Article: Return of the Roman
Apparently this is my day for double posting - but his article struck me as very interesting:
Return of the Roman
It deals with the popularity of historical novels, and particularly about novels set in the ancient world. He also list some points on how historical fiction can lead to an increased interest in history, even if the novel isn’t “historically correct.”
Some quotes:
Why are so many novelists in the modern age drawn to write about the ancient world, especially Rome but also, to a lesser extent, Greece? [...] what's clear is that the classical world still holds attraction for both authors and readers. Some of this interest may be "superficial," but by no means all of it is. In any case, it is natural that there should be such interest. There is still an appreciation in our culture of the fact that our civilisation has its roots in Greece and Rome-as well, of course, as in biblical Israel-and that Greek and Roman history, legend and myth are part of our inherited culture.
[...] People read historical novels, it may be assumed, for information, enlightenment and amusement. They represent an agreeable way of learning a little history. There's no reason why authors should bridle at this. Nabokov wrote that novelists are three things: storytellers, teachers and enchanters. We may not all be able to enchant-Nabokov thought only the masters could do that-but we can all aspire to tell a story and even to teach. I am happy when a teacher of classics tells me he or she recommended my Roman novels to pupils, and that some admitted to enjoying them. I recall with pleasure how often my own interest in particular periods of history was first stimulated by a novel.
Unlike the historian, the novelist usually writes from the point of view of one character or group of characters, thus offering a limited picture. On the other hand, the novelist does something that academic historians rarely succeed in doing. He reminds us, as Carlyle said of Walter Scott, that people now long dead were not abstractions, but living beings made of flesh and blood. The novelist may perform another service to historical understanding. By its nature the historical novel teaches, or reminds, the reader that events now in the past were once in the future. You won't find a novelist writing, as lazy historians sometimes do, that such an event "changed the course of history." When he describes, for instance, Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the novelist shows that this is the course history took and, because he must imagine Caesar's state of mind before he takes that decision and calls out "let the dice fly high!" he dramatically reveals its significance.
The full article is here.
Return of the Roman
It deals with the popularity of historical novels, and particularly about novels set in the ancient world. He also list some points on how historical fiction can lead to an increased interest in history, even if the novel isn’t “historically correct.”
Some quotes:
Why are so many novelists in the modern age drawn to write about the ancient world, especially Rome but also, to a lesser extent, Greece? [...] what's clear is that the classical world still holds attraction for both authors and readers. Some of this interest may be "superficial," but by no means all of it is. In any case, it is natural that there should be such interest. There is still an appreciation in our culture of the fact that our civilisation has its roots in Greece and Rome-as well, of course, as in biblical Israel-and that Greek and Roman history, legend and myth are part of our inherited culture.
[...] People read historical novels, it may be assumed, for information, enlightenment and amusement. They represent an agreeable way of learning a little history. There's no reason why authors should bridle at this. Nabokov wrote that novelists are three things: storytellers, teachers and enchanters. We may not all be able to enchant-Nabokov thought only the masters could do that-but we can all aspire to tell a story and even to teach. I am happy when a teacher of classics tells me he or she recommended my Roman novels to pupils, and that some admitted to enjoying them. I recall with pleasure how often my own interest in particular periods of history was first stimulated by a novel.
Unlike the historian, the novelist usually writes from the point of view of one character or group of characters, thus offering a limited picture. On the other hand, the novelist does something that academic historians rarely succeed in doing. He reminds us, as Carlyle said of Walter Scott, that people now long dead were not abstractions, but living beings made of flesh and blood. The novelist may perform another service to historical understanding. By its nature the historical novel teaches, or reminds, the reader that events now in the past were once in the future. You won't find a novelist writing, as lazy historians sometimes do, that such an event "changed the course of history." When he describes, for instance, Caesar crossing the Rubicon, the novelist shows that this is the course history took and, because he must imagine Caesar's state of mind before he takes that decision and calls out "let the dice fly high!" he dramatically reveals its significance.
The full article is here.