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

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I honestly can't understand how any one would make that mistake.

Nor do I, but a number of people in this thread have said that their preferred method of learning about historical events is to read historical fiction rather than history, so it does appear to be a fairly widespread view.

Of course there's good and bad historical fiction, but even the best fiction isn't necessarily good history. Eg, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, Hilary Mantel's Booker prize-winning "Wolf Hall", a fictionalised biography of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII, has been criticised by historians for painting a misleading portrait of Cromwell, so to read the novel and think you know about Cromwell as a result might perhaps be unwise.

I agree with you, though: fiction is fiction, not history.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

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!

No, that is not interesting at all, if by interesting you mean surprising. Science fiction is based on science whether that be already possible to do or being worked on. It is not far fetched to have something working on a large scale if it already is possible on a small scale. Maybe there is one popular machine that will never see the light of day in the real world: the time machine that can go backwards in time. Going forward in time is pretty simple, all you have to do is wait. Minor problem might be surviving the wait.

For me it would be more shocking if magic based fantasy becomes reality, science fiction not so much.

[doubleshuffle]

Funniest MR thread in a long time. Of course I've read Shakespeare to learn about Julius Caesar, Cleopatra and all those Henrys and Richards. Please don't tell me he invented stuff??!!

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nor do I, but a number of people in this thread have said that their preferred method of learning about historical events is to read historical fiction rather than history, so it does appear to be a fairly widespread view.

Of course there's good and bad historical fiction, but even the best fiction isn't necessarily good history. Eg, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, Hilary Mantel's Booker prize-winning "Wolf Hall", a fictionalised biography of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII, has been criticised by historians for painting a misleading portrait of Cromwell, so to read the novel and think you know about Cromwell as a result might perhaps be unwise.

I agree with you, though: fiction is fiction, not history.

So, are you saying that Doctor Who may not be entirely historically accurate

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

So, are you saying that Doctor Who may not be entirely historically accurate

I would definitely be heartbroken to learn that Queen Victoria didn't hunt werewolf aliens with the Doctor and Rose. Say it ain't so.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I would definitely be heartbroken to learn that Queen Victoria didn't hunt werewolf aliens with the Doctor and Rose. Say it ain't so.

Guys, I think you know exactly what I meant by my post. The sarcastic comments really don't enhance the discussion. In case I was not clear (but I think I was perfectly clear, wasn't I?) I was referring to the type of historical novel (of which "Wolf Hall" is a good example) which many readers might believe to be an accurate depiction of history, but which actually aren't, not to books which are obviously non-historical.

[doubleshuffle]

You were perfectly clear, Harry, and I wasn't responding to your post but to Mike's.

But, seriously: people who read fiction expecting historical fact should get a dictionary.

The real problem is of course that proper, "factual" history is also largely fiction.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

You were perfectly clear, Harry, and I wasn't responding to your post but to Mike's.

But, seriously: people who read fiction expecting historical fact should get a dictionary.

The real problem is of course that proper, "factual" history is also largely fiction.

Exactly. Just look at how biased reporting is these days--take for instance the Clinton "health" stories out there. Twenty years from now, someone will be trying to piece together a four paragraph "history" with a mention and will have all kinds of fodder to use or discard. I'm pretty sure lies, misdirections and rumors have always existed whether they were whispered in an alleyway or put on the internet. "Truth" is so easily distorted. Some history is accurate. Some is just a guess.

Personally, I thought the werewolf comment was hilarious.

[4691mls]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Guys, I think you know exactly what I meant by my post. The sarcastic comments really don't enhance the discussion. In case I was not clear (but I think I was perfectly clear, wasn't I?) I was referring to the type of historical novel (of which "Wolf Hall" is a good example) which many readers might believe to be an accurate depiction of history, but which actually aren't, not to books which are obviously non-historical.

I appreciate it when the author of realistic historical fiction includes an afterword stating which events are real and which were the author's creation. (I haven't read Wolf Hall so I don't know if it had this)

[ekbell]

Historical fiction centered around people who were actual people unfortunately reminds me of Real Person fan fiction which is a bit of a personal squick unless it's clear that it's alternate reality, fantasy or science fiction. In fanfic it's considered important to either keep borrowed characters IC (In Character) or to state that such characters are OOC (Out Of Character) and I would expect it to be no less important in professional writing.

Historical fiction centered around original characters reminds me of any piece of fiction located somewhere that the author can't personally check out.

I don't expect complete accuracy but an obvious lack of research is grounds for serious criticism and any readily avoidable errors are worthy of comment. The amount of research I expect depends on the genre and 'seriousness' (for lack of a better word) of the book, I don't expect accurate police terminology from a light-hearted cozy but a serious police procedural should have correct terminology.

What I don't expect from a historical novel is to be told what are known facts about day-to-day life and what are necessary extrapolation. The more serious authors tend to write author's notes giving an overview of the historical facts vs authorial extrapolation but not always.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

I would definitely be heartbroken to learn that Queen Victoria didn't hunt werewolf aliens with the Doctor and Rose. Say it ain't so.

I, for one, am quite pleased that Van Gogh was able to see his paintings in the Musée d'Orsay before he offed himself.

[doubleshuffle]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I, for one, am quite pleased that Van Gogh was able to see his paintings in the Musée d'Orsay before he offed himself.

So was I, but what if it was all made up??

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by doubleshuffle

So was I, but what if it was all made up??

No way! I asked the dragon in the garden this morning and he said it was all true, every word!!!

[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!

[whitearrow]

Hmph. You can have my Bernard Cornwell, EM Forester, Phillipa Gregory, James Michener, Anita Diamant, Colleen McCullough, Ken Follett, Jean Plaidy, Michelle Moran, Herman Wouk, Hillary Mantel, Mary Renault, Patrick O'Brian, James Clavell, Conn Iggulden, Margaret Mitchell, and a few dozen others when you pry them from my cold, dead fingers.

I enjoy visiting different places and time periods through the well-written eyes of fictional characters or fictionalized versions of real people. It doesn't mean I'm stupid or can't tell the difference between a work of fiction and a work of non-fiction or biography.

Fortunately, this has changed, but when I was younger, historical fiction was one of the few genres, other than romance, that had a lot of prominent, strong women characters.

There's a reason this genre has been popular for so long and stayed around through so many trends that have come and gone. Despite what OP thinks, it's not going anywhere.