Historical Novels, Period Dramas, etc. Should Not Exist!

[badgoodDeb]

The Underpants book above, mentions with high praise a novel I read a while back and loved -- so I'd best re-read it. Josephine Tey's "Daughter of Time" is completely a novel, set in modern times ... but the characters [i.e. Tey] raise *serious* questions about the world's opinion of England's Richard III, and also the killing of the "princes in the tower". As she points out, the *winners* wrote the history books. She examined other sources from the actual time period, and saw no such global condemnation of Richard III, nor any mention (till the next guy was on the throne) that he had been responsible for the killing of the princes. And that next guy was the one who benefitted .....

Even though it is itself fiction, the author, speaking through her characters, raises serious questions about what we *think* is truth and history.

(PS I recommend the book, too.) So this is ref: history books aren't always historical either.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by rcentros

History books aren't always historical either. Almost everyone comes into writing with their own bias. But I've never taken "historical fiction" seriously either. I watch it for the story, not for the history.

I look at "historical fiction" the same way I look at "science fiction." One is not historical and the other is not science.

I think a good historical fiction book (and the same goes for a science fiction book), will get you to look up what really happened. For instance, the Voyager series by Gabaldon. I never knew a lot about the Scottish/English history (excpet that the one were cattle thieves, and the other land thieves, completely biased naturally). But after reading those books, I started to get interested in those time periods, and started to read more about it ("real" historic accounts, as much as they are real, as we all know history is written by the victors).

[Luffy]

Originally Posted by rcentros

History books aren't always historical either. Almost everyone comes into writing with their own bias. But I've never taken "historical fiction" seriously either. I watch it for the story, not for the history.

I look at "historical fiction" the same way I look at "science fiction." One is not historical and the other is not science.

This!

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

("real" historic accounts, as much as they are real, as we all know history is written by the victors).

Naturally there is exceptions, Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States comes to mind. Not alternate history, or fiction, just simply an alternate view on traditional history written by victors.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I think a good historical fiction book (and the same goes for a science fiction book), will get you to look up what really happened. For instance, the Voyager series by Gabaldon. I never knew a lot about the Scottish/English history (excpet that the one were cattle thieves, and the other land thieves, completely biased naturally). But after reading those books, I started to get interested in those time periods, and started to read more about it ("real" historic accounts, as much as they are real, as we all know history is written by the victors).

Me too - I can't think of a specific example right now but I know there have been a few times I have looked for more information about a topic I first read about in fiction.

[william z]

Originally Posted by rcentros

History books aren't always historical either. Almost everyone comes into writing with their own bias. But I've never taken "historical fiction" seriously either. I watch it for the story, not for the history.

I look at "historical fiction" the same way I look at "science fiction." One is not historical and the other is not science.

That's very true. If you read history books from different countries sometimes you wonder if they are even writing about the same events. Everybody has their own bias and prejudices, and certainly nationalism figures into history books.

I suppose it comes down to why people read. Personally I read for entertainment, at my age I no longer need to "learn" anything; if I wanted to do that I would read textbooks. I do not care if an author plays fast and loose with supposed "historical facts" as long as a book is a good read. I do, however, like fairly accurate description of the time period. Nor do I read science fiction to learn about science or want to nitpick about many of the scientific inaccuracies and impossibilities you find in science fiction.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by william z

I suppose it comes down to why people read. Personally I read for entertainment, at my age I no longer need to "learn" anything; if I wanted to do that I would read textbooks. I do not care if an author plays fast and loose with supposed "historical facts" as long as a book is a good read. I do, however, like fairly accurate description of the time period. Nor do I read science fiction to learn about science or want to nitpick about many of the scientific inaccuracies and impossibilities you find in science fiction.

This.
True, I have perhaps not reached such a venerable age quite yet, but if I want to learn something, I'll read a non-fictional book. Fiction is for entertainment.

