy to jump on the bandwagon and have a go at novelists and TV producers etc. about the liberties they take but historical novels are fiction and \”The Tudors\” is entertainment, neither of them are pretending to be anything else. What I do like with historical fiction is when the author takes the time to write a note at the end of the book explaining their sources or why they have taken the \”liberties\” they have. It's fantastic that people are inspired by history and that it gets their creative juices flowing, and I think that they can do what they want with a story, afterall if something is quite cearly labelled fiction then they really don't have a responsibility to the reader.
I've said it before, but I'm not \”down\” on historical fiction or programmes like \”The Tudors\” because I think they paint a wonderful picture of the period and really draw people in. They capture people's interest and make people want to know more about that period in history and I'm sure, despited David Starkey's complaints about \”The Tudors\”, that they have helped his book and DVD sales!
Yes, I want my cake and I want to eat it too! I want the best of both worlds! Thanks, Sarah, for a great discussion starter!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
6:31 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
Sarah, I belong to that same tudor group.. LOL
I've read the posts, and honestly I just laugh. I haven't read alot of the historical fiction, but there are some that take it for cannon, and they are very passionate about it. It's all entertainment… and I wish some would recognize that. I admire those who can write that kind of fiction, and make it believeable.
The Tudors are totally entertainment. Henry VIII did not look the way Jonthan Rhys Meyers does. People can say what they want, and believe what they choose to believe. There is no point in aruging with them, they are not likely to change their minds easily. I love the show, despite the inaccuracies, and could care less about them. If I want to know the truth, I'll go to my trusty books and find it..
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
10:44 pm
June 24, 2009
Offline
LadytoAnneBoleyn said:
Sarah, I belong to that same tudor group.. LOL
I've read the posts, and honestly I just laugh. I haven't read alot of the historical fiction, but there are some that take it for cannon, and they are very passionate about it. It's all entertainment… and I wish some would recognize that. I admire those who can write that kind of fiction, and make it believeable.
The Tudors are totally entertainment. Henry VIII did not look the way Jonthan Rhys Meyers does. People can say what they want, and believe what they choose to believe. There is no point in aruging with them, they are not likely to change their minds easily. I love the show, despite the inaccuracies, and could care less about them. If I want to know the truth, I'll go to my trusty books and find it..
Hi 'LadytoAnneBoleyn!'
Well, you probably know what I mean. It was getting to be quite passionate, I thought – with all those comments about people who quoted from fictional works and then others becoming so incredibly upset about it – as if those concerned were in some sense unaware of the fact that it was fiction! They are all intelligent, clever people, and of course they do know it is fiction! They don't need to be told! But some just get so irritable about it. And then they become even more irritable when they worry that they might be recalling something themselves from a work of fiction instead of fact. So there is only really one way around it, I thought – a vow of celibacy, never to touch the demon fiction in ones lifetime. Then one can become a pure historian.
Actually, it is a wonderful group. I am constantly amazed and in awe of their knowledge and experience, I have to say.
Forgive me for asking. What is your nickname on Yahoo Tudors? Or is it hush, hush?
11:39 pm
June 20, 2009
Offline
LOL.. my yahoo username is arwen051705..
It was getting pretty heated at times.. I just stay out of things like that..
Let not my enemies sit as my jury
2:50 pm
June 23, 2009
Offline
You know I was recently wondering how true blue died in the wool historians divorced themselves from any dramatic fiction they could have read for entertainment while studying their subjects. I think that certain authors have really injected these historical figures with a good dose of humanity, and above all else while studying historical figures it does help to bear in mind that these people were human, and made human errors, and had all the passion and drive that any human being would have.
Diem et animus scire cupio: I desire knowledge of the soul.
8:14 pm
June 24, 2009
Offline
LadytoAnneBoleyn said:
LOL.. my yahoo username is arwen051705..
It was getting pretty heated at times.. I just stay out of things like that..
Ah ha! I recognise that photograph!
Thanks, too, 'gweene' for your comments.
And of course – the other point I made on that distinguished forum, and I think it would be OK to repeat it here (apologies 'LadytoAnneBoleyn' if you have already read something similar elsewhere) is that even the best historians can be prone to error. The documents they rely on could be forged, or misleading, for example – the victors always writing their version of history etc. They may choose to ignore other documents that do not match their thesis or the thrust of their book or paper. Or they might miss vital pieces of evidence in the course of their research. And finally, they may misinterpret an absence of evidence as 'evidence of absence' – as when historians sometimes reliably tell us that people never washed in the 16th century (which of course they did).
They are telling a made-up version of history, too.
Possibly their very insistence on not using their imaginations might even lead to error sometimes because they fail to follow up a particularly lead that could provide new information and insights. No matter how great we might think ourselves to be as historians, amateur or professional, our views of the past are inevitably coloured by human error, prejudice and subjective ideas. No one can escape that.
2:56 am
October 13, 2009
Offline
The vow should be optional. Not being able to read historical fiction, just because you're a historian, negates your right to read and ponder things. You have to natural right to quesion everything, and who knows! Maybe an author could be on to something, that a historian could prove!
10:31 am
February 16, 2009
Offline
It is a funny thought that an historian may actually get mixed up between fact and fiction and end up proponing a myth, something that they actually read in a Philippa Gregory novel!
I actually love historical fiction, as I have said before, because it is a combination of my two loves – history and literature, but I do find it hard to overlook glaring inaccuracies or an author giving a completely false impression of an historical character. I also think that it's helpful for the writer to put a note in saying what is fact and what is fiction so that people are clear.
I like what you say, Team Boleyn, about an author uncovering something that an historian could go on to prove. That could very well happen if an author is deeply researching a subject – how wonderful!
Debunking the myths about Anne Boleyn
12:19 am
June 10, 2010
Offline
I think it is a bigg difference in writing about
1.What has happened
2. What could have happened
3. And free imagined stories.
As soon as you write about people that have lived you have less freedom (We cant let Anne Boylyn survive hnd be mother of several sons with Henry VIII however much we would want it)
if one for example would write a story set in Tudor times with invented characters one has much more freedom even if one has to be true to the main historical events.
One has to differ between History and stories .
5:10 am
February 8, 2010
Offline
I've just picked up on this post and I think Historical Fiction is important to get a lot of people interested in the first place and then if they want to research more, so much the better,
One also has to take the times in which history was written and how the “powers that be” looked at “facts ” at that time. A few years back I picked up a very interesting little text-book for young learrners which was printed in Victorian times. Actaullay, the concept was very good in the sense that at the end of every chapter there was not only a vocabulary section, a pronounciation section, and a summary of events. What did make me smile was the conclusion of King John. “King John was a wicked king and nothing good can be said about him”. It turns out that he was not as bad as first thought.
Rochie, Dickens is not my favourite author – I find him too dry – but a couple of years ago I did re-read “A Tale of Two Cities” in tandem with a Spanish friend of mine wo was reading it in translation. He's a waiter in my local so we would see each other often to comment and at first we were bored out of our tree tops until all the threads began to come together. I had read that novel a numer of times but it was this last time that it hit me that the famosu Madame Defauge knitted her victims names into her knitting. And I started out knitting at 3 years old (dropping stitches of course) and I don't have, nor want victims. Also do think CD did give a good idea of the poverty in Britain of the time which historians of that epoch would have done.
