Sometimes it seems one can hardly go on the internet without encountering some passionate debate or forum in which everyone agonizes endlessly over whether historical fiction should be factual, about whether novelists should strive for accuracy, or whether straying from the known facts at any moment is at all good for any of us.
In an age when, some might argue, the genre is in danger of becoming little more than a re-packaging of biographical information in the 1st person, here is one writer's humble view on the subject - the main thrust of which is that historical fiction (be it good bad or indifferent) is actually LITERATURE; that literature is art; and that artists ... well, they're a funny lot, aren't they!
They just don't seem to know when to stick to the rules!
A picture is worth a thousand words, they say, so here goes:
 |
THIS IS HISTORY (Bombing of Guernica 1937)
|
 |
THIS IS ART (Guernica by Picaso)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
 |
| THIS IS HISTORY (quite interesting, really) |
 |
THIS IS ART (Handel's Messiah - 'nuff said?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 |
| THIS IS HISTORY (French Revolution 1789) |
 |
| THIS IS ART (a spot of Dickens 1859) |
So, get the idea? No footnotes, no apologies, no agonising and wringing of hands or looking over shoulders in case David Starkey or Simon Schama might be wagging their fingers. Let's just do historical fiction instead, shall we. But is it Art? You bet.
8 comments:
Great post. This is much needed now as there seems to be a movement about catching errors in historical fiction. OMG! As if we could really capture the past perfectly. That's not the point of historical fiction. It's storytelling, it's conflict, it's drama. Enough ranting. Thanks for the post.
I couldn't agree with you more,Robert; our opinions on this highly controversial subject are in complete syncopation. At your statement, "the genre is in danger of becoming little more than a re-packaging of biographical information in the 1st person," I actually cheered. I am incomplete unless I'm being creative; I just happen to prefer to place my creativity within an historical context. I don't feel it lessen the veracity of the genre in the least and I keep faithful to that historical context. What my characters do within it is where my muse takes flights. Long live those who break the rules! Great post.
This really had to be said! And we don't know what happened anyway. I wish though that a great many non-fiction writers, scholars, and readers would care more about accuracy or at least veracity, for they happily ignore what doesn't fit into the story and invent what does (it's also a form of art).
Thank you Melinda. I guess we have all been caught out at some stage by those eagle-eyed readers - like using a word in a scene set in 1555 when it only came into existence in 1557! Or my Lord Surrey could not possibly have been in Norfolk when my Lord Norfolk was with him at his castle in Surrey at the time, and so on. One does wake up at night in a cold sweat thinking about it!
Donna, it's lovely to see your comment here! Thank you. I like that bit about being incomplete unless creative. A lot of writers would certainly second that!
I remember reading a review (not one of mine) where the reader said something like, 'I haven't learned anything new from this novel!' It is a sorry state of affairs when a novel has to jump through that particular hoop - as if it has to somehow come up with some new historical fact to be of value. Long live the rule breakers!
Christine, (allthingsrobertdudley)I agree - non-fiction authors can be economical with the truth, and so have their own set of vices. That would probably be another post, though. Don't think I'd better go there just yet.
Well said, Robert. Historical fiction is FICTION that takes place in a historical setting. There is so much of history that was never recorded. If we're always reducing storytelling to a reiteration of pure facts, then the emotional connection between reader and writer is tenuous at best.
Thank you for popping by N.Gemini! I am amazed at how many authors have visited and commented on this article, whereas normally it is those who simply follow the blog. Strikes a chord with many, it seems. I'm glad.
As I've been arguing, Historical Fiction Doesn't Have to be Good For You. It's not fiber, after all.
I like that - 'it's not fibre, after all.' Thank you Stephanie.
Post a Comment