Quote:
Originally Posted by Sirtel
As to the modern sensibilities... Any historical novel (and by that I mean a novel by a modern author set in the past) which would not fail under scrutiny according to modern sensibilities is badly written in my opinion. I hate historical novels where characters think, speak and behave like modern people in costumes, or express opinions far too advanced for their time period. The fact is, people didn't think, speak and behave according to modern sensibilities in the past, and to have your historical characters doing so is just plain ignorance or poor writing.
I'm writing this because I've seen too many characters in historical novels criticized for not having the 21st century values and sensibilities. I've never understood that. If you want modern values, why read a historical novel? Read a contemporary one.
|
I agree with you. One of my pet peeves is historical anachronisms. That's why I think you have to be able to see both elements and hold conflicting thoughts. A character needs to be true to his times, but you can also deplore attitudes toward women, minorities and so forth.
I would say, though, that Rochester is a fail even by Victorian standards. Bigamy didn't pass muster even then.