It's certainly a hard question. I do not think any would argue that when reading a historical novel, one expects it to be reasonably accurate. That's why I like Sharon Kay Penman so much compared to Elizabeth Chadwick. She only changed minor things, and noted these changes at the end. Her greatest fiction in all her novels that I've read was a fictional character who was a bastard son of Henry I of England, and served as a useful tool to show us many of the actual happenings by being in the correct position and class. Considering Henry I had over 20 bastards, I don't think it's over the top anyway. But Elizabeth Chadwick consulting 'Akashik Records' and some psychic transference from the past and using it to invent scenes that did not happen bothers me, and not only because she insists that they may have happened. Because they are so ridiculous and out of character for any person living in that time that it breaks the whole feel of the time. For some reason, I sometimes felt the same about Pillars of the Earth and World Without End - the acts of the characters felt unreal to me considering the time, their class and position. I do not believe nuns would travel from England to France in the middle of a war, dress up as men, and have sex with each other. That's what bothers me most about those books, I think - the characters acting in a way which they would certainly not have. Language is a bit less of a problem for me, because I usually read historical novels set in older times, and either they were speaking old French or Old English, so I see it as a translation. Of course, it is still a much better read when names and language remain constant and fitting, but considering it's a translation anyway, it seems incongruous to complain that it's not what they would have said.
All of these are why I think true historical fantasy should be promoted. That is, Fantasy inspired by history. Entire fantasy worlds, different from ours, which have similar happenings as happened in our history. Elizabeth Haydon's War of the Known World, which she said is her version of WWII if the Allies were the ones attacking first and held central Europe. More notably, GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire, which is clearly based on England and the Wars of the Roses. I try to open any discussion on Robert Baratheon with this quote: “though he never lost a battle, nothing is more astounding than his imprudence and the easy confidence with which he trusted Somerset, Warwick, Montague, and others, all the while they were betraying him. Careless and self-indulgent, he allowed dangers to accumulate; but whenever it came to action he was firm and decisive. His familiarity with the wives of London citizens was the subject of much comment”. Of course, the quote refers to Edward IV. Yet if I was not actively searching for these parallels and knowledgeable in the history of the Wars of the Roses, I would not have seen it. That is the brilliance of it, to my mind. Robert Baratheon is not a carbon copy of Edward IV, transplanted into Westreos. He is a character inspired by the personality of a real-life king, yet he exists independently of him. Does this make sense and seem connected? I always feel that I go off on minor points when I post comments as long as these, with so many examples from other places.
You're making sense, Koby! And I agree. (I thought Pillars of Earth was disappointing, for exactly the reasons you say, though I loved Eye of the Needle)
For some reason, I sometimes felt the same about Pillars of the Earth and World Without End - the acts of the characters felt unreal to me considering the time, their class and position. I do not believe nuns would travel from England to France in the middle of a war, dress up as men, and have sex with each other. That's what bothers me most about those books, I think - the characters acting in a way which they would certainly not have. Language is a bit less of a problem for me, because I usually read historical novels set in older times, and either they were speaking old French or Old English, so I see it as a translation. Of course, it is still a much better read when names and language remain constant and fitting, but considering it's a translation anyway, it seems incongruous to complain that it's not what they would have said.
All of these are why I think true historical fantasy should be promoted. That is, Fantasy inspired by history. Entire fantasy worlds, different from ours, which have similar happenings as happened in our history. Elizabeth Haydon's War of the Known World, which she said is her version of WWII if the Allies were the ones attacking first and held central Europe. More notably, GRRM's Song of Ice and Fire, which is clearly based on England and the Wars of the Roses. I try to open any discussion on Robert Baratheon with this quote: “though he never lost a battle, nothing is more astounding than his imprudence and the easy confidence with which he trusted Somerset, Warwick, Montague, and others, all the while they were betraying him. Careless and self-indulgent, he allowed dangers to accumulate; but whenever it came to action he was firm and decisive. His familiarity with the wives of London citizens was the subject of much comment”.
Of course, the quote refers to Edward IV. Yet if I was not actively searching for these parallels and knowledgeable in the history of the Wars of the Roses, I would not have seen it. That is the brilliance of it, to my mind. Robert Baratheon is not a carbon copy of Edward IV, transplanted into Westreos. He is a character inspired by the personality of a real-life king, yet he exists independently of him.
Does this make sense and seem connected? I always feel that I go off on minor points when I post comments as long as these, with so many examples from other places.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment