Author responsibility

[JMJacobsen]

Okay, this question occurred to me while reading all of the various answers in the 'Worst HF' thread because I noticed a number of you citing historical inaccuracies as, at the very least, an irritant in your reading.

So how much responsibility does an author have to historical accuracy when writing HF? After all, it is fiction, so I would assume that some liberties are allowed.

Personally, I'm willing to overlook quite a lot if an author makes a note, perhaps in an afterward, of those inaccuracies and why they used them.

Thoughts?

[Volgadon]

I'm a lot more forgiving if the author explains.

[Alaric]

Same. If they add a note at the end of the novel explaining where they went different from the history for the sake of the story then it's fine. It's when they blatantly ignore it and make up something entirely different that I have a problem.

[Divia]

Well when it comes to personalities of different historical figures thats always up to interpertation. I mean what I view as strong willed and a good trait someone could view a stubbern and a bad one. So this is always tircky.

However, when an author's research is poor and their historical details are way off. Ahem 1899 The Luxe with slutty girls, then I have a HUGE program and I cant get over it.

If I dont know the hitory of the characters then I probably wouldnt notice if its true or not. If I do know the history then the author had better stand up and deliver.

[donroc]

All of the above.

[JaneConsumer]

Liberties are fine as long as they are in line with known history. It's when the author changes the history - without explaining why, or without an explanation that makes sense - that s/he'll lose me.

EC has a blog post (http://livingthehistoryelizabethchadwick.blogspot.com/2008/09/clothing-bones-finding-mahelt-marshal.html) that I think illustrates well where a fiction author should draw the line. Referring to William Marshal's oldest daughter, Mahelt, she writes: "Like most women of the medieval period, even aristocratic ones, she is little mentioned in the narrative historical record."

She goes on to discuss what is known and from which sources. What is known illustrates "a special father-daughter bond" that nonetheless does not "get in the way of politics."

She explains all of this because it's relevant to Mahelt's marriage to Roger Bigod. Quoting from The Histoire de Guillaume le Mareschal, EC writes: "The boy was worthy, mild-mannered, and noble hearted and the young lady was a very young thing and both noble and beautiful. The marriage was a most suitable one and pleased both families involved."

Her point? "Again note the bog-standard accolades, but that doesn't matter. It leaves this novelist with a bit of leeway!"

She offers more insight into what is known about Mahelt. Then, she remarks, "My task, my responsibility and my pleasure is to assemble the bones of this great woman and show her as she just might have been."

I agree. It's one of the reasons I continue to read everything she writes. :)

[boswellbaxter]

I agree with what's been written here. Liberties, if explained in an author's note, don't bother me (though in many cases the actual event was more interesting without the liberties). Imaginatively filling in details that have been lost to history doesn't bother me either, providing that imagination is consistent with known fact.

It's when an author distorts history or character, either because of a personal agenda or shoddy research, that Mr. Book meets Mr. Wall, at least when the author doesn't come clean. In Sandra Worth's Richard III trilogy, for instance, William, Lord Hastings, who historically has a reputation as a womanizer (with willing partners), is shown as drugging and raping a virgin peasant girl, who later dies of the effects of the drug. The narrator informs us that this is a common practice with him. There's no basis in historical fact for this episode, but the author doesn't tell the reader this in the afterword (at least, not in the edition I read several years ago). Worse, since the author touts the extensive research she has done, the reader who doesn't delve into the matter further is likely to think that this is an accurate portrayal of Hastings. It's an inexcusable liberty for me, especially coming from an author who decries the way in which Richard III has been slandered.

[Ash]

I also am less likely to wallbang a book if the inaccuracies are mentioned by the author. And I don't mind imaginative writing of gaps in history (I love the ideas EC has for King Johns lost treasure in Marsh Queens Daughter, esp as they make absolute perfect sense). What is more likely to get my goat is characterizations that make no sense. Phillipa Gregory does Queen Eliz a great disservice with her depiction of her in Virgin's Lover. Here is a queen whose name is used to denote an entire era of history, but she makes her out to be a lovesick bungling blonde who needs men in her life to help her rule. Bah - talk about a wallbanger.