[HarryT]

I'm no spring chicken (to put it mildly!) but I hope that I never reach an age where I don't want to learn anything. I've enjoyed learning new things (generally utterly impractical things, like the ancient Egyptian language ) my whole life, and generally have a textbook on something or other on the go alongside my fiction reading.

[QuantumIguana]

I don't expect science fiction to be a science textbook, but the author ought to understand science, and only depart from it when the story requires it. For example, faster than light travel may not be possible, but it's a necessary element if you're not going to have travel between stars take decades. If the author doesn't understand science, I put the book down. Similarly, I don't expect a historical fiction book to be a history textbook, but I expect the author knows history. I want a historical fiction book to have people, ideas and events that are plausible. Anachronism will get me to put down the book.

Of course, I'm not telling anyone else what to do.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I like historical fiction. When well done, it helps the reader understand how major events affected individual people in a very personal way.

And there are some good writers of the genre. james michener is an example I think. Some of his books have even been made into mini-series on TV. Centennial is one such.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

This.
True, I have perhaps not reached such a venerable age quite yet, but if I want to learn something, I'll read a non-fictional book. Fiction is for entertainment.

Ah but salting some real facts about a time period into a piece of fiction can help make the illusion of reality that much richer. An example on TV is the episode of Star Trek where they end up being thrown back to the 1960's around the time of the first moon shot. I don't know if it was an actual news broadcast but around the same time we were actually working to reach the moon. Or there is "Space" which followed the lives of people who may not have existed themselves but there were people like them who did take part in actual historic events on which the story was based.

[doubleshuffle]

Exactly. Or like when the Doctor met Winston Churchill during the London Blitz, with his Dalek troops.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by crich70

And there are some good writers of the genre. james michener is an example I think. Some of his books have even been made into mini-series on TV. Centennial is one such.

And what about South Pacific?

[Timboli]

I haven't read any replies yet, but feel I need to wade in with some home truths. History is not necessarily based on fact. It tends to be based on what someone thinks are the facts, usually either a very long time after events occurred or written by the winners or someone else with a bias.

All Historians use a bit of poetic license, and some are far better story tellers than others, who are dry and boring, even with what should be interesting subject matter. Of course many do it that way to make themselves look more official. Yes, snobbery does exist amongst Historians, especially amongst those who believe they are the only true ones.

One of the best historians out there, and noted for the fact, was Rafael Sabatini, who also wrote some of the best Historical Romance novels (or Period Dramas if you prefer). He always researched diligently, even for his fictional stuff, and his liberties were always based on real life occurrences somewhere.

Whatever you read, it should always be taken with a grain of salt, so anyone foolish enough to put too much stock in what they read or see or hear, is exactly that.

I read or watch movies etc for a bunch of reasons, primarily amongst them is entertainment. Being true to life is way down the list, as I get enough of true life as it is.

There is a reason it is called escapism.

I'll finish up by saying it's all a lie, from a different perspective, that may or may not be right in a specific context.

Believe what you will, for it does not really matter.

Life is built upon a foundation of Lies and Truth, whichever way you roll the die.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Shouldn't we read historical novels which were written by contemporaries of the period? Dickens, Austen, Hardy, George Eliot, all wrote novels based in their own times and some, like the Brontes wrote them based a little before: Wuthering Heights starts in 1750, a good 50+ years before Emily was born.
Are this bad for us too? Then my mind must be totally polluted by this 'trash'.
As to historical fiction written now about the past, would you class those which are about the lives of people who actually lived, such as Jean Plaidy's novels regarding the lives of various royal dynasties, with novels about totally fictional characters based during a time long gone?

There are lots of nuances to the historical fiction genre, you need to be more specific.

What about science fiction? Ban that on the grounds that the future may not be how those books depict? Actually some of the H G Wells books, and others, have been frighteningly accurate, though we still don't have a time machine and I haven't seen any morlocks lately.

But Dickens and Bronte wrote contemporary novels. Just "their" contemporary.