Bleeding the well dry, Robin hood and king Arthur

[Kveto from Prague]

Warning: this post is a stream of conciousness speculation.

In some other posts, we were discussing why certain historical figures are less popular than one would imagine they might be as subjects for HF, like el cid or charelemagne. this led me to the opposite end. overexposed HF personages.

Currently, Im on a personal boycott of both King Arthur and Robin hood. I feel these are the two most overexposed "historical" characters. Why do writers constantly feel the need to "reinvent" these same characters over and over again in literature and cinema. More importantly, why do readers still buy them? I reckon you could stack all the King Arthur and Robin hood books and films ever written and climb to the top and have a nice view. there is really nothing left to be done with these characters. I groaned when Ridley Scott came out with his latest "robin hood". Another one? just what we dont need.

these leads me to wonder why is a mostly legendary character like King arthur is more popular as a topic than say King Alfred, a real well documented, larger than life king? Or Kenneth MacAlpine? or Charlemagne? Why is the completely fictional robin hood more popular than say Dick Turpin, a real highwayman? Or any number of other authentic highwaymen.

Is it because the lack of records for these characters (Art and Rob, for short) gives the writers much more freedom? You can really do whatever the hell you want with King arthur as long as you include Lancelot, guenivere, and the rest. Make them English, make them celtic, make them roman, make them from the steppes of asia, heck nobody can contradict you. However if you get a fact wrong about alfred or chalemagne and the historians will pounce. So its less about the history, more about the story.

Or is it the familiarity that readers have with the characters that keeps them coming back again and again. the literary equivalant of Mcdonalds. you know more or less what youre gonna get. so whatever little twist the writer adds about the characters (ie. robin hood lived in the conquerors time rather than the lion hearts, that'll shock em) is extra spice. We all know little john, friar tuck and the lot and enjoy reading about whatever little twist the writer adds. that familiary makes the writers job easier. kind of like the way hollywood loves making films based on old tv shows. the familiarity is already there, they dont have to "sell" the story to you. you already know the basics.

I remember when the film "rob roy" came out and it was being described as "a scottish robin hood". i remember thinking that it was nothing like robin hood. but audiences needed that "familiarity" to sell them on the concept.

To me the dominance of certain personages means that other, more interesting personages are not being brought to light. instead every few years we get a "new" robin hood or a "new" arthur. and to be honest, these stories have already been told. no reason to "reboot" them.

Im really curious to see what others think about this. i hope i made my point reasonably clear (PS theres no anger here. just disappointment.) Do you agree with my points and/or can you think of other reasons why these guys are popular?

And im aiming this less at the writers and more at the readers. if readers didnt keep buying books on these characters they wouldnt keep getting written about.

for the nonce, im sticking by my personal boycott, for what its worth (please dont suggest I read.....such and such...because Ill like their original take on this old legend:-) thats really not my point:-)

thanks if you bothered to read this and i apologise if its at all confusing.

[Eigon]

I think that the reason King Arthur and Robin Hood get re-used and re-used is because of their mythic resonance. They're both part of what used to be called The Matter of Britain - the cultural myth of a nation. So Arthur is the wise and noble ruler of a golden age - who is brought low by the sin of adultery (Arthur with Morgana - which is also unwitting incest on his part - and Lancelot and Guenivere). Tristan and Isault was basically the same story, with King Mark of Cornwall and Tristan as his Lancelot.
Robin Hood is the other end of the social scale - the outsider who challenges unjust authority, hence all the run-ins with the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John (the wise and noble Richard being safely out of the way in the Holy Land or imprisoned in Austria - which is one of the reasons for setting the legend in that exact period).
So it's not about using the right characters (you've got to have a quarterstaff fight with Little John when they first meet and so on) but more about the underlying myth.

And you're right - we haven't had a decent go at El Cid since Charlton Heston; there was a rather weedy film about King Alfred in the 1960s, and a TV series about Dick Turpin in the 1970s with Richard O'Sullivan, who had previously been a comedy actor.
And I can't think of any screen representation of Charlemagne, which seems a shame.

[Kveto from Prague]

I think that the reason King Arthur and Robin Hood get re-used and re-used is because of their mythic resonance. They're both part of what used to be called The Matter of Britain - the cultural myth of a nation. So Arthur is the wise and noble ruler of a golden age - who is brought low by the sin of adultery (Arthur with Morgana - which is also unwitting incest on his part - and Lancelot and Guenivere). Tristan and Isault was basically the same story, with King Mark of Cornwall and Tristan as his Lancelot.
Robin Hood is the other end of the social scale - the outsider who challenges unjust authority, hence all the run-ins with the Sheriff of Nottingham and Prince John (the wise and noble Richard being safely out of the way in the Holy Land or imprisoned in Austria - which is one of the reasons for setting the legend in that exact period).
So it's not about using the right characters (you've got to have a quarterstaff fight with Little John when they first meet and so on) but more about the underlying myth.

And you're right - we haven't had a decent go at El Cid since Charlton Heston; there was a rather weedy film about King Alfred in the 1960s, and a TV series about Dick Turpin in the 1970s with Richard O'Sullivan, who had previously been a comedy actor.
And I can't think of any screen representation of Charlemagne, which seems a shame.

good points. the mythical resonance, i like that. but, that cant be the only reason. as you point out, tristan and isualt is also a Matter of Britain but by no means as overexposed as art or rob. neither are tailesin, brutus, or the like.

Im pretty sure the old robin hood ballads were not all universaly set in richards time. I recall several being set in Henry the 8th time, for instance. I think it was Ivanhoe that officially cemented Robin hood to King Richard. but im just going from memory here.

good point on the quarterstaff meeting. it really makes for colour-by-number storytelling as well. got to hit all the familar notes and so on.

thanks for your reply:-)

PS heres a link to an old legend with robin hood and henry the 8th. Queen Kathrine protects robin from her husbands wrath.
http://classiclit.about.com/library/bl-etexts/tbulfinch/bl-tbulfinch-chiv-35.htm

[Misfit]

keny, excellent rant ;)

I enjoy digging into these legends on occcasion, but I do realize they are legends and read them for entertainment value. I also have to space them out, or I burn out very very quickly. I prefer the ones with less myth and magic and more realism.

As to why authors chose these over real characters? That's not a question I can answer, except that perhaps because they sell?

[Margaret]

Really interesting question, Keny. I know what you mean about some of these characters being over-exposed. On the other hand, every now and then someone comes up with a completely new take on something that seems to have been done to death, and makes it all fresh again. Marion Zimmer Bradley did that with the Arthurian legends in Mists of Avalon, and now the feminist angle on the Arthurian legends probably qualifies as way over-exposed!

Here's a speculation: Do you ever notice that you enjoy a piece of music more the second or third time you hear it than you did the first time? It might be enjoyable the first time, but after it begins to feel just a little bit more familiar, you get a sense of the whole with every passage you hear that gives it context (even if only at a subconscious level) and helps deepen the appreciation. Perhaps the characters who get used over and over again are a bit like that, as well. With a novel involving King Arthur or Queen Elizabeth I or Caligula, the reader gets a general sense of the subject matter, tone and theme of the story before picking it up and reading the first page, which makes it easier to decide whether it's likely to be to his or her taste. If there's a fresh angle, it will be more interesting, but there will still be a lot that is familiar. With Mists of Avalon, for example, there was still a sense of heroism and magic and religious wonder - but all with a twist, because it was the women who behaved heroically, used magic adeptly and for good, and the religious awe was for a pagan goddess.

