Purpose to historical fiction?

[wendy]

I've been thinking a lot about the purpose of historical fiction because
T.S. Eliot claimed we do not learn from the past, and that in every generation the same things happen again and again (Murder in the Cathedral)

So I have two questions -

Readers: Do you read purely for entertainment?

Writers: Should literature be more didactic?

Any thoughts?

[Ash]

I'm a reader, and I can answer both questions: No, I do not read only for entertainment, tho I do expect a book to be entertaining to read on some level. I read to escape into another story, another life, another world. I esp read to learn about the world around me, and usually manage to find lessons in HF, as well as many other genres

No, I don't think literature should be hitting us over the head with lessons. A good writer knows how to teach us by telling us a story. Wolf Hall was excellent in that respect. No footnotes needed, no long explanations needed. Just good story telling, which at the same time expanded my knowledge of the man and his time.

I do agree with the Elliot quote, as well as the quote that 'if we do not remember our history we are condemned to repeat it'. But I don't think its any books job to necessarily do that for us.

[Divia]

I read for entertainment.

If I want to learn about history I'll pick up a history book. That's just me though.

[Michy]

When it comes to fiction, I read for entertainment (if I want to learn, I'll read NF). That being said, I read almost exclusively historical fiction (almost no contemporary fiction) and so I do enjoy learning a little bit at the same time about whatever time and place the story is set in. I like it when authors weave historical details and facts into their stories so that it not only feels authentic but at the same time teaches me something that I may not have known. As a reader I'm always asking -- what would it have been like for me if I had lived during this time and place?

IMO, the best authors are the ones who can work these things seamlessly into their dialogue and descriptions of the places, etc. I do not like it when authors seem to pause their story while taking a paragraph or two to lecture me about whatever fascinating information they uncovered in their research. (ok, I'm being a little facetious, but I have read books written like that, and, ugh!)

[SarahWoodbury]

I read historical fiction because I love the past. Even though I'd last about a minute and a half in the middle ages, an Outlander type time travel opportunity would be impossible to pass up.

Given that, I also want to learn something in the sense that this person's life is different from my own--how does the author bridge that gap and make the past accessible to me?

Did I learn more than anyone needs to know about Llywelyn ap Gruffydd from history books taught in any of MY schools? Of course not. It's all SKP. Why do I know anything at all about the civil war between Stephen and Maud? Thank you, Brother Cadfael. Thus, it's nice if the history is accurate, and I appreciate author's notes that tell me when it isn't.

I also completely disagree with the Eliot quote. We are a product of our history. We tell ourselves stories all the time about our own pasts that we use to shape our futures. Not knowing it is like lying to yourself about who you are.

[Susan]

Did I learn more than anyone needs to know about Llywelyn ap Gruffydd from history books taught in any of MY schools? Of course not. It's all SKP. Why do I know anything at all about the civil war between Stephen and Maud? Thank you, Brother Cadfael. Thus, it's nice if the history is accurate, and I appreciate author's notes that tell me when it isn't.

I totally agree with the above statement about Welsh history...Sharon Kay Penman all the way!

I read HF for both purposes. When I find out something new from HF, it causes me to do some research, learn more, and evaluate what I did learn from HF. I've met some very interesting real people from HF. Two such people were Margaret of York (sister of Edward IV and Richard III) and her stepdaughter Mary of Burgundy (a reigning Duchess of Burgundy) from Anne Easter Smith's book Daughter of York. I had some issues with the book, but I met those two interesting women and did further research on them. When I read the book, I could never have imagined that in less than a year I would be in Bruges at the tomb of Mary of Burgundy who tragically died at age 25 in a riding accident. Without that novel, that tomb would have been just one of the very many I saw on that European trip.

[LoveHistory]

I read mostly for entertainment. Escaping into another place is entertainment for me. I like to learn too so learning is sometimes entertainment to me. I like fact-based fiction, and completely invented fiction.

There is so much variation within the HF genre that I don't really feel a need to lean one way or the other on this issue. Some books have more facts and history in them, others are blatant entertainment, most lie between the two.

Didn't like the T.S. Eliot quote until I went back and read it again. He did not say we shouldn't study the past, just that most people don't learn from it and make the same mistakes others have made before them. It's a wordier version of "history repeats itself."

[Mythica]

I read for entertainment.

If I want to learn about history I'll pick up a history book. That's just me though.

Same here - of course I do wind up looking up a lot of stuff in novels to see if it's true or not. But that's not the reason I read novels.