[boswellbaxter]

I also am less likely to wallbang a book if the inaccuracies are mentioned by the author. And I don't mind imaginative writing of gaps in history (I love the ideas EC has for King Johns lost treasure in Marsh Queens Daughter, esp as they make absolute perfect sense). What is more likely to get my goat is characterizations that make no sense. Phillipa Gregory does Queen Eliz a great disservice with her depiction of her in Virgin's Lover. Here is a queen whose name is used to denote an entire era of history, but she makes her out to be a lovesick bungling blonde who needs men in her life to help her rule. Bah - talk about a wallbanger.

A blonde? :confused:

[Volgadon]

I think she means a figurative blonde.

[Margaret]

It seems to me there are a variety of different types of inaccuracies that can arise in historical fiction, ranging from the necessary to the inexcusable:

First, the imaginative filling in of what is not known from the historical record. We can never know precisely what a historical person was thinking or feeling, nor what was said in the person's private conversations. But if an author doesn't reconstruct these things, there's no story - or at least not a satisfying one. The whole point of fiction is to be "inaccurate" in this particular way.

Second, interpreting the historical record to supply a major conclusion about an event or a historical person's motivations, etc. An example is The Sunne in Splendour, which takes known historical facts about Richard III's life and times and interprets them to conclude that, contrary to previous assumptions, he was an admirable man and king who, far from murdering his nephews, did what he could to protect them. Readers and historians may disagree about the extent to which this interpretation is justified, but Penman takes no major liberties (as far as I know) in the hard, documented, historical facts she uses to support her interpretation. Another example is The Other Boleyn Girl, which has been criticized for portraying Anne Boleyn as having had sexual relations with her brother. Historians have generally concluded that this was a charge trumped up by her enemies and accepted by Henry VIII because he wanted to get rid of her - nevertheless, there is no hard, documented, historical evidence that definitively shows she was not guilty of the charges against her. Gregory may be going way out on a limb with her interpretation of Anne's story, but it's still one possible interpretation of the historical evidence. It's "inaccurate" because we simply don't know things happened the way Gregory portrays them and the evidence as a whole seems to support a different conclusion, not because we know for a fact that it didn't.

Third, deliberately altering a known fact in order to craft a simpler or more exciting story. A lot of authors include historical notes admitting to shifting the date of a minor battle or some other event a few days forward or back in order to plausibly allow a main character to be present and have the event fit smoothly into the development of the plot. Another, more egregious example, is the choice made in the recent HBO production of a Henry VIII story to change which sister of his married which king because the producers were afraid viewers would be confused by the story if there were too many different Marys involved.

Fourth, the attribution of modern attitudes and beliefs to characters from the past. This is a tough one, and many authors fall short here. Ken Follett's otherwise well researched medieval novels hit a sour note for me because this problem kept cropping up. And frankly, many novels that do an exceptionally good job in making their characters's attitudes and beliefs true to the time period are unpopular with readers, because it can be hard to identify with characters whose beliefs and attitudes are rightly condemned in our own time.

Fifth, if the author doesn't do enough research, a lot of the events and customs are likely to be completely inconsistent with the known facts about historical events and customs. This can range from the inexcusably sloppy (a real wallbanger in which everything from the dates when things happened to the characters' language and attitudes to the clothes and general surroundings is just wrong, wrong, wrong) to the excusable "oops" (like Dorothy Dunnett's implication in one of her otherwise meticulously researched novels that cheetahs have retractable claws).

You guys may be able to think of some more categories, but I think this covers the big ones.

Online reviewers who condemn a historical novel as inaccurate without explaining more specifically what led them to this conclusion are, IMHO, being irresponsible.

[EC2]

I agree with Boswellbaxter re the story - if it's about a real person - should be in keeping with the known traits of his or her character. It's true that different slants can be put on that character's actions and it will depend from who's minddset the reader is seeing that person, but even with those caveats, a general truth and integrity should be attempted.
There should be nothing that pulls the reader out of the story be the characters imaginary or not. An author enters into a pact with the reader and if they break their side of the bargain by having someone called Wayne in Harold's shield wall in 1066, or by portraying Elizabeth I as a man obsessed wimp, then it's their fault if they get panned.
I think a good story and reasonable historical accuracy are not mutually exclusive. No historical novelist can get everything right, but a good effort and a determination to have integrity go a long way.