I really wonder if the fury with which some readers greeted Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl wasn't at least partly due to a sense that they thought they knew what they were getting into in a novel that featured Anne Boleyn and felt betrayed when Anne was portrayed as a thorough villain.

[Kveto from Prague]

Really interesting question, Keny. I know what you mean about some of these characters being over-exposed. On the other hand, every now and then someone comes up with a completely new take on something that seems to have been done to death, and makes it all fresh again. Marion Zimmer Bradley did that with the Arthurian legends in Mists of Avalon, and now the feminist angle on the Arthurian legends probably qualifies as way over-exposed!

Here's a speculation: Do you ever notice that you enjoy a piece of music more the second or third time you hear it than you did the first time? It might be enjoyable the first time, but after it begins to feel just a little bit more familiar, you get a sense of the whole with every passage you hear that gives it context (even if only at a subconscious level) and helps deepen the appreciation. Perhaps the characters who get used over and over again are a bit like that, as well. With a novel involving King Arthur or Queen Elizabeth I or Caligula, the reader gets a general sense of the subject matter, tone and theme of the story before picking it up and reading the first page, which makes it easier to decide whether it's likely to be to his or her taste. If there's a fresh angle, it will be more interesting, but there will still be a lot that is familiar. With Mists of Avalon, for example, there was still a sense of heroism and magic and religious wonder - but all with a twist, because it was the women who behaved heroically, used magic adeptly and for good, and the religious awe was for a pagan goddess.

I really wonder if the fury with which some readers greeted Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl wasn't at least partly due to a sense that they thought they knew what they were getting into in a novel that featured Anne Boleyn and felt betrayed when Anne was portrayed as a thorough villain.

thanks Margaret and misfit,

thats kind of what i was trying to mention. the familiarty, or comfort zone for readers. if you pick up a book with king arthur in the title you dont need to wonder whats its about but might get surprised by the interpretation or twist on the familiar legend. however, as you point out, i think we are to a point where even any twists with these characters are already cliche.

and misfit, i was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the readers and not the writers. i hope it didnt come off that way. in the end, most writers write what people want to read:-)

I think im burnt out on these legends as you say. i dont mind the originals, its the endless reinterpretations.

[Madeleine]

thanks Margaret and misfit,

thats kind of what i was trying to mention. the familiarty, or comfort zone for readers. if you pick up a book with king arthur in the title you dont need to wonder whats its about but might get surprised by the interpretation or twist on the familiar legend. however, as you point out, i think we are to a point where even any twists with these characters are already cliche.

and misfit, i was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the readers and not the writers. i hope it didnt come off that way. in the end, most writers write what people want to read:-)

I think im burnt out on these legends as you say. i dont mind the originals, its the endless reinterpretations.

I think the highlighted bit says it all - it's a guaranteed seller, as it will always be popular. It's a bit like all the endless adaptations of Jane Austen and the Brontes - they are so popular there will always be an audience for a new film or TV series. I suppose you could say it's a perfect example of familiarity breeding contempt!;)

[Misfit]

and misfit, i was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the readers and not the writers. i hope it didnt come off that way. in the end, most writers write what people want to read:-)

I was so brain dead from lack of sleep yesterday I could have misinterpreted just about anything.

Margaret has a good point - when a reader finds a character he/she is interested in, it is a natural inclination to want to read more and from different perspectives.

But in the end, one can get burned out and at that time it's best to lay it to rest for a few years.

[Ash]

I think that the reason King Arthur and Robin Hood get re-used and re-used is because of their mythic resonance

I so agree with this. Both are part of the old good versus evil meme that have been told since stories began. The retelling of it, and reinterpretations of it speaks to that human need for peace and fairness; who wouldn't want a world where the poor got a share of the world's wealth (and Im not talking about socialism here at all), and a world where might did not rule over what was right. And each reinterpretation makes it sparkling new again for the next generation.

I do agree tho that sometimes its too much. I couldn't watch this new Robin Hood, tho I adore Russel Crow (well, his body mostly...). And I agree, I wish writers would turn to other great names in history for their books and movies. That being said, maybe we should be careful what we wish for given what they did to Rob Roy....

I really wonder if the fury with which some readers greeted Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl wasn't at least partly due to a sense that they thought they knew what they were getting into in a novel that featured Anne Boleyn and felt betrayed when Anne was portrayed as a thorough villain.

Yep, thats pretty much my take. I don't mind reinterpretations, but there are some things that just don't fit what the facts on the ground were (take a look at what Weir did to Eleanor of Aquitane for another example)

i was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the readers and not the writers
Why? The readers read what writers give them to read. If they don't know there's something else out there its hardly their fault.

[Lucy Pick]

Mythic resonance is more than just about familiarity. It suggests that these characters, and the roles they play in the stories told about them, connects to basic archetypes that are still very compelling on some kind of inner, gut level.

Lucy, getting all Jungian

[Ash]

connects to basic archetypes that are still very compelling on some kind of inner, gut level.

Right, which follows the Good v Evil meme (reader and lover of Campbells Mythology work, and a fellow Jungian :)

[Margaret]

i was trying to lay the blame at the feet of the readers and not the writers
Why? The readers read what writers give them to read. If they don't know there's something else out there its hardly their fault.

I don't think anybody should be "blamed" for this. What's wrong with authors and publishers producing novels for people who really, really do enjoy reading about the same characters over and over again? Plus, for younger readers who haven't read all the other novels, the characters may feel quite new and fresh. Reading a recently published novel about King Arthur's court may, for example, inspire one of these readers to go back to an earlier classic. I get the feeling that a lot of people who are more casual readers won't pick up a novel written in decades past unless it's assigned to them in school, which gives these books a sort of "eat your spinach because it's good for you" flavor. But a lot of novels written in past decades are truly great reading.

Only the other hand, it's too bad when publishing houses refuse to take a chance on a really exciting, well-written novel about a lesser known historical person just because the person is not widely known. Generally, a novel about one of these more obscure historical figures has to be more interesting, exciting and well written for a publisher to pick it up. Ultimately, that may be good for both readers and authors, because it raises the standards of good writing (though it's a little hard on the authors in the meantime). Also, publishing houses do tend to ride a trend longer than readers are inclined to. The Tudor era, for example, has been rather overdone lately, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the most recent novels set in Henry VIII's or Elizabeth I's court don't sell as well as publishers expect them to.

[chuck]

I'm not a authority but I'm very familiar with the Arthur, and Robin Hood legends....I have to admit I have read most the HF written about them and authors with their different takes and spins.....I guess what drives me to read these familiar legends are because of the authors who I like/respect or from suggestions from HF Forum members and their reviews....IE Rosemary Sutcliff, Mary Stewart, Gillian Bradshaw, Joan Wolf, Jack Whyte, Parke Godwin, Stephen Lawhead, Bernard Cornwell etc....all have contributed HF about Arthur and many of have written about Robin Hood.....I do have to admit I'm a bit burned out on both subjects.....Looks like The Bruce is the next Historical fiqure to get a lot of attention......

[Michy]

Mythic resonance is more than just about familiarity. It suggests that these characters, and the roles they play in the stories told about them, connects to basic archetypes that are still very compelling on some kind of inner, gut level.



This pretty well sums up my take on it. The "thing" that makes Arthur and Robin Hood so enduringly popular, even now in the 21st century, is the same "thing" that's kept them popular for centuries -- they are compelling tales that we connect to at some deep, instinctive level. And besides that, they are tales about Old Britain -- which gives them an added attraction especially for English-speaking cultures. Yes, here in the US we have always been a famous melting pot of cultures, and are more so than ever. But we still have an affinity, a connection, with Britain/England and always will, I think.

