Fiddlers & Whores
Unlike Uber, Xaosseed & the rest of the gang over at blogcoven.com, I rarely update my blog. Mainly, I suppose, because those of you who might be interested in the mundane details of my life already live with me and because I'm an obsessive monomaniac who takes little notice of the world outside his sphere of interest.
I frequent a forum for historians, academics and enthusiasts called the Napoleon Series. There are a fair number of lurkers like myself who are there to see some engaging academic cat fights and pick up some decent history along the way. I found myself in the unusual position of posting recently, on the subject of historical novelists, which is something I obviously have an interest in.
The question is, do historical novelists have a duty to educate?
I generally keep quiet on these boards, when I do comment, it's usually to ask a question. That's because I'm a novelist, not a historian and I'm well aware of that fact. My response to this question should be taken with a pinch of salt as I have a personal interest.
Writers of fiction, like fiddlers and whores, are entertainers. We have no duty to inform, only to entertain. We take your coppers and give you in return a few hours of pleasent escape from the everyday cares of the world.
The better sort of writer sets the bar higher.
Patrick O'Brian is an excellant example of a man applied a great deal of rigorous research to his books and in doing so, managed to conjure up a lost world.
Did he bend or break the facts when he needed to? Absolutely. Did it matter a tinkers curse? Not really.
The problem arises when an author claims to be definative or misrepresents large sweeps of history with an agenda. But one man's minor plot change is another man's deliberate misrepresentation. It's a matter of degree.
Is Ed Zwick's "The Last Samurai" hokum historically? More or less. Does it tell a good yarn and make a point or two about the arrival of modernity in Japan along the way?* Yes.
Authors who care about their craft are for the most part concsientious. A good novelist can transport you back in time in a way that is beyond the power of history books. He can give you the taste of black powder, the anxiety of going to a ball in pinchbeck and the joy of seeing the enemy strike their colours.
He may educate the reader a little about the period, but that's not really his job. What he can do is entertain, engross and create a hunger for more knowledge. If he can manage all that and earn a crust, I salute him.
I think Kipling said it best.
When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre,
He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea;
An' what he thought 'e might require,
'E went an' took -- the same as me!
The market-girls an' fishermen,
The shepherds an' the sailors, too,
They 'eard old songs turn up again,
But kep' it quiet -- same as you!
They knew 'e stole; 'e knew they knowed.
They didn't tell, nor make a fuss,
But winked at 'Omer down the road,
An' 'e winked back -- the same as us!
*Though Stephen Sondheim's "Pacific Overtures" does a much better job.
I frequent a forum for historians, academics and enthusiasts called the Napoleon Series. There are a fair number of lurkers like myself who are there to see some engaging academic cat fights and pick up some decent history along the way. I found myself in the unusual position of posting recently, on the subject of historical novelists, which is something I obviously have an interest in.
The question is, do historical novelists have a duty to educate?
I generally keep quiet on these boards, when I do comment, it's usually to ask a question. That's because I'm a novelist, not a historian and I'm well aware of that fact. My response to this question should be taken with a pinch of salt as I have a personal interest.
Writers of fiction, like fiddlers and whores, are entertainers. We have no duty to inform, only to entertain. We take your coppers and give you in return a few hours of pleasent escape from the everyday cares of the world.
The better sort of writer sets the bar higher.
Patrick O'Brian is an excellant example of a man applied a great deal of rigorous research to his books and in doing so, managed to conjure up a lost world.
Did he bend or break the facts when he needed to? Absolutely. Did it matter a tinkers curse? Not really.
The problem arises when an author claims to be definative or misrepresents large sweeps of history with an agenda. But one man's minor plot change is another man's deliberate misrepresentation. It's a matter of degree.
Is Ed Zwick's "The Last Samurai" hokum historically? More or less. Does it tell a good yarn and make a point or two about the arrival of modernity in Japan along the way?* Yes.
Authors who care about their craft are for the most part concsientious. A good novelist can transport you back in time in a way that is beyond the power of history books. He can give you the taste of black powder, the anxiety of going to a ball in pinchbeck and the joy of seeing the enemy strike their colours.
He may educate the reader a little about the period, but that's not really his job. What he can do is entertain, engross and create a hunger for more knowledge. If he can manage all that and earn a crust, I salute him.
I think Kipling said it best.
When 'Omer smote 'is bloomin' lyre,
He'd 'eard men sing by land an' sea;
An' what he thought 'e might require,
'E went an' took -- the same as me!
The market-girls an' fishermen,
The shepherds an' the sailors, too,
They 'eard old songs turn up again,
But kep' it quiet -- same as you!
They knew 'e stole; 'e knew they knowed.
They didn't tell, nor make a fuss,
But winked at 'Omer down the road,
An' 'e winked back -- the same as us!
*Though Stephen Sondheim's "Pacific Overtures" does a much better job.