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

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

It's not Emerson. It's Jessamyn West, from To See the Dream (1957).

In the 1957 first edition, it's on page 39 and is actually "Fiction reveals truths that reality obscures"

For irony's sake, I was really hoping it would turn out to be a quote from a fictionalized version of the man in the historical novel "Ralph Waldo Emerson: Zombie Survivalist"

[GtrsRGr8]

If I didn't say it before in a post on this thread, I'll say it now. I try to be open-minded and, honestly, I am on this subject.

I made the O.P. I've been thinking about how consistent that I am. I realized that I don't have a similar issue with science fiction (I don't read it, however), even though much of what is written in the books or portrayed in other media is not science. It may be someday, but right now is it's not. I wonder, "why the disparity in my thinking? Am I being inconsistent?"

Speaking of which, it's interesting that so much of the science fiction of, say, Jules Vernes' day, is now a reality. Isn't that interesting? And it makes you wonder how much of the science fiction today, that seems so far fetched or even impossible, may one day be really true!

While I'm thinking about it, the title of this thread was intended to be provocative and melodramatic (probably from my educational background in advertising and promotion and the years that I've spent writing advertising copy), to get attention. I've never felt as strongly as the title might have suggested.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I made the O.P. I've been thinking about how consistent that I am. I realized that I don't have a similar issue with science fiction (I don't read it, however), even though much of what is written in the books or portrayed in other media is not science. It may be someday, but right now is it's not. I wonder, "why the disparity in my thinking? Am I being inconsistent?"

Of course you're being inconsistent. But that's normal. Personal preferences don't have to be consistent. The error you're making is assuming that your personal dislike of Historical Fiction is somehow based on quantitative "truths" that should be shared by others. Let it go.

[BearMountainBooks]

I don't really like reading "straight-up" history. Too many facts, not enough action. I'm well aware that fictionalized historicals are "fictionalized." But, yanno, non-fiction history has been rewritten a few times too, usually for political reasons.

Jeffrey Hepple (now deceased) wrote The Angle of 1776 based on a local rumor/story. I enjoyed the heck out of it and I'd never have read a similar "factual" piece at all.

The same is true of Stone Song (Win Blevins). Never would have read a dry factual history book, but Blevins fictionalized the story and made it come alive. Was a really interesting read.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I don't really like reading "straight-up" history. Too many facts, not enough action. I'm well aware that fictionalized historicals are "fictionalized." But, yanno, non-fiction history has been rewritten a few times too, usually for political reasons.
<snip>

I think that it depends upon who's writing the history. I agree with you to this extent--if it's just a recitation of a bunch of dates and other facts, it is as dry as toast. I've read and heard (mainly, lately, heard) some history books, though, in which the author made his or her subject very interesting--the "sitting on the edge of your seat" kind of interesting.

I'll think of an example of one of those books and post it when I do. Nevermind, I just thought of one. I would have to go back and dig up the information, but it was one of this past summer's SYNC titles, one offered near the end of the program. It was intensely interesting. It was about the seige of Leningrad in World War II, but from the vantage point of a famous composer, who was from there, and who stayed in Leningrad during the whole seige, or nearly all of it. I have now forgotten his name. Someone has said that "all history is biography." I might amend that to "all good history is biography" and this book was an example of that.

I hear people, especially younger ones I think, say sometimes that "I don't like history." I think that the reason why is that they've had history teachers in high school and college that presented their subject in a way that was boring--mostly dry facts, etc. So, they have come to the conclusion that all history is that way.

I would like to comment on what you said about politicization in history texts, but I think that I'll leave that to another time or thread . . . .

[BearMountainBooks]

I do enjoy history--I just like it better when it's fictionalized or told from a POV that is personalized!

[Kasper Hviid]

To me, there's something offputting about trying to fictionalize historical events. It can only be enjoyed if you do not care about seperating the actual events from the fiction. And I do not want to be in that state of mind. I do not want to read something without caring whether it is factual or made up.

Journalism is always trying to find an 'angle' and fitting people into neat categories of heroes, villians or victims. Isn't that pre-chewed enough? Do we really need more?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

To me, there's something offputting about trying to fictionalize historical events. It can only be enjoyed if you do not care about seperating the actual events from the fiction. And I do not want to be in that state of mind. I do not want to read something without caring whether it is factual or made up.

Journalism is always trying to find an 'angle' and fitting people into neat categories of heroes, villians or victims. Isn't that pre-chewed enough? Do we really need more?

"We?" Well, YOU apparently don't. But for "we", yeah, for many of folks, it's interesting to imagine "what if" scenarios, or to imagine details of lives, relationships and activities that history would never record.
It can get one thinking about the past in the same way that science fiction gets one thinking about the future.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ApK

"We?" Well, YOU apparently don't. But for "we", yeah, for many of folks, it's interesting to imagine "what if" scenarios, or to imagine details of lives, relationships and activities that history would never record.
It can get one thinking about the past in the same way that science fiction get's one thinking about the future.