I went through my "Arthur period" during my teens when I read The Pendragon, The Mists of Avalon and others. That pretty much got Arthur out of my system and I haven't read anything else about him since (although I have gone to see Camelot a couple of times:)). Probably because I don't care for the mysticism, magic etc. that is frequently woven into the legends nowadays.

As for other characters that are way over-exposed in HF -- how about Eleanor of Aquitaine?! She is one my faves, but c'mon! Why do authors keep pumping out books about her when there is no new territory to cover, nothing new to say? They're just treading the same old ground over and over.

[Margaret]

I'd agree that Eleanor of Aquitaine may have been over-exposed - but Cecelia Holland's new book The Secret Eleanor (see review (http://www.HistoricalNovels.info/Secret-Eleanor.html)) comes up with a doozy of a new angle on her story - the novel is very tightly focused on the short period in which Eleanor meets Henry (the future Henry II), wangles an annulment of her marriage to Louis of France, and escapes two attempts to kidnap and marry her by force before she finally succeeds in getting safely back to her home city of Poitiers and marrying Henry. I won't say what the new angle is - it would be a spoiler - but the novel is great fun. And, as always, Holland's research makes the setting come alive.

[Madeleine]

It's true that there may be newer readers who will go to see the Russell Crowe movie, or have watched the Robin Hood TV series a couple of years ago and might want to read more about Robin and his merry men; I know us older folk may think been there, done that, read it, seen it , got the T-shirt, but don't forget the newcomers, and if a film gets more people interested in the subject and then, maybe by association, more interested in the historical side, then fair enough - it might be boring for those of us who've seen it before, but we don't have to watch it or read it if we don't want to!

[Ludmilla]

As for other characters that are way over-exposed in HF -- how about Eleanor of Aquitaine?! She is one my faves, but c'mon!

I feel this way, too, Michy. She seems to be right behind Elizabeth I for most popular female historical figure, when there are probably very many overlooked interesting female figures that could use some exposure.

[M.M. Bennetts]

I confess, my favourite Robin Hood film is Men in Tights...

Charlemagne is a hard character to like, unless one whitewashes him. There is the small matter of the forced conversions of (numbers vary) anything up to 4000 pagans--you convert to Christianity or else we torture you and kill you--being the method there. Which strangely seems to have worked. Then you've got the slaughter of his hero at Ronceval, namely Roland. Which made for a great piece of 'let's go fight the Infidel invaders' propaganda, but lacks a modern resonance...

But I do have to wonder too why must we always always have Tudor everything here in the UK? And nothing else? Why must we have The Tudors on BBC, following on from the Boleyn girls who were or weren't doing whatever they did. And their mothers and cousins or boyfriends or whoever...and all of them ending up with their heads disconnected. Perhaps we Brits or at least our film/telly execs have a thing for beheadings?

You'd think we'd never had any other kings or queens worth mentioning if you were to judge by the amount of turnip shavings pumped out about that single family.

Okay, shutting up now before I start ranting. Ha ha ha.

[Kveto from Prague]

I confess, my favourite Robin Hood film is Men in Tights...

Charlemagne is a hard character to like, unless one whitewashes him. There is the small matter of the forced conversions of (numbers vary) anything up to 4000 pagans--you convert to Christianity or else we torture you and kill you--being the method there. Which strangely seems to have worked. Then you've got the slaughter of his hero at Ronceval, namely Roland. Which made for a great piece of 'let's go fight the Infidel invaders' propaganda, but lacks a modern resonance...



Fair enough. but the same could be said of any leader in the past. Peter the great, Elizabeth I, Alfred the Great, Saladin, Tamurlane, Edward I, etc. all have enormous amounts of blood on their hands that we have to "whitewash" to relate to them. Judging characters by current standards of morality will leave you with very few HF personages to "like".

And ive never really seen "the song of Roland" as a piece of propaganda any moreso that any other romance of fiction (and the main villain is not a saracen but another Frank, Ganilon the betrayer). It seems to singify the sin of pride (Roland refusing to call for help until too late) as well as choosing death before dishonor and a vain struggle against overwhelming odds. All very universal themes. not any different from the Arthurian themes mentioned earlier.

[Kveto from Prague]

I don't think anybody should be "blamed" for this. What's wrong with authors and publishers producing novels for people who really, really do enjoy reading about the same characters over and over again? Plus, for younger readers who haven't read all the other novels, the characters may feel quite new and fresh. Reading a recently published novel about King Arthur's court may, for example, inspire one of these readers to go back to an earlier classic. I get the feeling that a lot of people who are more casual readers won't pick up a novel written in decades past unless it's assigned to them in school, which gives these books a sort of "eat your spinach because it's good for you" flavor. But a lot of novels written in past decades are truly great reading.

Only the other hand, it's too bad when publishing houses refuse to take a chance on a really exciting, well-written novel about a lesser known historical person just because the person is not widely known. Generally, a novel about one of these more obscure historical figures has to be more interesting, exciting and well written for a publisher to pick it up. Ultimately, that may be good for both readers and authors, because it raises the standards of good writing (though it's a little hard on the authors in the meantime). Also, publishing houses do tend to ride a trend longer than readers are inclined to. The Tudor era, for example, has been rather overdone lately, and I wouldn't be surprised if a few of the most recent novels set in Henry VIII's or Elizabeth I's court don't sell as well as publishers expect them to.

I dont think theres anything wrong with it, per se, Margaret. I just see it as the literary equivalant of eating at McDonalds, you know what youre gonna, more or less, get. and its easy to get tired of eating at McDonalds and want to try something different.

As for younger readers who havent read the earlier novels, well the earlier novels are still out there waiting to be read. just because they arent "new" doesnt mean they cant be read. Why do we need another "reboot" to interest people? As you say, there are already interesting interpretations and re-interpretations.

And you kind of answered why I think its detrimental in your second paragraph. If writers and readers concentrate on these same characters over and over again then other, more obscure but just as interesting characters get passed over. And thats a shame.

I dont expect this this to change anytime soon. I reckon we can set our watches by the next King Arthur book or film, due out, no doubt, anytime soon. I just think that I, personally, am burnt out on these guys (and its nice to see which other characters are overexposed)

thanks for your thoughts, as always:-)

[EC2]

Speaking purely as a reader and answering in a stream of consciousness way too (!!) As a teenager and twenty something I devoured all things Arthurian and most things Robin Hood. Now I'm not really into them and they are not my natural pick up. Why? Because in my teens and twenties the stories were fresh and new to me personally. I wanted to examine all aspects of them. Until I was 14 I don't think I had read anything Arthurian and it was this whole new world. In youth too, one's palate tends to be more enthusisastic and less sophisticated and jaded. When you are younger, you are experiencing these stories for the first time in your life. A few decades down the line you may just begin to weary...
Repetition is inbuilt into the human psyche though. We need to hear/read/see those stories time and again. It's no coincidence that so many children's books are repetititious - Elephant and the Bad Baby anyone? We need this in some form. Some of the tales, especially Robin Hood and Arthur have a centuries old but still evolving tradition. As the UK band Show of Hands say in their song Roots 'Without our stories and our songs/how will we know where we come from?'

[M.M. Bennetts]

Fair enough. but the same could be said of any leader in the past. Peter the great, Elizabeth I, Alfred the Great, Saladin, Tamurlane, Edward I, etc. all have enormous amounts of blood on their hands that we have to "whitewash" to relate to them. Judging characters by current standards of morality will leave you with very few HF personages to "like".