[Ash]

. He did not say we shouldn't study the past, just that most people don't learn from it and make the same mistakes others have made before them. It's a wordier version of "history repeats itself."

Thats how I read it too.

[annis]

To me, the word "didactic" in relation to fiction equals the kiss of death for the author. Readers buy novels in order to be entertained, and vote with their money- they aren't going to buy fiction which lectures or preaches at them. Of course the best HF informs as well as entertains, but does so without hitting the reader over the head with the results of the author's research. As Mythica commented, many readers these days supplement their fiction reading with their own research anyway if they feel they'd like more information, an option the internet has opened up for us.

[Alisha Marie Klapheke]

I like how Susan put it. Reading HF gives me a jumping off point for research. It makes a tomb meaningful and a trip more delightful. HF piques my interest in a certain time period or for a particular person in history. I do not require historical perfection in the fiction that I read. I do not throw stones because I don't want stones thrown at my own writing! As a reader, I want entertainment and an experience in the past. If the details are a bit off, well, I'll figure that out through follow up research.

[Madeleine]

I read primarily for entertainment and escapism, and I read a lot of non-HF too. However if I'm interested in someone who's in an HF novel, whether they're the main character or not, I'll do further research on them and like to think I've learnt a bit more about history rather than just endless lists of dates and Acts of Parliament, which were often glossed over at school eg the Irish Potato Famine reduced to a couple of tiny paragraphs in my exercise book! However I don't like it when authors hit the reader over the head with facts, as if they're thinking that because they spent all that time doing their research, the reader has to know every single thing in great detail - often, they don't, especially if it's not that essential to the plot, although I do admit that I've read modern authors who do the same thing.

[donroc]

I read HF for entertainment, information, and new insights that have not appeared in NF covering the same era, persons, and subject matter.

I write HF to tell a good story about people and their times that inspire my imagination while painlessly educating the reader about the era and personages.

Have I succeeded? Only those who read my writing can say.

[MLE]

I'm with LH in that I find nothing more entertaining than learning. But fiction's first purpose is to entertain, and if a fiction book doesn't entertain me, I won't finish it (unless there is another purpose, such as book club, college assignment, etc.).

I don't mind variation from the 'facts' for the sake of story. Unless the variation is in a direction that takes it too far--I suppose under the category 'defaming the dead' -- which is an odd little quirk of mine I doubt many readers share.

I do like author's notes. And I do enjoy the web's incredible power to give me follow-up at my fingertips -- a serious distraction when reading e-books!

And just for the record, quite a few books in the non-fiction history section have less truth than good HF. Even worse for the hypocrisy, as they are being marketed as true.

Must get back to work...internet time limited.

[Perdita]

For me HF is about dramatising the sometimes dry accounts of history we read in biographies and non fiction. A historian gives us all the facts and the author gives us the emotions and drama. For example, David Starkey might give an expert analysis of Henry VIII's reign but in order for it to mean anything we need HF authors to give the people involved a voice.
I think we humans instinctively need to tell the stories of our forebears - it probably goes back to when we were cavemen and told stories round the campfire!
Also I like historical accuracy in my HF but if the author gets right to the heart of the personalities involved and tells a fantastic story, the accuracy starts to matter less. With HF I'd rather have a great story than a history lesson.

[annis]

It seems to me that what most readers really want of HF is to experience life in another period of history. It's all very well getting the facts right, but the author primarily needs to get the mindset and attitudes right - setting up the cultural framework and belief systems in context.

Elisabeth Storrs' novel The Wedding Shroud, which I read recently, is a good example of an author recreating another time so convincingly that I emerged from the story feeling as if I had been living it, and not only knowing more about Rome and Etruria in the fifth century BC, but the extent to which everyday life and culture was so strongly influenced by the gods and the supernatural.

Scott Oden gave a perceptive and thoughtful reply on this subject in an interview he did for Historical Novels Info about his latest novel, The Lion of Cairo:

"Q. Did adding magic to the historical swashbuckler mix require a major shift in mind-set for you as an author?

A. Not so much, no. One thing that's always bothered me about the bulk of the historical fiction I've read is that it fails to tap into the sense of wonder and mysticism a character from, say, the eleventh century would likely possess. With such an emphasis placed on historical accuracy - from veracity of dating to what a Crusader would wear - superstition and a belief in sorcery tends to fall by the wayside. Is it real? Is the protagonist’s knife possessed? Do the dead truly speak to the villainous necromancer? I don’t know, but my characters believe it’s real and that’s enough for me."

bernard Cornwell also embraced this approach in Agincourt. Religion is so bound up in everyday medieval life, that it seems perfectly natural that the main character, Nicholas, should have visions and talk to the saints. Whether they are imaginary or not is irrelevant to his belief that they are real. Karen Maitland is another author who manages this well, particularly in Company of Liars.

