Following on Becca’s most recent article, Deense has a few thoughts on historical fiction to share.
For those of us with a passion for history, fiction and cinema can be both a joy and a horror. We watch in frustration as facts are thrown by the wayside in order to provide us with what the writers or directors think is a good story. We are caught squealing with glee at small yet perfectly-realised details. There are often highs and lows in each piece and no one is more critical of anything set in the past than those who’ve studied the era.
Historically based novels and movies has seen something of a renaissance in the past half-dozen years. As with any such genre explosion, a good portion of what gets produced can no more claim to be historical than some of Shakespeare’s histories. “Are they set in the past?” Yes. “Do they use the names of once famous and powerful persons? Yes. Do they adhere to the facts?” That’s where things get interesting.
For the purpose of this ramble, I thought it best to make a distinction between period and historical. I define them thus:
Period: Based in a historical setting (though it may have been contemporary when written), these works focus on fictional characters and events, the historical setting merely acting as a backdrop to their lives. Sarah Waters’ or Jane Austen’s works are excellent examples of period pieces.
Historical: Inspired by and focused upon the lives of actual people and/or actual events, but the interpretation of these people and events may be loose. The purpose of these works is to tell the story of someone who once lived and of whom there exists extant factual record.
In many ways the period piece is easier to produce. It’s power is in the details, but the details – not necessarily more easily researched – are difficult to refute. Think of Atonement. The description of Briony on the nursing ward in World War II England was so evocative that it was easy to overlook just how detailed the recounting of it was. What escaped no one was the the stringency of the nurses, the relative primitiveness of their equipment and the stresses on the staff because of it, and the efficacy of the matrons who ran the wards. In all of it an image was created: an image that most could be convinced was not that far off the reality of such a place.
Sarah Waters is another author who excels at the period novel. She manages to capture her historical periods amazingly, all in the details. Her research shows, both in her books set in the 19th century, and in those set during wartime twentieth. It is easy to believe that these people could easily have existed, whilst at the same time imparting a bit more knowledge about that period onto the reader. Fingersmith and Tipping the Velvet were both translated onto the small screen, and wonderfully so. They may have lost a bit of the story, they lost none of what made them period.
Is it harder, then to write a historical novel or pen such a movie? That is a question that seems to be too rarely asked. I’m not considering the number of books written of legends, such as Robin Hood or Camelot. Those stand in a world of their own, to be dealt with at another time.
Most recently the fashion seems to be to write about Henry VIII and his wives. If you need to ask who Henry and his wives are, perhaps this is not the article for you. The Other Boleyn Girl. The Tudors. Both in books and on the screen, Tudor and late medieval history seems to be the vogue. What I’ve read and have seen often makes me want to weep.
There are things that I understand. I understand that sex sells and there is a level of glamour that is needed to make something seem appealing. I do have to say that anyone who’s studied the period can tell you that the reality is far more interesting and intriguing than the dumbed down versions we get today. The political intrigue, the power of the Lords, the power of the Church, the fact England was broke, the influence of France, the infighting in the court: it makes for a marvellous story without the abridgements that the fiction seems to give us. But that is why it’s fiction, is it not? It isn’t the truth, but it is using the backdrop of reality. Actual events and people are what we’re taking liberties with for the purpose of entertainment.
Sadly, I would love to leave it there, but I cannot, mostly due to the fact I have heard a number of people I quite like and respect say things like the Tudors, but ‘why did they kill Anne’? These are well educated people, and people I consider my friends. It makes me wonder if those stories of the Titanic test audiences who said the movie would be much better if the ship hadn’t sunk were a joke or actually a reality.
Over and over I find people who’ve read historifiction or seen the movies and suddenly proclaim themselves near-experts on that period. It’s frustrating and infuriating for those of us who have spent countless hours reading into such things and acknowledge that we’ll never become experts. Even if we were to have a massive lottery win and access to every primary document still out there we’d be quite a way off. A little knowledge, however, can be a dangerous thing. To be fair, the historical world isn’t exactly without its own flaws. Bias, assumptions, mad-cap theories and poor research are just some of the factors that can make a non-fiction work as spurious as fiction.
This genre can also inspire a real interest in the past. People go from watching a movie or two or reading a few books on an area and from there pick up histories and documentaries: they take classes or start going to museums. I know that much of my own love of history was inspired by watching these exact sorts of things as a child and teen.
The balance between entertainment and history is a fine line. There is something romantic about historical figures, and as such, they are easy to romanticise. After all, no matter how many extant documents we might have, we will never know what Henry VIII was like personally. Neither will we have concrete evidence about Darwin, nor Robespierre, nor Anthony Blunt. We don’t know what they thought or why they made the decisions they made. Fiction, in many cases, is the only way to fill in the blanks. But fiction is never history, and more and more the line between the two is being blurred.
- Deense
The Facts Were These
Becca
Lina
Steph
Deense