And ive never really seen "the song of Roland" as a piece of propaganda any moreso that any other romance of fiction (and the main villain is not a saracen but another Frank, Ganilon the betrayer). It seems to singify the sin of pride (Roland refusing to call for help until too late) as well as choosing death before dishonor and a vain struggle against overwhelming odds. All very universal themes. not any different from the Arthurian themes mentioned earlier.

We don't see it as such, but then, I know only about three other people besides myself who've read The Song of Roland, but it was used in that way.

However, Roland was a big hero to the late mediaeval mind--so much so that dear old Ariosto couldn't help but write a piss-take of him. And the two-time Pulitzer prize-winning historian, Leverett-Lewis (sp?) tried to argue that the use of it as such was a disaster for Western Europe because it denied them the alleged humanitarianism of the Umayyed Dynasty's rule in Spain, and left them with the barbarianism of the Franks.

[Margaret]

But I do have to wonder too why must we always always have Tudor everything here in the UK? And nothing else? Why must we have The Tudors on BBC, following on from the Boleyn girls who were or weren't doing whatever they did. And their mothers and cousins or boyfriends or whoever...and all of them ending up with their heads disconnected. Perhaps we Brits or at least our film/telly execs have a thing for beheadings?

Not just in the U.K. - here in the U.S., too.

I just see it as the literary equivalant of eating at McDonalds, you know what youre gonna, more or less, get. and its easy to get tired of eating at McDonalds and want to try something different.

I wouldn't say McDonald's - more like gravitating to Thai restaurants over and over, because the food can be really delicious and elegant, or it can be kind of blah, but you do generally know what the range of flavors will be.

[Kveto from Prague]

We don't see it as such, but then, I know only about three other people besides myself who've read The Song of Roland, but it was used in that way.

However, Roland was a big hero to the late mediaeval mind--so much so that dear old Ariosto couldn't help but write a piss-take of him. And the two-time Pulitzer prize-winning historian, Leverett-Lewis (sp?) tried to argue that the use of it as such was a disaster for Western Europe because it denied them the alleged humanitarianism of the Umayyed Dynasty's rule in Spain, and left them with the barbarianism of the Franks.

well, im no expert on la chancon de roland, but i think how a work is interpreted can vary greatly depending on whos reading it. Ive spent a bit of time translating it and Im not as dismissive of it as you seem to be. I think it holds up well with other chancons of the period. Who doesnt feel for a fight against unwinnable odds (as presented in the piece)?

and your historian might want to reassess his/her arguments as the Umayyed dynasty went to pieces (1030s) long before the "song of Roland" was composed (circa 1150). so it hardly seems worth using it as a piece of propaganda against a dynasty long gone to dust.

[M.M. Bennetts]

Levering Lewis not my historian, I can assure you. I sliced and diced his work into mince when I reviewed the book. I would imagine I'm at the top of his hate-list.

Though the reason you give was not my reason for slicing and dicing--it might have been one of the above, but I just didn't have the space. There were so many other glaring historical errors that I had a wealth of choices so far above and beyond the normal range...

The NYTimes also ripped and shredded, though for different reasons than I chose.

As for the Chanson de Roland, I know it was part of every French school child's education for years and years--almost part of the national identity. And I had always identified a great deal of it as in the heroic tradition beginning with Homer's Iliad. (Another work that isn't read nearly enough...) And it was used in the Middle Ages as a kind of us-them rallying cry, most especially in the Crusades.

Which, speaking of events that might be covered more fully (instead of the ubiquitous Tudors), have more tales of dastardly deeds probably than any other period, they involved hundreds and hundreds of men from all over Europe and the Middle East, and yet what do we have, one trickle of a politically correct touchy-feelie version once every twenty years...

[Kveto from Prague]

Levering Lewis not my historian, I can assure you. I sliced and diced his work into mince when I reviewed the book. I would imagine I'm at the top of his hate-list.

Though the reason you give was not my reason for slicing and dicing--it might have been one of the above, but I just didn't have the space. There were so many other glaring historical errors that I had a wealth of choices so far above and beyond the normal range...

The NYTimes also ripped and shredded, though for different reasons than I chose.

As for the Chanson de Roland, I know it was part of every French school child's education for years and years--almost part of the national identity. And I had always identified a great deal of it as in the heroic tradition beginning with Homer's Iliad. (Another work that isn't read nearly enough...) And it was used in the Middle Ages as a kind of us-them rallying cry, most especially in the Crusades.

Which, speaking of events that might be covered more fully (instead of the ubiquitous Tudors), have more tales of dastardly deeds probably than any other period, they involved hundreds and hundreds of men from all over Europe and the Middle East, and yet what do we have, one trickle of a politically correct touchy-feelie version once every twenty years...

ok. i just assumed that since you were refering to his work you agreed with it in some way. i understand you now.

It just seemed that in your first message you were dismissing both the historical Charlemagne and the fictional Roland as unworthy of our attention and or being subject of HF. I disagee there. Id like a warts and all HF biography on charlemagne. a character doesnt have to be "likeable" to make a good subject of a novel. in fact i think the less likable the more realistic. As Charlemagnes history is competely untouched in HF as well as being an interesting period I think he would be a prime candidate. And it need not be "whitewashed" as you say as he was a product of his times.

I also disagree that the song of roland would not be a good candidate for HF. I find Roland a much more "human" and flawed knight than the stereotypical knights of the round table, who just tend to fulfill their roles (lancelot is brave, galahad is pure. etc.). Boriado and Aristo took him to his natural apex in each of the the Orlandos (inamoratto and furioso) of the kind of pride one has before a fall. but thats just my interpretation.

and as you say, these tales form part of the french national character in the same way that the arturian tales fulfill the british national character. both adress universal themes and unplesant themes. yes there is crusader bigotry behind roland in which the moors play the stark bad guys but i dont think that is a major theme any more than in arthur having incest play a major theme for the british national character.

So I disagree that we should dismiss "the song of Roland" anymore than we should dismiss "the legends of Arthur". And currently, there is more room for reinterpretation of the "song" than Arthur. Which was the point i was trying to make in the beginning of the post. that the Aurthurian theme is currently overused so lets look for some other angles.

anyway, nice chatting with you. If you have a link to your review of the book you mentioned id be interested in reading it.

[M.M. Bennetts]

Oh, I'm not dismissing them. 'Struth, I'd be truly interested in a thing on Charlemagne. Didn't they find one of his 'palaces' a couple of years ago? I seem to recall they did--it was in sort of Northern Germany or something. And Charlemagne was such a keen one for education at a time when that wasn't really considered necessary...no, I should be fascinated if they'd give him even a tenth of the consideration they lavish on the Tudors.

Ditto the Crusades. Ditto Roland. I mean, what was the real story there...truly, the battle for Roncevalles is a tiny skirmish in the overall history of the wars between the Moors coming in from Spain and the Franks.

They did a thing on the BBC a few weeks ago, 3 or 4 episodes merely, on the Normans. It was a historian, not historical fiction or re-enactment, but it was fascinating seeing how they transmogrified from Vikings into a political force with a finger in every pie Europe-wide. William the Conquerer was only one of many. The kingdom of Sardinia was a model, apparently, for good government, in the age.

And then there's all the stuff between the Knights of St. John and the Moors in the Mediterranean. The Siege of Malta, the Siege of Rhodes...

As for my review of the Levering-Lewis book, it's not as scathing as I wrote it. They editor may have had to tone it down for fear of being sued, I think. These things happen.