[Margaret]

I'm with LH in that I find nothing more entertaining than learning.

Me, too.

Too often, I think, people make the assumption that entertainment and education are somehow mutually exclusive opposites, which makes entertainment sound disreputable and frivolous while it makes education sound punishingly boring. Education is only boring if it seems to have no relevance to our own lives - why would any of us want to occupy our time in a pursuit that will be utterly useless to us? But education is deeply interesting to us if we know, or instinctively sense, that it will help us understand the world we live in better, which - in theory, at least - should help us to live better ourselves.

What I want to learn from historical fiction is not a compendium of names, dates and facts. That I can get from nonfiction - and if I'm really interested in a particular subject and trying to learn more about it, the bare names, dates and facts are not boring at all to me - look at how fascinating genealogy can be, for example! But historical fiction needs to somehow bring those names, dates and facts to life. When I read a historical novel, I want to be drawn deeply into the story of the people and events, almost as if I were living it myself, so I can learn something more fundamental and difficult to grasp than the merely factual. Essentially, I'm trying to figure out how to live a good life through the examples of the people I'm reading about. That's a really complex thing, because life is complex, and didactic novels with an obvious, simplistic message don't succeed with me.

For example, in Edith Pargeter's A Bloody Field by Shrewsbury, I was caught up in the characters' dilemmas. Prince Hal was torn between admiration for Harry Percy's honesty and openness and his need to adopt the personal traits, including discretion, that would make him a king who could offer stability and safety to the people he ruled. Learning that his father was not trustworthy was a painful lesson for him, but it brought maturity that he needed in order to become a good king. Even today, for those of us who never expect to become kings, we need to learn how to balance honesty and trust with a certain amount of shrewdness and discretion in order to get along well in the world. And I'm oversimplifying the novel here - it was much more complex than that, but the essence was that we need the agony of waking up to the truth about the people we care about if we are going to live successful lives. To an extent, reading the novel allowed me to add the experiences of the characters to my own life, to augment the richness of my own experience, something I think every good novel does. To do that, it had to be both entertaining and based on a sound enough factual underpinning for me to find it credible.

[lvcabbie]

I read to learn in an entertaining manner.
Conducting research is where one needs the dry, matter-of-fact approach to an era. But, fiction brings it to life through the author's imagination what what an individual of that time would see and experience.

[EC2]

As a reader I read historical fiction for the story and sometimes learn stuff along the way if it's that sort of novel. If it's about a real person then I expect integrity and a decent amount of research. Story telling and historical integrity do not have to be mutually exclusive. If I am really interested in a subject then I'll go looking for myself, but most of the time I'm not and the novel sufficiently satisfies me at that level. So I prefer my writers not to talk bollocks even if it's fiction.

As a writer - You write to your personal ethics, integrity and preference and for the audience that will best appreciate your approach. I know what I like as a reader, and I'll avoid writers who don't fulfil that criteria, but they might be someone else's shining star - so each to his or her own.

[Telynor]

I read HF for both reasons. For me, it's pure escapism at times, and honestly, the only way that I am going to be able to see a great part of the world are through the pages of books. (you can ask me why, privately, it's ok) But I'll use a good or interesting HF to give me a leaping off point for further research -- if I like the characters or the place or the history, then I have a point of reference for exploring the NF side of things.

[Michy]

the only way that I am going to be able to see a great part of the world are through the pages of books. I think that's probably true for a lot of us. Unless some long-lost great-uncle (who doesn't even exist in my case! ;)) leaves us a nice inheritance!

[Shield-of-Dardania]

I read mostly for entertainment. Escaping into another place is entertainment for me. I like to learn too so learning is sometimes entertainment to me. I like fact-based fiction, and completely invented fiction.

There is so much variation within the HF genre that I don't really feel a need to lean one way or the other on this issue. Some books have more facts and history in them, others are blatant entertainment, most lie between the two.

I think LH has got it summed up rather nicely there. I buy a novel for entertainment too. I'd look somewhere else if I want hard, cold fact. I want a novel's writer to give me pleasure rather than wisdom.

That said, a certain amount of learning which could benefit your life won't do you any harm, so why not? Especially if it's weaved effortlessly and beautifully into the dialogue, action, narrative etc.

