Reflecting Opinions in Historical Fiction
What do you do when the prevalent opinions at the time and place your historical novel/short is set story do not accord with what is acceptable today? Some years ago, I wrote – and placed – a short story about a World War Two evacuee in which one of the characters said, “The only good German is a dead German”. This is not my opinion but this character (a schoolgirl) was repeating a saying common at that time. I wonder if that story, with that comment in it, would have been published in 2023.
Many
of the opinions and ways of doing things are what we are now supposed to challenge. People at the time you are writing about may have
a very different world-view; they might be xenophobes, regard women as infernal
gossips and believe in witchcraft. Unless
you are writing about the immediate past, all those are likely to apply. In the Bible, the apostle Paul returns
Onesimus to his slave-master, Philemon, admittedly with a plea that he be
treated ‘as a dear brother’, but Paul was still sending him back. Theologians have attempted to explain this away
but there is no evidence that Paul questioned the institution of slavery.
This
is a problem for the poor historical novelist/short story writer.
Georgette
Heyer, writing between 1935 and 1972, reflected in her Regency novels every
prejudice and petty snobbery of this era, and her novels were all the better
for it. But Georgette Heyer was writing
about fairly minor issues, and it is clear, when you read her excellent novels,
that this was then (not now).
Some
writing tutors will advise you to make your characters the exceptions, the ones
who did not support slavery, for instance, but this device can distort understanding
of history. As a writer of historical
fiction, you have a responsibility because many of your readers may accept your
version of events as the truth without further investigation. Attempts to alter history to make it
politically correct are dishonest and don’t help anybody. A female knight is blatantly ridiculous to
me, but not to a child.
Dick
Whittington, who, although from a poor background, became Lord Mayor London. Bess
of Hardwick, also born poor, and female, who became one of the richest people
in England through a series of strategic marriages. It is more authentic – and interesting – to write
about how people coped – or not – in the ways people did things at their time
in history, rather than superimposing our worldview over theirs.
I agree wholeheartedly. This applies to so much that was 'commonplace' in history but frowned upon today. I was advised to remove a scene where a medieval child throws a stick for a dog. Because the modern view is that stick throwing is bad for dogs! I didn't change it.
ReplyDeleteWell done, Joy. I’m glad you stood firm! The vast majority of the characters in my soon to be published novel smoked like chimneys… but this what people in that setting and that time did.
DeleteLovely post, Rosemary and thanks for all you shared. Useful food for thought. Blessings.
ReplyDeleteThank you, Sophia.
DeleteYes, I agree with Joy (above): if we simply ignore how peoletought, whatthey did, allthat, back in the past, (while thinking we are all absolutely okay and have 'come of age'!!) we do not give readers the flavour and facts of being alive at a time in history... And what does it matter if someone does some thing'we don't dotoday, becayse we know better?" That was then. In a wider context that sticks for dogs, it reminds us thet, for example, when there was slavery (for example) people didn't think it was terrible and wrong... which i suseful to know - they developed and they thught, and after a while more and more realised it wasn't a right way to treat other people... I:m sure everyone gets my point so won't rant more! Basically, life is a life long learning process and it will be forever...
ReplyDeleteAgree totally, Clare.
DeleteI agree that it's better to try to recreate the thoughts and general beliefs of the age we are writing about. Otherwise people will forget that in the 1950 it was normal to grow up with a father who was colour-prejudiced, and people genuinely believed homosexuality was a sin. A truthful portrait of an age may be shocking, but I'm wondering if some of the things that happen now will perhaps be shocking to people living in 50 years time.
ReplyDeleteI agree, Veronica, totally. An untruthful portrait does no one any favours.
ReplyDeleteSomewhere rattling around inside me is the horror of Orwell's 1984, thought crimes, and Room 101. Also rattling around inside is a conscience that is uneasy unless the events and the characters in the novel I'm working on set in 1790s sit pretty close to the knowable facts of that era. Quite where the limits of 'poetic license' are, when we fill in the gaps created by imperfect or contradictory historical records, is something I'm pondering on...in part thanks to the thought-provoking seminar led by Sophie Dunn at the Ridley Hall conference and now, reading your excellent points Rosemary.
ReplyDeleteYes, this is such a challenge to the historical fiction writer. I've just finished Fiona Veitch Smith's The Picture House Murders set in 1929 and of course state-sanctioned misogyny was rampant then (and of course is still around). I must confess though that the unashamed misogyny is expressed by characters I don't like; and Clara Vale the MP is an independent highly intelligent woman who has to overcome a huge challenge and the modern reader loves this. It's such a delicate balance. (Sheila aka SC Skillman)
ReplyDelete