Cheers - MM

[Kveto from Prague]

Oh, I'm not dismissing them. 'Struth, I'd be truly interested in a thing on Charlemagne. Didn't they find one of his 'palaces' a couple of years ago? I seem to recall they did--it was in sort of Northern Germany or something. And Charlemagne was such a keen one for education at a time when that wasn't really considered necessary...no, I should be fascinated if they'd give him even a tenth of the consideration they lavish on the Tudors.

Ditto the Crusades. Ditto Roland. I mean, what was the real story there...truly, the battle for Roncevalles is a tiny skirmish in the overall history of the wars between the Moors coming in from Spain and the Franks.

They did a thing on the BBC a few weeks ago, 3 or 4 episodes merely, on the Normans. It was a historian, not historical fiction or re-enactment, but it was fascinating seeing how they transmogrified from Vikings into a political force with a finger in every pie Europe-wide. William the Conquerer was only one of many. The kingdom of Sardinia was a model, apparently, for good government, in the age.

And then there's all the stuff between the Knights of St. John and the Moors in the Mediterranean. The Siege of Malta, the Siege of Rhodes...

As for my review of the Levering-Lewis book, it's not as scathing as I wrote it. They editor may have had to tone it down for fear of being sued, I think. These things happen.

Cheers - MM

thats kind of what i started this post about. that there are many other interesting stories out there besides Arthur Robin hood, Elenor of Aquitaine, the tutors and the like.

Historically, Rocevalles was more likely a series of Basque ambushes that happened over the years, like with many legends over time blending into a single whole from a tiny grain of truth. but still interesting from both a historic and chanconic point of view.

the normans are definately interesting as some of the real chameleons of history. its hard to find a land in the 11th-12th centuries that they didnt have something to do with.

And I think that you mean to refer to the Norman Kingdom of Sicily not the Kingdom of Sardinia which was a much later entity.

[M.M. Bennetts]

thats kind of what i started this post about. that there are many other interesting stories out there besides Arthur Robin hood, Elenor of Aquitaine, the tutors and the like.

Historically, Rocevalles was more likely a series of Basque ambushes that happened over the years, like with many legends over time blending into a single whole from a tiny grain of truth. but still interesting from both a historic and chanconic point of view.

the normans are definately interesting as some of the real chameleons of history. its hard to find a land in the 11th-12th centuries that they didnt have something to do with.

And I think that you mean to refer to the Norman Kingdom of Sicily not the Kingdom of Sardinia which was a much later entity.

You're right, I do mean the Kingdom of Sardinia...I was only partially watching as I was in the midst of final proofs at the time and wasn't really allowed out of London, 1813...

[EC2]

thats kind of what i started this post about. that there are many other interesting stories out there besides Arthur Robin hood, Elenor of Aquitaine, the tutors and the like.

H

I think Eleanor is still interesting because no-one has properly told her story yet and got at who she really was. SKP perhaps, but only as part of a much broader canvas. Otherwise, even in the supposedly factual arena, there is mucho dross! IMO natch.

[Michy]

I imagine one big reason why so much is written over and over about Eleanor and Elizabeth I is because when it comes to historical females in positions of power, there aren't many to choose from. Myself, I prefer to read historical books that feature non-royals, but I know not everyone feels that way. In fact, I may be in the minority.... :)

[Miss Moppet]

I think Eleanor is still interesting because no-one has properly told her story yet and got at who she really was. SKP perhaps, but only as part of a much broader canvas. Otherwise, even in the supposedly factual arena, there is mucho dross! IMO natch.

I just finished Time and Chance and while I loved Sharon's Eleanor and thought her story was very well told, I'd like to read a different version - not something off the wall like The Secret Eleanor, but a new interpretation of the known facts. I'm not convinced, for example, that Henry and Eleanor were as passionate as they're usually portrayed, even in the beginning. I wonder if people assume they were because they had so many children - but queens were brood mares, so it doesn't necessarily follow. I'd also like to read a book dealing with Eleanor's girlhood and marriage to Louis - everything I've read so far has started with her divorce.

[Misfit]

I just finished Time and Chance and while I loved Sharon's Eleanor and thought her story was very well told, I'd like to read a different version - not something off the wall like The Secret Eleanor, but a new interpretation of the known facts. I'm not convinced, for example, that Henry and Eleanor were as passionate as they're usually portrayed, even in the beginning. I wonder if people assume they were because they had so many children - but queens were brood mares, so it doesn't necessarily follow. I'd also like to read a book dealing with Eleanor's girlhood and marriage to Louis - everything I've read so far has started with her divorce.

Sigh...

I'm afraid we might have to wait for EC for that. Although you never know what the research might turn up :rolleyes:

[EC2]

I just finished Time and Chance and while I loved Sharon's Eleanor and thought her story was very well told, I'd like to read a different version - not something off the wall like The Secret Eleanor, but a new interpretation of the known facts. I'm not convinced, for example, that Henry and Eleanor were as passionate as they're usually portrayed, even in the beginning. I wonder if people assume they were because they had so many children - but queens were brood mares, so it doesn't necessarily follow. I'd also like to read a book dealing with Eleanor's girlhood and marriage to Louis - everything I've read so far has started with her divorce.

Which is exactly what I believe about their marriage having started the Akashic research and I also intend to start from the beginning, not from the divorce.

Realise I am going off at a tangent, so to bring it back. I think with well known characters, there is still room for re-interpretation and it comes back to general fascination with those characters and public awareness. They are always going to be popular and they will sell. But I also think there is room for lesser known ones. It's just a case of finding the angle and writing something that is going to sell in the market and fire up reader imagination. I would love to see a novel of the Song of Roland. :)

[Miss Moppet]

Which is exactly what I believe about their marriage having started the Akashic research and I also intend to start from the beginning, not from the divorce.

:):):) It will be fascinating to see what the Akashics throw up. I really think it is the only way to get a new view of Eleanor without going right off the rails.[/QUOTE]

[Michy]

I'm not convinced, for example, that Henry and Eleanor were as passionate as they're usually portrayed, even in the beginning. I wonder if people assume they were because they had so many children - but queens were brood mares, so it doesn't necessarily follow.

I've always suspected they married more for political reasons than for anything else. After all, they were both ambitious and politically savvy people who could see the advantages in a marriage to one another. I think maybe their union is viewed as passionate not only because of all the kids, but because of the older woman-younger man aspect. As for all the kids -- well, I'd say that's not so much an indication of passion as it is an indication of less-than-effective birth control! :D And also the queen-as-brood-mare angle, as you say.

[Michy]

This is in a slightly different vein, but along the same lines. That is, not people who are "over-exposed" in HF, but perhaps places.

When I think back over the HF books I've read since I started reading HF in my teens, the vast majority have been set in England -- no surprise. Of those, the far, far majority have either been set in London (again, no surprise) or Cornwall. Why Cornwall?

This could just be a reflection of a lack of diversity in my reading material. Then again, perhaps it is something that others have noticed? If so, what is the attraction of Cornwall over other parts of England as a setting for HF?

[M.M. Bennetts]

That's funny about Cornwall. You're right.

My family comes from there. And everyone down there is a cousin. Everyone. So here in the UK there are lots of jokes about the gene-pool of four.

I wonder how much of it has to do with Daphne du Maurier's Vanishing Cornwall? (She was a neighbour of the grandparents...) It's seen as this romantic, rugged, remote place...sea on all sides, cliffs, barren stretches of moorland. Lots of wind. Island fortresses like St. Michael's Mount. Funny names that sound all 'romanticky'.