But it shouldn't take away anything from the pleasure of a casual, leisurely read. And I believe the writer should have the leeway and the prerogative to lean one way or the other, i.e. pro-fact or pro-entertainment, or remain about midway between both. Let his reader decide.

David Gemmel practically turned the entire Homeric version of Troy upside down, sideways and all around in his Troy trilogy. His Hector was golden haired rather than dark haired, his Priam was an egoistic womaniser, his Helen plain instead of beautiful, his Odysseus ugly and a major fibber. But David spinned a great tale, he got me into HF and I've remained an addict since then.

[Rissa]

First I read HF for entertainment, because that's why fiction is written. But then I also want to learn something.

My history lessons at school have been very basic, and we totally skipped the middle ages - from Roman times (not even the Fall of Rome) we went directly to French Revolution... And living in Germany we only got little tidbits on British, American and Australian history, only what was included in our Englishbooks or what our teachers told us about.

So novels are my way to learn. I read something in a novel, and if I get interested enough I try to find out a bit more about it afterwards.

I think that novels should be written in a way that's entertaining to catch the readers and to make them want to know more, but authors should try to avoid mistakes and anachronisms as much as possible so that those who read purely for entertaining reasons don't get wrong impressions on a time.

It might be true that hardly anyone learns something out of history, but if only some learn something it's better than otherwise!

[DianeL]

In most of my entertainments, I am usually the ideal audience. I'm willing to suspend disbelief and participate in almost any absurdity if it's fun or I'm intrigued. Historical fiction, though, I seem to hold to a different standard; the works I love the most are the ones which TRY at least (and explain, as well; good grief, how I love Author's Notes!) to convey the reality of a period, etc.

I have a hell of a hard time with Romance in Lacy Long Dresses, and with Feminists Out of Time; both these genres (yeah, I'm callin' 'em genres) bother me - the latter not least because, AS a feminist, I see no favors done by eliminating the reality of what women historically have had to deal with.

I also have little patience for arbitrary liberties taken in "historical fiction" (though I am extremely open to the ideas and treatments in alternative-history realities etc.), and the insistence of some histfic to insert Famous Characters in stories where they really aren't necessary never comes across as anything but self-conscious to me. I understand it, but if the tale is supposed to revolve around a peasant family and someone ends up in a heart-to-heart with Queen Victoria, or being admired and crucially mentored for the span of a single scene by Benjamin Franklin, I am going to roll my eyes shortly before clawing them clean out of my head. Name dropping doesn't become more attractive just because it doesn't involve an egregious contemporary celebrity. Please also deliver me from people who need to write the scene where Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth secretly, really, totally, like hash it out and some junk - all the while circling each other with their precocious egos. Bleah.

This said, I don't mind liberties, in and of themselves. Often, the right idea is incredibly fascinating. Posit something for me, write it well, and I will go with you down your beautifully written, fully realized primrose path. And it doesn't even have to be a small posit - visualize something preposterous, and if you do it well, I'll go with you.

But waste my time on vilifying Anne Boleyn for the sake of a soap opera, or wasting the high-concept of a female pope, only to produce a Mary Sue in a poor plotline, and I am done. And my marginalia with wither every page, too. I write in my books, and none too shyly. I edit without compunction, including commentary on writing choices. (B*tchy behavior, to be sure, but boy does it help when reading a weak novel I'm curious enough to see through, but gritting my teeth to tolerate.) And save your ax-grinding for the diatribe on the blog; my entertainment dollars are not a platform I'll be happy to see most authors standing on.

I spent the time researching and writing my own first novel exquisitely aware of the exceptions people could theoretically take to the choices I made - and I made a point of addressing those in the Author's Note. I've known too many guitarists, standing in the back of a bar some other band is headlining, and grousing about not being on stage themselves, to (a) forget they're out there reading novels and complaining about those too, OR (b) to let them really affect my performance. The Ax and the Vase is all mine; I made my choices advisedly, and am extremely happy with where they led me. I know not everyone who reads it will agree - there'll be a few who crow about the year I chose for Clovis' baptism, or even the bit about Tarpan horses. And my subject is obscure, too - at least relatively speaking, and at least on this side of the Pond.

So I know the pitfalls from both sides. At the end of the day, I want entertainment. But, for reading or watching your period piece, my standards do sit a bit higher than might be apparent from the fact that I own a DVD of "Highlander: Endgame" ...

Heh.

