Biography Blog

More Historical Than Thou

23 Apr 2008
Lately I’ve seen some bashing of historical authors for getting their facts wrong. Now I agree that unless you're doing a time travel fantasy, fantasy, or alternate history, you need to make the effort to get your historical facts straight, and even in a cross genre book, what you introduce as a fantasy element should be clear and plausible within your story, and what you use of the history of the time should be accurate.

I remember reading a historical romance back in the day that sent the heroine on a three-week ocean sailing adventure from Paris to London, and no, they didn’t get caught in a week long storm or swallowed by Moby Dick. I read it and enjoyed it for entertainment purposes, not in the way the author intended but more in the way one might enjoy a classic episode of Mystery Science Theatre 3000. But what about a minor error here or there in what is essentially a love story, a mystery or a rollicking adventure?

Suppose someone gets an aspect of the currency wrong, or makes a mistake in the clothing caused by a trend that changed a decade earlier? Do such things bother you? Do you notice or care? I was a trail guide for a few summers and I know my way around horses and a lot of historicals make mistakes that make my lips twitch, but if I’m otherwise enjoying the story it won’t stop me reading, nor will it make me rush off to chastise the author, publicly or privately.

Which brings me to one of my pet peeves, lazy ‘more historical than thou’ critiquers who mistake cliché and stereotype for historical fact and delight in bashing writers who don't follow the stereotypes they hold dear.

Aristocrats never took to piracy you say? Do some research on the Huguenot expulsions from France and the buccaneers. People didn’t wear chain mail in the 19th century? They did in North Africa. Female upper class pirates historically inaccurate? Modern mores imprinted on older times? What about Grania, the female Irish chieftain who stood toe to toe with Elizabeth in the 16th century? What about Lady Mary Killigrew of Cornwall, the female pirate who got herself into hot water with Elizabeth when she oops...took the wrong ship and Elizabeth could no longer look the other way? Women didn't wear breeches? Hmm. Tell that to Mary of Modena, wife of James II, or Charles II's lover Hortense Mancini. The Stuart boys liked bad girls and it didn't hurt their social standing any.

Whether a modern story or an historical, I'm always more interested in characters that challenge stereotypes and test the rules. Anyone who reads the works of historian Antonia Fraser will find accounts of women who lead troops, went to war, ran their own business, wrote books and plays, dressed and lived as men, secured divorces or abandoned husbands and didn't die of shame. There are numerous travel accounts of adventuresome ladies who traveled alone to exotic lands and toured the continent. Women didn’t sail with their men? Have you read The Hen Frigates? Can you guess what the term refers to?

These folks weren't stereotypical and they didn't fit the norm, but they were real flesh and blood people and they sure were interesting. For a real eye-opener try and find a copy of The Tradition of Female Transvestism in Early Modern Europe by Dekker and Van De Pol

As to language, I've heard and read critiques about the use of the word F#@K in period historicals. Horrors they say! A dreaded and flagrant anachronism. A clumsy 20th century intrusions into more civilized and mannered times. Tell that to 17th century poet and famed wit Lord Rochester and his merry band of F@#ksters, or read a little of his work. I also cringe at the stilted speech that's sometimes used in conversation. People of all classes used contractions in regular speech at least as far back as the 1600's and that ain't a lie. Read Sam Pepys diary if you need to be convinced.

I don't know how many times I've seen historical writers criticized and called unauthentic and lazy by reviewers who were too lazy to check past cliché’s and stereotypes. At least often enough that I include a historical note and bibliography at the end of a work of historical fiction. There's nothing more annoying than being told to check your facts by someone who was too lazy to check their facts. So it’s my very firm position that before critiquing someone else’s research, a person should make good and sure they’ve checked their own.

So how about you? Do you take notice of historical mistakes? Do you do a little background research to make sure they are mistakes? If they are, but the writing and story are otherwise good, does it pull you out of the story? What kind of mistakes are you willing to forgive, and which make you put a story down and not pick it back up?
5 Comments.
Add a Comment.