And it did, because of the distance from London remain far less 'civilised' than the nearer counties. Same with Yorkshire or Northumberland in its way.

I've never even considered setting a novel down there though. It would be like talking about my back garden--I'd probably just complain about all the weeds and how I hadn't mucked in the roses yet for autumn. Boring, boring, boring.

[EC2]

This is in a slightly different vein, but along the same lines. That is, not people who are "over-exposed" in HF, but perhaps places.

When I think back over the HF books I've read since I started reading HF in my teens, the vast majority have been set in England -- no surprise. Of those, the far, far majority have either been set in London (again, no surprise) or Cornwall. Why Cornwall?

This could just be a reflection of a lack of diversity in my reading material. Then again, perhaps it is something that others have noticed? If so, what is the attraction of Cornwall over other parts of England as a setting for HF?

I suppose it has entered the national psyche as a place that's slightly mysterious, beautiful, rugged, out on the edge (still had its own separate language until fairly recently) and terribly romantic - and those elements have then been exported in the same manner that all things Scottish have been. (Stateside you gets kilts and heather and 'Och wee lassie' rather than deep fried Mars Bars and Rab. C. Nesbitt. Cornwall is a major holiday destination for the rest of the UK and as with all touristy places, the area tends to loom larger in terms of visibility. People tend to think in epic, romantic terms of Cornwall. You wouldn't set a detective series there unless it was Midsomer Murders, but it's perfect for period dramas and historical tales from all eras. Of course this doesn't reflect the diverse reality, but my opening comments reflect what the rest of the nation has distilled about Cornwall, regardless of what the Cornish themselves think!

[Madeleine]

Cornwall's certainly very evocative, it also does retain, despite all the touristy bits, it's own character and identity, in fact there was a campaign to have it re-named Kernow (the old Celtic name) and to have the Cornish language kept as an official language - I haven't been down there for a few years so not sure what progress they've made! Plus, stuck on its own "leg" at the bottom of the UK, it does have a feel of being slightly separate from the rest of the country. Add the facts that it's surrounded on 3 sides by water, with its' dramatic coastline, all those caves and inlets, its' smuggling history, the moorland and yes, the du Maurier and Poldark effect, and possibly the fact that it's the end of England - next stop the US - I think there are endless possibilities there!

Do you still live there, or have you ever lived there, MMB?

[M.M. Bennetts]

Cornwall's certainly very evocative, it also does retain, despite all the touristy bits, it's own character and identity, in fact there was a campaign to have it re-named Kernow (the old Celtic name) and to have the Cornish language kept as an official language - I haven't been down there for a few years so not sure what progress they've made! Plus, stuck on its own "leg" at the bottom of the UK, it does have a feel of being slightly separate from the rest of the country. Add the facts that it's surrounded on 3 sides by water, with its' dramatic coastline, all those caves and inlets, its' smuggling history, the moorland and yes, the du Maurier and Poldark effect, and possibly the fact that it's the end of England - next stop the US - I think there are endless possibilities there!

Do you still live there, or have you ever lived there, MMB?

Much of the family still lives there. There are more Bennetts in the Penzance phonebook than anywhere else in the UK. We go down frequently. The great grandfathers were harbourmasters of Penzance, have Cornish names like Barziliai (that's a Christian name btw) and Beckerleg and Bolitho...

And I think possibly it serves as a setting for so much HF because so much of it is rugged coastline and moorland and still relatively unspoilt--man can make little impact, it's left to the elements to play off each other there--so it's easier to imagine life as it may have been 200 or so years ago, whereas it's a bit harder to stand near Horseguards in London for example and think, 200 years ago, across the river, it was Surrey. And rural. Exactly what did that look like?

[Michy]

Thanks for all the interesting and informative responses. What you all say makes sense. It's funny how much I've absorbed about Cornwall just from reading so much HF set there over my life. By the time I was 15 I may not have known all the geography that I should have about my own US, but I knew that the River Tamar was the boundary of Cornwall in England!

deep fried Mars Bars Is this Mars Bars as in candy bars? Sounds like something you'd find at a county fair here in the States! :eek: They deep fry everything....

Cornish names like Barziliai (that's a Christian name btw) and Beckerleg and Bolitho...


I thought all Cornish names started with "Tre", "Pen" or "Pol." :) Just kidding....

[M.M. Bennetts]

Thanks for all the interesting and informative responses. What you all say makes sense. It's funny how much I've absorbed about Cornwall just from reading so much HF set there over my life. By the time I was 15 I may not have known all the geography that I should have about my own US, but I knew that the River Tamar was the boundary of Cornwall in England!

Is this Mars Bars as in candy bars? Sounds like something you'd find at a county fair here in the States! :eek: They deep fry everything....


I thought all Cornish names started with "Tre", "Pen" or "Pol." :) Just kidding....

You're half-way right. Then there are the Buh-names. Bennetts, Beckerleg, Bazeley, Bosanko, Bolitho...And we have our own saints too. Gerrans, Blazey, Piran (patron saint)...So yes, a different culture. (Not sure if that's a compliment.)

[cw gortner]

It's important to note again that while we as bonafide expert historical fiction readers may be weary of the same characters / eras, the truth is most publishers are driven in acquisitions by two factors: a) commercial potential; and b) market trends. Another factor, far less relevant to most hf writers, is the "known author" factor: certain authors have such an ingrained following that readers will follow them anywhere, and they can often break out into new, less explored subjects. But in general even these authors tend to remain within the familiar. Publishers also encourage their most successful authors to stay within the confines of the era / subject matter that made them successful to start with. So, it's a Catch-22. Authors like Gregory or George could ideally break out, say, 10th century Mesopotamia, but would their editors even let them?

In addition, the truth is that readers drive the trends and establish the continuing commercial potential of any subject. Not just us on this forum, who tend to be more specialized in our choices, but readers en masse; and unfortunately they do not seem to be tiring any time soon of the same subjects. The Tudors are still selling very well; shockingly so, to my surprise. When my Tudor spy novels were submitted, I was actually not confident. I thought the trend was waning and didn't want to be caught on its last faltering steps. However, my acquiring editor assured me his Tudor titles outsell his other hf titles, citing numbers that made me think that people do indeed prefer to read the same story, or variations on a theme. My UK editor snapped up all three titles, too.

Go, figure. I believe that as many have already mentioned, it can be challenging for most readers to venture into unknown territory with hf due to a perceived lack of knowledge and/or belief the subject will not be as entertaining. I thrive on variety as a reader but clearly I'm not the average in this respect. Indeed, I don't think it was a coincidence that it took me 13 years to find a publisher for The Last Queen. Looking back over the rejection letters I got, the one common theme that emerged was that Juana was too "unfamiliar" a character -- and she's a sister to one of Henry VIII's wives!

Not sure if any of this is relevant but I thought I'd share a more personal look at this issue, from a writer's perspective.

[Madeleine]

Thanks for all the interesting and informative responses. What you all say makes sense. It's funny how much I've absorbed about Cornwall just from reading so much HF set there over my life. By the time I was 15 I may not have known all the geography that I should have about my own US, but I knew that the River Tamar was the boundary of Cornwall in England!

Is this Mars Bars as in candy bars? Sounds like something you'd find at a county fair here in the States! :eek: They deep fry everything....


I thought all Cornish names started with "Tre", "Pen" or "Pol." :) Just kidding....

