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

[GtrsRGr8]

I ordinarily wouldn't post this ebook, because the markdown is too small (something like 40% off of the digital list price) for my standards. But I ran across it and it relates to the discussion on this thread, so I thought that some of you might be interested at least reading the book description of it.

It's Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders: A Writer's (& Editor's) Guide to Keeping Historical Fiction Free of Common Anachronisms, Errors, & Myths [Third Edition], by Susanne Alleyn.

This is not a book on how to write historical fiction. It is a book on how not to write historical fiction.

If you love history and you’re hard at work writing your first historical novel, but you’re wondering if your medieval Irishmen would live on potatoes, if your 17th-century pirate would use a revolver, or if your hero would be able to offer Marie-Antoinette a box of chocolate bonbons . . .

(The answer to all these is “Absolutely not!”)

. . . then Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders is the book for you.

Medieval Underpants will guide you through the factual mistakes that writers of historical fiction—both beginners and seasoned professionals—often make, and show you how to avoid them. From fictional characters crossing streets that wouldn’t exist for another sixty (or two thousand) years, to 1990s slang in the mouths of 1940s characters, to South American foods on ancient Roman plates, acclaimed historical novelist Susanne Alleyn exposes the often hilarious, always painful goofs that turn up most frequently in fiction set in the past.

Alleyn stresses the hazards to writers of assuming too much about details of life in past centuries, providing numerous examples of mistakes that could easily have been avoided. She also explores commonly-confused topics such as the important difference between pistols and revolvers, and between the British titles “Lord John Smith” and “John, Lord Smith” and why they’re not interchangeable, and provides simple guidelines for getting them right. In a wide assortment of chapters including Food and Plants; Travel; Guns; Money; Hygiene; Dialogue; Attitudes; Research; and, of course, Underpants, she offers tips on how to avoid errors and anachronisms while continually reminding writers of the necessity of meticulous historical research.

The Kindle price on it is currently $2.99. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00958628C

[badgoodDeb]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

It's Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders: A Writer's (& Editor's) Guide to Keeping Historical Fiction Free of Common Anachronisms, Errors, & Myths [Third Edition], by Susanne Alleyn.

This is not a book on how to write historical fiction. It is a book on how not to write historical fiction.

If you love history and you’re hard at work writing your first historical novel, but you’re wondering if your medieval Irishmen would live on potatoes, if your 17th-century pirate would use a revolver, or if your hero would be able to offer Marie-Antoinette a box of chocolate bonbons . . . ....

The Kindle price on it is currently $2.99. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00958628C

Oh, this sounds amusing! I'm going to skim the free sample, but it sounds highly tempting!

edit: Oh, *do* check out the sample, y'all. The underpants discussion is included in there, and it's highly entertaining!

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by badgoodDeb

Oh, this sounds amusing! I'm going to skim the free sample, but it sounds highly tempting!

edit: Oh, *do* check out the sample, y'all. The underpants discussion is included in there, and it's highly entertaining!

Thanks for the positive feedback.

[Sirtel]

Thank you. Bought it right away.

[4691mls]

I thought the Medieval Underpants book sounded interesting so I googled it to see where it might be available other than Amazon. In the ads on the right side of the page Google offered (modern) women's underpants in color called "medieval blue"

fyi - Kobo has the book for $4.99

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

But I'd like to see other eras explored! What if The Normans had been defeated in 1066 by Alfred?

Seeing as Alfred died in 899, that would have needed some kindle time-traveller too!

But if you really meant Harold, it would make a good story. We certainly wouldn't have the current English language!

[doubleshuffle]

Alfred and William should have eaten cake together instead of fighting.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

Alfred and William should have eaten cake together instead of fighting.

What, sort of a medieval Great British Bakeoff.

Well, Olde English Bakeoff anyway.

[GlenBarrington]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Seeing as Alfred died in 899, that would have needed some kindle time-traveller too!

But if you really meant Harold, it would make a good story. We certainly wouldn't have the current English language!

Ahh Yes! I double checked and you are correct! That comes from assuming I remembered the paper book, "1066 The Year of the Conquest" by David Howarth, better than I did. All the Anglo-Saxons look alike to me!

. . . But having Alfred defeat the Normans would make one HECK of an alternative history!

EDIT: BTW, I highly recommend the Howarth book, I checked and its available on Amazon as a paper book. Fortunately, I still have my copy from years ago, I'm gonna re-read

[Witty Username]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

What, sort of a medieval Great British Bakeoff.

Well, Olde English Bakeoff anyway.

I saw this tweet on another forum:

medieval bake off

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by GlenBarrington

What I hate is fiction that people confuse as history, Zorro, for instance. When that last Zorro movie came out my son was confused. How could the Spanish empire run California during the American Civil war? He wasn't sure which history was correct!

BUT I do love Alternate history! EVERYONE in that genre seems to want to do "What if the Germans won WWII", or "What if the CSA won the American Civil War" Everyone seems to do at least one version!

But I'd like to see other eras explored! What if The Normans had been defeated in 1066 by Alfred? Or if Genghis Kahn just couldn't seem to pull that empire thing off? What if Pedro De Alvarado was unable to conquer the Mayans? What if the Russians HADN'T sold Alaska to the USA?

These are all key points in history that need exploration!

Couldn't agree more! And if you happen to come across one, please tell me!

And sorry, but I've no idea who this Alfred (or Harold, or whoever) is, but I can think of other stories: what if the English and Dutch would have cooperated in the Golden Ages instead of bickered over the Spanish colonies, what if the Spanish had won the 80-years war, what if the Navigation Acts were never approved?) All those events had major repercussions but they are hardly ever touched in alternate history stories...

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

I ordinarily wouldn't post this ebook, because the markdown is too small (something like 40% off of the digital list price) for my standards. But I ran across it and it relates to the discussion on this thread, so I thought that some of you might be interested at least reading the book description of it.

It's Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders: A Writer's (& Editor's) Guide to Keeping Historical Fiction Free of Common Anachronisms, Errors, & Myths [Third Edition], by Susanne Alleyn.

<snip>

Sounds like an awesome book, I'll put it on my list to check out.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Couldn't agree more! And if you happen to come across one, please tell me!

And sorry, but I've no idea who this Alfred (or Harold, or whoever) is

Harold (not Alfred) was the Saxon king of England who was defeated by Duke William of Normandy (subsequently to be King William I of England) at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Had the Norman invasion not happened, the modern English language would certainly not exist in its present form.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Harold (not Alfred) was the Saxon king of England who was defeated by Duke William of Normandy (subsequently to be King William I of England) at the Battle of Hastings in 1066. Had the Norman invasion not happened, the modern English language would certainly not exist in its present form.

Ah, I was looking in the wrong direction then... When I read "Normans", I don't associate it the people from Normandy, but what we call the "Noormannen", which are the vikings (in Dutch: men from Norway). People from Normandy would be "Normandiërs", which were of course also originally vikings, but that's another story...

[HarryT]

Yes, the word "Norman" was originally "Norsemen". As you say, they were the descendants of Vikings.

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

That's my opinion. I hate the books (movies, audiobooks, what-have-you) that are based upon historical events, and so take liberties with the facts. I've had this opinion for a long time.

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.