[MLE]

I like historical accuracy. But sometimes it is hard for people to get into a story that is really out of sync with their culture. For instance, in Gortner's Last Queen, Juana's spirituality was almost completely absent, when the record shows that she would have been considered obsessive by today's standards, especially in the matter of the Poor Clares (there are financial records and letters showing her support and work on their behalf, both in Spain and Flanders. Plus the problem of her insisting on wearing their habit.) My take is that what most likely made her loyal to the creep she married was her religious beliefs.

But I didn't fault Gortner for leaving it out, because what he did put in was within the bounds of accuracy and besides, the modern reader simply would not have related to the character. And the events moved along historically much as they really did, within reason.

On the other hand, I had a problem with the Twentieth Wife. Not coming from a Zenana culture (although I know plenty of modern-day muslim women raised in primitive places) I simply could not relate to the women in the book. The situation kept jarring me because I found their attitudes so unsympathetic, even though I knew they were accurate. So there's the culture thing for you. If I can't relate to the characters, I might as well learn the stuff from a history book.

[Ludmilla]

For me, this is very much linked to authorial intent. Before the internet which has made authors much more accessible, we didn't always know what the author's intent was (an accurate representation of the times and attitudes of the people being written about, or just a good page turner that appeals to the sensibilities of a readership and our own times, e.g.), but advertising, marketing, and more interactive styles of communication with authors these days usually leave little doubt about what kind of story the author has chosen to write. With that said... I would ask how much of how a story is marketed is under the control of the author (probably very little). Are we disappointed because so many books get advertised as something they are not? Are we disappointed because other readers misrepresent what the book is? I think what I react to more than inaccuracies and badly interpreted research is that misrepresentation about what kind of story it is. I can forgive a good page turner that isn't great history if it's presented to me as the former and not the latter.

[Ash]

A blonde? :confused:

Here we use the word blonde to denote bubbleheaded ladies. And just so I don't offend any blonde headed ones out there, one of my favorite blonde jokes: What is brown and black and blue? A brunette who told one too many blonde jokes :) /off topic

[boswellbaxter]

Here we use the word blonde to denote bubbleheaded ladies. And just so I don't offend any blonded headed ones out there, one of my favorite blonde jokes: What is brown and black and blue? A brunette who told one too many blonde jokes :) /off topic

OK. I'm relieved to see that at least Gregory didn't turn the redheaded Elizabeth I literally into a blonde!

[Margaret]

I would ask how much of how a story is marketed is under the control of the author (probably very little). Are we disappointed because so many books get advertised as something they are not?

It seems very weird to me that publishers would do this, because it seems like the perfect way to kill a book. Why market it to readers who won't like it, when it could be marketed to readers who would love it and talk it up with their friends? Company of Liars is being marketed as a reinterpretation of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, when it is really nothing of the sort. (I commented on that in my review at http://www.HistoricalNovels.info/Company-of-Liars.html, and have since seen other reviews that make the same point.) The only thing Company of Liars has in common with Canterbury Tales is that ít takes place in the same century (but at a very different time in that century - Chaucer's pilgrims were not in the midst of a plague epidemic) and it deals with a group of travelers on their way to a religious shrine. Company of Liars is not a collection of short stories, it has a strong central theme, and the plague epidemic the travelers are trying to escape pervades the setting. I think the Canterbury Tales are great - but many readers think of them as something they were forced to read in school, and the comparison will turn them off from reading a novel they might really enjoy.

MLE makes a good point about the importance of authors striking the right balance between complete faithfulness to the historical record and making the characters sympathetic for a modern audience. I'm not certain I agree with her conclusions about what to leave out and what to put in. I haven't read The Last Queen yet (it's on my TBR), but if Juana (who after all was known by her contemporaries as the "Mad Queen") was obsessively religious to the point of wearing a nun's habit, then portraying her as someone for whom religion was not high on the list of concerns would seem to do a disservice to history. There are various ways of handling this. One might include the details about the obsessive religious practices but show why these are such an important comfort to the character, so that they become a sympathetic element to even non-religious readers. Or one might tell the character's story from the perspective of a more sympathetic character whose life is intertwined with hers.