From what I remember from my last visit to the US, your Mars Bars are different from ours - yours have nuts in them! Ours are chocolate with lots of toffee and more chocolate instead, very fattening:eek: I've never had them deep-fried though!:eek:

[MLE]

I'm happy with Mary Stewart's Arthur books-- after plodding half-way through Marion Zimmer's beat-you-into-the-ground version, I decided I'd just leave the King and his round table as-is in my mind. As for Robin Hood, the last time I had anything to do with him it was 'Men in Tights'. Also tired of the Tudors.

But that's just me. As far as the business of publishing is concerned, what is familiar to old hands is new ground to many just dipping their toes into HF waters. Rather like Disney animated films, there is a new audience for 'Cinderella' every five years. The plot is predictable, but it works, and has for generations.

A king who sets out to clean up and unite his country but is betrayed by his friend/son; an outlaw who lives in the forest and rights wrongs done to the helpless-- these are appealing themes for readers. So I doubt there will be an end to them any time soon.

Also, they are English, and since we are here on an English-language forum, you're going to see English-themed HF more than that of other countries. I suspect that Hindu historical fiction has a preponderance of stories from the Ramayana.

[Kveto from Prague]

It's important to note again that while we as bonafide expert historical fiction readers may be weary of the same characters / eras, the truth is most publishers are driven in acquisitions by two factors: a) commercial potential; and b) market trends. Another factor, far less relevant to most hf writers, is the "known author" factor: certain authors have such an ingrained following that readers will follow them anywhere, and they can often break out into new, less explored subjects. But in general even these authors tend to remain within the familiar. Publishers also encourage their most successful authors to stay within the confines of the era / subject matter that made them successful to start with. So, it's a Catch-22. Authors like Gregory or George could ideally break out, say, 10th century Mesopotamia, but would their editors even let them?

In addition, the truth is that readers drive the trends and establish the continuing commercial potential of any subject. Not just us on this forum, who tend to be more specialized in our choices, but readers en masse; and unfortunately they do not seem to be tiring any time soon of the same subjects. The Tudors are still selling very well; shockingly so, to my surprise. When my Tudor spy novels were submitted, I was actually not confident. I thought the trend was waning and didn't want to be caught on its last faltering steps. However, my acquiring editor assured me his Tudor titles outsell his other hf titles, citing numbers that made me think that people do indeed prefer to read the same story, or variations on a theme. My UK editor snapped up all three titles, too.

Go, figure. I believe that as many have already mentioned, it can be challenging for most readers to venture into unknown territory with hf due to a perceived lack of knowledge and/or belief the subject will not be as entertaining. I thrive on variety as a reader but clearly I'm not the average in this respect. Indeed, I don't think it was a coincidence that it took me 13 years to find a publisher for The Last Queen. Looking back over the rejection letters I got, the one common theme that emerged was that Juana was too "unfamiliar" a character -- and she's a sister to one of Henry VIII's wives!

Not sure if any of this is relevant but I thought I'd share a more personal look at this issue, from a writer's perspective.

interesting stuff. thanks for the perspective. as you say, well known writers can write themselves into a position of more freedom with subject matter. but that might also take them out of their comfort zone.

[Kveto from Prague]

I'm happy with Mary Stewart's Arthur books-- after plodding half-way through Marion Zimmer's beat-you-into-the-ground version, I decided I'd just leave the King and his round table as-is in my mind. As for Robin Hood, the last time I had anything to do with him it was 'Men in Tights'. Also tired of the Tudors.

But that's just me. As far as the business of publishing is concerned, what is familiar to old hands is new ground to many just dipping their toes into HF waters. Rather like Disney animated films, there is a new audience for 'Cinderella' every five years. The plot is predictable, but it works, and has for generations.

A king who sets out to clean up and unite his country but is betrayed by his friend/son; an outlaw who lives in the forest and rights wrongs done to the helpless-- these are appealing themes for readers. So I doubt there will be an end to them any time soon.

Also, they are English, and since we are here on an English-language forum, you're going to see English-themed HF more than that of other countries. I suspect that Hindu historical fiction has a preponderance of stories from the Ramayana.

i guess my original point was not clear. im not really against arthur and robin. im against "new" arthur and robin stuff. im against redoing subjects that are already overdone. keeping with your cinderella example. disney has a new market every 5 years. but they dont completely rewrite a new cinderella every five years. the old one is still good enough to be used for a new audience. if it aint broke dont fix it or in this case dont "rewrite/reboot" it.

Morte d Arthur, the Farie Queen, and works that follwed can be read by new generations. but its been done. and done. and done. we dont need it redone anymore. its just my feeling of course.

As for the "english" angle, well i was hoping to stay away from that. the idea that English speakers are only interested in reading about English speaking countries. Thats why in my original post i tried to use other examples of english characters who could be better subjects. King Alfred in place of Arthur. and Dick Turpin in place of Robin Hood. Im not overloaded on the less overexposed characters, whereever they are from. the charlemagne and Roland as subjects came up later in the thread.
And I also hope its not true that English speakers are only interested in English language characters.

And Im definately not against the themes you presented. All of the other characters i mentioned would encapsulate similar themes as most stories do. its that these themes can be done with different characters to make things more interesting. Its not like Arthur is the only king unitng his country and getting betrayed or Robin hood is not the only guy sticking up for the poor. I dont think they have a monopoly on these themes.

I hope that makes things from my perspective clearer.

[annis]

Posted by EC
Stateside you gets kilts and heather and 'Och wee lassie' rather than deep fried Mars Bars and Rab. C. Nesbitt.

Fried Mars bars? Tell me it isn’t so! I think I feel ill… What amuses me about historical romances set in Scotland is the fact that cold rain and midges never get a mention. Whenever I read about a romantic lochside interlude I always think, “yeah, right”!

Why do we like reading about the same characters over and over? Well, my take is that it’s part of our psychological makeup to find comfort in familiar rituals. Children (as any parent knows) love the same story told endlessly over and over. The fact that they know what is coming gives them pleasure and reaffirms their place in the world. We retain some of that need as we grow older. The old storytellers and bards of the oral tradition knew this well and always got their audiences going with familiar tales (maybe embellished differently here and there) before moving on to newer material. With familiar tales come familiar heroes/heroines who become part of our personal mythology. This pattern can also be seen in the comfort people take from adopting characters in long-running TV shows like Days of Our Lives and Coronation Street. as part of their personal circle of acquaintances.

[Michy]

And I also hope its not true that English speakers are only interested in English language characters.



No, I don't think it's true. I think English speakers have a quite natural cultural/historical affinity for English language characters. Plus, that's what we've predominantly been exposed to, and so that's what's most familiar to us. But I think English language readers would be receptive to characters from other countries and cultures -- the authors and publishers may have to work a bit harder to make them attractive to English language readers, though.

That's just my take -- others may disagree........

[Michy]

Fried Mars bars? Tell me it isn’t so! I think I feel ill…

Oh, you wouldn't believe the food that is sold at American county fairs! Everything deep fried! And on a stick! I have to say I haven't tried any of it -- I almost never go to fairs and when I do, I'm not very brave about trying "weird" food. Don't know if county fairs in other places are like this, or if it's an American thing. :)

[MLE]

The last time I was at my local fairgrounds it was the world's largest Scottish games. They had meat pies, fish & chips, and haggis.

Deep-fried haggis on a stick -- now there's a revolting picture!:eek:

[Divia]

It's important to note again that while we as bonafide expert historical fiction readers may be weary of the same characters / eras, the truth is most publishers are driven in acquisitions by two factors: a) commercial potential; and b) market trends. Another factor, far less relevant to most hf writers, is the "known author" factor: certain authors have such an ingrained following that readers will follow them anywhere, and they can often break out into new, less explored subjects.

