The first blog on this topic explored the general question and, as I suspected, uncovered new aspects and brought old aspects under surveillance. In this segment I’d like to get more specific.
What if the history surrounding the episode is nebulous, inadequate, or even purposely altered by the historian(s)? What if the history is so old that records are poor or have been damaged or destroyed? Two novels come to mind as possible examples: Pope Joan, by Donna Wolfolk Cross, and Girl With A Pearl Earring, by Tracey Chevalier.
Most historians, including those in the Catholic Church, deny that there was ever a female Pope. The most prevalent theory is that enemies of the early church and the Papacy started the rumor to mock the institution. It is legitimate for historians to ask which of the groups who recorded history would have gained from debunking the story and which from supporting it. So, immediately, there exists the possibility that biased reporters twisted historical accuracy at its inception for their own purposes. Consider that there was no printing press. Most often a single individual or group of individuals recorded stories of the times, and there was little public discussion of what the story tellers were saying. Nebulous history, at best, but fodder for the writer of historical fiction. For instance, I don’t think Donna Cross had any obligation to make additional effort to sort fact from contrivance. Her obligation was to choose a point of view, build believable characters to support that point of view and use authentic setting and custom descriptions as underpinning. What do you think?
Likewise, there is no evidence that Vermeer had a relationship with one of his subjects, the girl in his portrait, Girl With A Pearl Earring. There is no evidence that anyone had commissioned the painting. Tracey Chevalier did an excellent job of using facts in evidence: Vermeer was married and had a mother –in- law who had a strong personality. The girl’s name, her thoughts and demeanor, and the conflict she creates with her affair with Vermeer are all open to speculation. Chevalier did a wonderful job of generating an interesting story with an authentic flavor. Was she obligated to do more? Is any author? What’s your opinion?
Let me add one more layer here and I’ll use a general category of Greek history. Are the novels set in ancient Greece historical fiction? Most of the historians had a bias, a hero building point of view. Because the history may be myth to start with, does that disqualify it as historical fiction? If so, what genre is it? If not, is the writer unbound or does he/she still have obligations? If so, what are they?
I’m anxious to hear your responses to these questions. Feel free to propose your own, but for this segment let’s focus on the quality of the recorded history as our variable.
I believe the novels set in ancient Greece are historical fiction, even if they are based on myth. The historical novels of Robert Graves--Hercules My Shipmate, for instance--are good examples, but there are many more.
ReplyDeleteWhat makes these myth retellings historical fiction is the dedication of the writer to presenting the age as it must have been, and the mythical adventures and characters as though they might have been, had they been real people.
I'd go further than "most historians" when talking about bias. ALL historians, or journalists or reporters or writers have built-in biases, because all human beings see the world through their own eyes. No matter how hard they try to rise above this, they cannot.
That's one reason why the writers of historical fiction should read as much source material as possible, from as many writers as possible. I know of no better way to get to the truth. Of course, when you discover the truth and use it in a novel, your own biases kick in.
You say, Jeff, that "history may be a myth," and I think you're being kind to history. Most history has a lot of myth in it, and include that we which being written about events that occurred only yesterday. That's why multiple points of view are so valuable.
Ideally, when you read a compelling historical novel, you feel the need to turn to the history books, both to learn more about the characters and the era and to verify the accuracy of the story you've just been told. The better the historical novel, I think, the more likely you are to do this.
The bottom line, I think, is that historical novels, by definition are not only entertainment, but education. I believe that's one of the reasons they're so popular. They have a value that goes beyond the story.
Now about Vermeer and the girl with the pearl earring. As far as I'm concerned, that made for a legitimate historical novel. My measure is that no facts or information available now can disprove the story and that all the surrounding facts are accurate.
What is the author's responsibility to the reader? Well, in one of my recent historical novels, I included this author's note at the beginning:
"The Revenge of the Plutocrats is based on a little-known nugget of American history, the details of which are described in the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Hearings of 1935 and in the 1971 Jules Archer book, "The Plot to Seize the White House."
"To these details, I have added my own assumptions, suppositions and dramatic extensions, and have made certain adjustments and additions to the sequence to the sequence of events in order to fill in the story's missing pieces."
I also think it would be quite legitimate to include a bibliography, to direct readers to historical accounts of events.
Some great, thought provoking stuff, Harvey. I find your comments on the writer's bias particularly intriguing. I hope to keep this discussion running by delving into very specific circumstances in which those who write HF may have responsibilities that vary in their latitude. Bias could be an entire category- both the writer's bias and the historians. Thanks for your involvement. Look for part 3.
DeleteCertainly I think that novels set in ancient Greece count as historical fiction. I'd go further, and say that (for example) William Golding's The Inheritors counts as historical fiction, even though there is no written history for the period in which it is set (around 40,000 years ago), since it takes what evidence we do have and uses it to try to imagine what life was like at that period, and to weave around it a story that says something more generally about the human condition. I am less sure about books such as The Song of Achilles, which I greatly enjoyed, but which embraces myth more fully by featuring centaurs, goddesses etc. as real beings: great fiction, but I'm not sure it's really historical fiction.
ReplyDeleteHi Mark,
DeleteI think you're right about periods where there is little or no written history. Stories set in those times, unless specifically fantasy, are historical fiction. and there are many periods in history where the recorders had much more interest in creating legends and heroes than accurate history. all the more fodder for the HF writers' keyboards. Thanks for your comments, Mark.
I suppose that I could make a far better living as a writer if I choose to work in any genre other than historical fiction. People generally seem to have little interest in history and suspect that historical fiction must be equally boring. How sad for them.
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that every historical event and personality is a mystery wrapped in a lot of propaganda, and I have never read any fictional event or personality equal to the real ones.
How many myths have been characterized as such simply because they lacked credible "scientific" evidence to support them and their stories seem totally incredible. Then, along comes concrete proof that makes them at least somewhat believable. Consider the myth of Troy.
Did Achilles' mother actually hold him by the heels and dip him into the sacred river thereby providing him with divine protection? Or did a man fighting outside the walls of Troy "seem" invincible thereby causing men to speculate on divine intervention? I have seen and heard well documented instances of men surviving battles who seemed to enjoy divine protection. Is myth simply a form of hyperbole used in explaining historic fact?
Consider the epic tale of the Spartans at Thermopylae: How outlandish is it for a mere 300 to hold out against a massive Persian army? Consider the fact that a mere 300 Fidelistas held out against a 40,000 man army of the Cuban dictator, Fulgencio Batista, and they won! Sounds mythic, doesn't it. That's why I wrote about it.
You are dead on, Jack, especially about historical propaganda. Unquestionably, many historians had an ax to grind. In some eras, those who recorded events could face a horrible death if they recorded “wrong”. My novel, Birkebeiner, is based on a pivotal event in Norwegian history. Saga writers did most of the recounting of such things from the 9th to the 16th century and they, at best, were the novelists of their time. Most were more interested in creating or perpetuating a hero than recording accurate history, but this is the type of thing that offers HF authors their most fertile opportunities.
DeleteAnd don’t give up hope on the audience for HF. I sense that it’s growing and beginning to creep beyond the Tudors.
jeff