On the other hand, it's very difficult getting the balance right with some historical figures. And if authors included every known detail about their lives, they would get stuck with a never-ending story!

[Ariadne]

Having read Company of Liars, I'd hesitate to label the Canterbury Tales comparison solely as marketing hype in the sense of the publisher exaggerating the similarity in order to sell books, or "if you'll like one, you'd like the other." Because the latter isn't true; I agree that the two works are different. But I thought it was fair for the publisher to mention it as a way of establishing a frame of reference for potential readers, since (imho) there are enough similarities to justify it. The author has essentially said (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6591209.html) (link to Publishers Weekly interview) that she was influenced by Chaucer and even included a deliberate yet camouflaged homage to him within her novel. So the idea that the comparison is outside of the author's control... she's not here to give her input, but it's hard to say.

In fact, I expect many readers who come across the novel won't have read Canterbury Tales at all, but will know that it's medieval-set and has a group of travelers revealing their own stories in turn. That may suffice to get their attention. I actually did read it as a reinterpretation of sorts - a much darker version, of course, and with a twist. That sounds like a good question for book discussion groups, actually - looking at the similarities vs. differences.

[princess garnet]

I like historical accuracy. But sometimes it is hard for people to get into a story that is really out of sync with their culture. For instance, in Gortner's Last Queen, Juana's spirituality was almost completely absent, when the record shows that she would have been considered obsessive by today's standards, especially in the matter of the Poor Clares (there are financial records and letters showing her support and work on their behalf, both in Spain and Flanders. Plus the problem of her insisting on wearing their habit.) My take is that what most likely made her loyal to the creep she married was her religious beliefs.

I thought of Madame Royale by Elena Maria Vidal as I read this. Her novel is the story of Marie-Therese, eldest daughter of Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette. Like her parents, Marie-Therese was devoted to her faith and it shows thoughout the novel. Like many Catholic European royals before and after, Juana and Marie-Therese supported the work of the church and maintained devotion during both good and bad times.

[diamondlil]

One of the aspects that hasn't been mentioned yet is where what is known about historical characters changes after a book has been written. If it was ever definitely determined what happened to the the two princes in the Tower would that mean that every book that had ever been written that came up with a different solution to the mystery was historically inaccurate, when they were based on the historical record that was available at the time.

For example, recently I read a review of Brief Gaudy Hour by Margaret Campbell Barnes which talked about historical inaccuracies like the fact that Anne Boleyn was portrayed as having had a stepmother. It was pointed out in the comments that nearly all of the books that were written about Anne is the particular time when the books were written including one by Plaidy used the same assumption, so it is all together possible that the authors were using the same reference as their research tool.

[JaneConsumer]

One of the aspects that hasn't been mentioned yet is where what is known about historical characters changes after a book has been written.

Good point. Historical context is important. I can forgive these kinds of errors, assuming I know enough to recognize them in the first place.

[Ariadne]

I found it interesting that in between completion of the manuscript for Carolly Erickson's The Tsarina's Daughter and its publication (later this month), DNA testing proved that the bodies of all of the Romanov siblings were accounted for. The novel imagines that Grand Duchess Tatiana survived. Suddenly, what was originally speculative (extremely speculative) historical fiction became, in essence, alternate history :D

[EC2]

A novelist has to go by what's known or accepted at the time. As a reader I wouldn't be scathing of a writer who'd done their research to the best of their ability. Since SKP started writing her latest trilogy, it's been discovered that Eleanor of Aquitaine is two years older than everyone thought she was. Richard the Lionheart has been all red-blooded hero male, bent as a nine bob note, and now the pendulum's swinging back a little the other way and who knows where it'll go from there. Discovering Richard III's or Henry VII's signed confession 'I murdered the boys!' would really set the cat among the pigeons. I wonder what Carolly Erickson thinks of the discovery re Tatiana

[Leyland]

I try to keep in mind as I'm reading a novel that the story the author is telling about real events and persons might be a sort of snapshot of a relatively short period of time. People change as they go through experiences of their particular era in response to all sorts of external influences. An author may need to narrow down research to just a few years at times and portray a character differently in the novel than the character may have been known for being at an earlier or later time.

[Cuchulainn]

I think the only responsibility a fictional writer has is not to pass something off as something that it is not.