This is very true. I'm following Michelle into the world of the French Rev. I'm not a French Rev fan and the only part of French history that I enjoy is Joan of Arc, but I'll give it a go.

[M.M. Bennetts]

Before talking about Hindu historical fiction...I don't know who else will have had this experience, but...sort of through a friend of a friend way of things, an Indian woman was at the book launch for May 1812 and she was telling me how disgraceful she thought the British ignorance of their own history was. And she explained how in India they study both their own history, but they're also required to study British history.

So anyway, she bought a copy of the book, and then over the months bought several more because she sent one to her dad, who loved it, and then he wanted a copy for his friend and on it went...And it transpires that they're crazy about British historical fiction there. They love British costume dramas too, like from the BBC.

And of course, what we often forget is that India is the second largest English-reading book market.

[Madeleine]

As for the "english" angle, well i was hoping to stay away from that. the idea that English speakers are only interested in reading about English speaking countries. Thats why in my original post i tried to use other examples of english characters who could be better subjects. King Alfred in place of Arthur. and Dick Turpin in place of Robin Hood. Im not overloaded on the less overexposed characters, whereever they are from. the charlemagne and Roland as subjects came up later in the thread.


DT was very popular a while ago, in the 70s/early 80s - I remember the TV series which someone else mentioned - however he seems to have fallen out of favour more recently, probably, I suspect, due to the fact that it might look as if his crimes were being glorified - he wasn't an anti-hero in the same sense that Robin Hood was.

More modern crime is also still popular - Jack the Ripper seems to hold an endless fascination for the media, a fact I always find slightly distasteful due to the nature of his crimes. But I suppose the fact that his identity has never been genuinely discovered, despite all the theories, means that he will always intrigue some people.

[Ludmilla]

I thrive on variety as a reader but clearly I'm not the average in this respect.


I think I'm this type of reader, too (need variety). I know a little about a lot of things, but never stick with one topic long enough to develop a deep knowledge about it. I also have never had the time, resources or mental bandwidth to suck a topic dry the way some readers are able to. I wish I could, but I've accepted the fact that I'll never be this way. However, if I've discovered an author whom I think is exceptionally talented, I will follow that author and take a chance on topics that may not particularly appeal. In most cases, these turn out not to be trendy authors, so I'm not sure how much it really applies to the situation being discussed here.

[Michy]

I know a little about a lot of things, but never stick with one topic long enough to develop a deep knowledge about it. I also have never had the time, resources or mental bandwidth to suck a topic dry the way some readers are able to. I wish I could, but I've accepted the fact that I'll never be this way.

This describes me, also. I just have too much going on in life to have time to research and delve deeply into any particular area. Maybe someday when I'm retired I will. In the meantime, I'm a "smorgasbord" reader -- I like a little bit of (almost) everything.

[Ariadne]

I tend to agree that readers en masse aren't tiring of the same familiar subjects. This is based on years working with the Historical Novels Review and attempting to place incoming books with US-based reviewers. Novels about female royals/noblewomen/royal mistresses and English settings in general (medieval through Victorian) are in constant high demand, whereas novels with out-of-the-ordinary settings are much, much harder to place. I have a handful of reviewers who'll read historical novels set in the 19th-c Western states, for example, but many people won't consider them, no matter who the author is. Ditto for other American settings, unless it's a more glamorous-seeming era like Gilded Age New York. I prefer variety in my reading, and it seems many on this board do also, but I don't think it's the norm among HF readers in general.

So I can understand commercial publishers' desire to capitalize on what they feel readers are interested in. Given the choice, though, I'll always gravitate to the new and unfamiliar for my personal reading.

[fljustice]

I imagine one big reason why so much is written over and over about Eleanor and Elizabeth I is because when it comes to historical females in positions of power, there aren't many to choose from.

I think the reason is probably closer to CW's analysis of readers, publishers and markets staying in a rut. From Antonia Frasier's The Warrior Queens we have over a dozen female rulers who personally led armies from the well known Boudica, Zenobia, and Isabella; to the lesser known Tomyris of the Massagetae, who defeated and killed Cyrus the Great; the Vietnamese sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhe, who led the first uprising of their country against the Chinese in AD 59. Queen Jinga of Angola led her people against the Portuguese in the 17th C; Lakshmi Bai, the Rani of Jhansi, led her men against the British in 1858, etc.

And those are just the Warrior Queens. Start looking at possible subjects because of their madness (Juana), lust (Catherine the Great), manipulation (Catherine de Medici) or all three (pick almost any Roman Empress) and the possibilities are almost endless for fascinating women of power. The Theodosian women (http://justjenniferreading.blogspot.com/2010/06/guest-blog-post-author-faith-justice.html) (about whom I write) ruled over the Roman Empire during the critical time in late 4th early 5th C as the West disintegrated and the East laid the foundation form Byzantium; making decisions that affected Europe for centuries.

To pull back to the original topic, I agree there are so many areas to explore beyond Arthur and Robin Hood, that it's a shame so much ink and film is given to them. I do understand the reader/watcher's need for something familiar and iconic, but regret that they don't venture beyond their comfort zone more often.

[Michy]

I think the reason is probably closer to CW's analysis of readers, publishers and markets staying in a rut. From Antonia Frasier's The Warrior Queens we have over a dozen female rulers who personally led armies from the well known Boudica, Zenobia, and Isabella; to the lesser known Tomyris of the Massagetae, who defeated and killed Cyrus the Great; the Vietnamese sisters Trung Trac and Trung Nhe, who led the first uprising of their country against the Chinese in AD 59. Queen Jinga of Angola led her people against the Portuguese in the 17th C; Lakshmi Bai, the Rani of Jhansi, led her men against the British in 1858, etc.

And those are just the Warrior Queens. Start looking at possible subjects because of their madness (Juana), lust (Catherine the Great), manipulation (Catherine de Medici) or all three (pick almost any Roman Empress) and the possibilities are almost endless for fascinating women of power. The Theodosian women (http://justjenniferreading.blogspot.com/2010/06/guest-blog-post-author-faith-justice.html) (about whom I write) ruled over the Roman Empire during the critical time in late 4th early 5th C as the West disintegrated and the East laid the foundation form Byzantium; making decisions that affected Europe for centuries.


This is all true. However, I go back to something I posted earlier (in this same thread, I think), which is that, generally speaking, native English-language readers gravitate towards the cultures and histories which are most familiar, which would be British/English (and to a lesser degree, French). So, for women in power, that takes you back to Eleanor, Elizabeth I, and a handful of others. Publishers stay in the rut with these because they know that stepping out of it will be a harder sell. I will use myself as an example; I consider myself a fairly eclectic reader, and yet, if I have to choose between a book about an English queen and a book about a queen or powerful equivalent from another culture (especially non-European), I will choose the English queen almost every time.

So, it's a vicious cycle, I guess. :D

[Ludmilla]

Building on Faith's examples, for those who wish there were more books set during the time of Charlemagne and wanting a book about a powerful woman, I think Irene of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_of_Athens) would make a good subject. I don't think much has been written about her in the historical fiction market.

[Kveto from Prague]

Building on Faith's examples, for those who wish there were more books set during the time of Charlemagne and wanting a book about a powerful woman, I think Irene of Athens (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_of_Athens) would make a good subject. I don't think much has been written about her in the historical fiction market.

I just finished "belt of Gold" by cecilia holland which revolved around Empress Irene. It was quite good showing how well Irene managed to hold onto power, which must have been considerably tough since she deposed, blinded and murdered her own son.

But shes definately an interesting subject