This.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

It can only be enjoyed if you do not care about seperating the actual events from the fiction.

Beg to differ. I care about that distinction, and STILL manage to enjoy historical fiction. But that's because I don't mind doing my own homework to check an author's work--fiction or non- (if I feel compelled to verify). I don't need an imaginary (and quite worthless) guarantee of authenticity for the historical aspects of a novel. It's a novel, not a textbook (which quite often, are no more prone to sustained levels accuracy than many novels are).

I think it's a mistake to think of Historical Fiction (merely a label like any other [sub]genre label, by the way) as being "fictionalized history". It's fiction ... with a historical setting. No more/no less.

I don't care if people don't "like" it. There's lots of subgenres I don't care for. But let's stop pretending this particular "label that helps people find fiction they enjoy" is anything to stress over. Let alone be considered "dangerous."

[Kasper Hviid]

I think we're looking at different aspects here. You say salad is healthy and tastes good, while I say that the cook never washes his hands.

One caveat, though - I have no problem with pure fiction taking place in historical setting. What irks me is fictionalizing of historical events, like when someone write Cleopatras biography. Sure, 'it's a novel, not a textbook' but on some level, it do functions as a textbook. As a reader, you're aware that what Cleopatra existed, and that what you read is what actually happened, kinda, except when it's made up. This limbo between what actually happened and make-believe rubs me the wrong way.

There were recently published a authentic novel about girl who was sexually abused by an older cousin. Only, the male author changed the victim to a boy and told "his" story in first person.

This novel irks me the same way. What exactly am I reading here? it's not fiction, but it's not authentic either. Am I supposed to emphatize with the true story of the boy, while I'm aware that it wasn't a boy at all?

[Sweetpea]

Offtopic:

Originally Posted by Katsunami

LOL, yeah. D/T problems. I love this one:

Verkeert (To be in a certain state)
Verkeerd (To be wrong, but also one of the past tenses of 'verkeert')

verassen vs verrassen (to become ashes vs to surprise) is a much better one

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I do enjoy history--I just like it better when it's fictionalized or told from a POV that is personalized!

It depends on the subject for me. Sometimes I like it better if it's fictionalized, sometimes it's better to simply read the bare facts. For me, it depends on size. It gives a completely different feeling if you read "1 thousand people were killed" or "I saw the streets littered with bodies, wherever I looked. I heard later that 1 thousand people were killed". The first I can't make a visual representation of in my head, the latter I can.

Originally Posted by Kasper Hviid

To me, there's something offputting about trying to fictionalize historical events. It can only be enjoyed if you do not care about seperating the actual events from the fiction. And I do not want to be in that state of mind. I do not want to read something without caring whether it is factual or made up.

Journalism is always trying to find an 'angle' and fitting people into neat categories of heroes, villians or victims. Isn't that pre-chewed enough? Do we really need more?

Actually, I'd have it turned around. Journalism should never categorize, it should be completely neutral (which is impossible, I know, but theoretically, I think it should). Let me decide based on the bare facts which side was right or wrong.

Historical facts that are fictionalized will generally become better readable and if done right, readers will look further than the book and see where the writer took some artistic freedom with the facts.

[HarryT]

A good historian can (and should be able to) make "the bare facts" interesting to the reader. I enjoy reading military history, and there are some excellent authors in that field who can write extremely readable books without the need to fictionalise events. Eg, such books as Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge too Far" about the Allied attempt to capture the bridge across the Rhine at Arnhem (which was subsequently made into a film) is a highly readable example.

Of course I enjoy reading historical fiction, too, but I never make the mistake of thinking that historical fiction is "history".

[Pablo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A good historian can (and should be able to) make "the bare facts" interesting to the reader. I enjoy reading military history, and there are some excellent authors in that field who can write extremely readable books without the need to fictionalise events. Eg, such books as Cornelius Ryan's "A Bridge too Far" about the Allied attempt to capture the bridge across the Rhine at Arnhem (which was subsequently made into a film) is a highly readable example.

Of course I enjoy reading historical fiction, too, but I never make the mistake of thinking that historical fiction is "history".

+1. Ben Macintyre is another good example.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course I enjoy reading historical fiction, too, but I never make the mistake of thinking that historical fiction is "history".

I honestly can't understand how any one would make that mistake. Fiction is fiction. There has always been fiction that utilized real places, people and events to help tell stories. Why, suddenly, are those that are set in specific historical periods being graded by a different standard (I don't mean by you personally, Harry)?

Is it only contemporary authors who write fiction surrounding events in the past who are doing "harm?" What about authors who write fiction which contains inaccurate representations of current events/people? Will that become "dangerous" when enough time has passed that the events portrayed have become "history?"

It's impossible to single out historical fiction as being more "dangerous" than fiction in general. Which of course is the real problem: some people are simply pedantically opposed the use of the word "historical" in such close proximity to the word "fiction."