[Steve Anderson]

First off, it's entertainment. To be taken away. For me, it's a form of travel.

But historical fiction can have a purpose analogous to science fiction, which takes the possibilities made real by hard science and asks "what if?" By the same token, I think historical fiction takes what we know as (more or less) fact -- i.e. events happened -- and applies some of that same imagining that goes into science fiction. In this way, both genres can help us get at truths in our current world by bringing insight that comes through distance. Good fiction always gets at some kind of core truth, even if it's not known to the reader at first. Hopefully the reader is enjoying oneself above all.

Another reason why alternate history is probably so compelling, though I've never read much of it. For me, known history itself is more than compelling enough.

I hope this made sense and apologies if someone else covered it. It just came to me and I'm gonna let it stand!

[DianeL]

That puts it well (and more succintly than I did, certainly!) - the point of historical fiction is to leave our immediate world. I've always preferred entertainment that takes me somewhere unfamiliar. Still, a part of that is because I like to learn about worlds I do not know.

That informs my interest in science fiction too, of course - but part of the reason HF is more important to me is the aspect of reality it offers, the authenticity SF doesn't have - or usually can't be touched, anyway. I've always liked the idea that the characters we read about are in some way "real" people ...

[Margaret]

I do think there's a similarity to science fiction, and it's interesting to note that a number of historical novelists also write SciFi, and vice-versa. There are a number of novels that blend the two by including time-travel scenarios that are elaborate enough to qualify the novels as SciFi. Just offhand, the superb 1992 novel The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis is one. It's set in the near future, and has parallel plots involving plague epidemics both there and in 14th century England.

As a broad generalization (always unfair, I know), I find that historical fiction is more likely to feature interesting, psychologically complex characters, whereas in a lot of the SciFi I have read, the characters are pretty flat, created more in service to an idea than out of an interest in people's personalities and motivations. That's the main thing that makes me prefer historical fiction over SciFi. But there are exceptions in both areas.

[Steve Anderson]

That puts it well (and more succintly than I did, certainly!) - the point of historical fiction is to leave our immediate world. I've always preferred entertainment that takes me somewhere unfamiliar. Still, a part of that is because I like to learn about worlds I do not know.

That informs my interest in science fiction too, of course - but part of the reason HF is more important to me is the aspect of reality it offers, the authenticity SF doesn't have - or usually can't be touched, anyway. I've always liked the idea that the characters we read about are in some way "real" people ...

I do think there's a similarity to science fiction, and it's interesting to note that a number of historical novelists also write SciFi, and vice-versa. There are a number of novels that blend the two by including time-travel scenarios that are elaborate enough to qualify the novels as SciFi. Just offhand, the superb 1992 novel The Doomsday Book by Connie Willis is one. It's set in the near future, and has parallel plots involving plague epidemics both there and in 14th century England.

As a broad generalization (always unfair, I know), I find that historical fiction is more likely to feature interesting, psychologically complex characters, whereas in a lot of the SciFi I have read, the characters are pretty flat, created more in service to an idea than out of an interest in people's personalities and motivations. That's the main thing that makes me prefer historical fiction over SciFi. But there are exceptions in both areas.

Thanks, DianeL, and great points from both of you about HF carrying more reality and complex characters intertwined with events we know happened -- events that demand possibly more compelling motivations.

Margaret, your mention of SciFi and HF blending reminded me a great book I read years ago: Time and Again by Jack Finney. An illustrator (with a keen eye for observing) from the 1970s travels back in time to 1882 New York City. I don't read SciFi, but it really helped the past come alive in this case.

[wendy]

Some neat and thoughtful answers. Thanks guys!

[The Czar]

There are a number of "purposes" to historical fiction, imho.

1. It shows that there is really nothing new under the sun. Every problem a man, or a nation, faces, has been faced before. While Elliot is right, that most people don't, you can look at history to see what has worked and what hasn't.

For example... The average American has little to no idea of Afghan history. The Soviet invasion. The British invasion in the 19th C. Etc. and so on. Now I'm not disciplined enough to sit and read a straight history of Afghanistan... but I've read the Kite Runner, and Flashman!, so I know a little bit.

2. Good historical fiction places you in a time and place in a way that simple facts can't. It shows how different cultures work and think, and yet shows the universality of the human experience.

I came to historical fiction after a lifetime of reading fantasy. I've come to realize that no fantasy world is as rich, violent, vibrant, or tragic than our real world. I like to be entertained, but I like learning something while I do it, which is why I have pretty much switched completely to HF.