January Meme: No Time Like the Present

[selenak]

Thoughts and feelings on historical fiction that projects modern opinions onto characters in the past.

To be fair: to a degree, everyone does this. No matter whether they research well enough to write a thesis or just have read the wiki entries. Simply because every writer is a product of their time, influenced by everything that happened to them. It's just a matter of degree. There is such a thing as subtle projecting, by, for example, what you leave out. Not just terms of cast - reality always provides far, far more characters with repetitive agendas and functions than any fiction would. But also in what you emphasize. For example: depressingly, chances are that if you pick any given historical character who isn't Jewish themselves (and sometimes even then, hello, Karl Marx!), they have said something antisemitic at some point in their lives, and more than once, are really, really high. Now, when you leave that bias out in a story that focuses on these characters in a context where it wouldn't have come up, I'd say fair enough. But it is of course due to you, the author, living in a post Holocaust (and currently resurgence of vile -isms, including this one) world. (And hopefully are horrified by by it.)

(I also would differentiate between writing about, say, Richard Wagner, who wasn't just antisemitic but prone to verbalize said antisemitism at any given opportunity, or writing about, say, Theodor Fontane, who sadly does have a few antisemitic remarks in his letters but wasn't obsessed with the topic the way Wagner was. If a novelist wrote a novel about Wagner which utterly ignores his hatred, no matter whether it's a novel focusing on just a brief period of Wagner's life or a novel covering him from birth to death, I'd cry foul (and whitewashing). If, by contrast, someone wrote a novel about, say, young Fontane in the 1848 revolution and doesn't show any scenes indicating he shared this prejudice, fair enough.)

But what the question really aims at isn't the subtle kind of projecting, by leaving out or focusing more on aspects about a historical character which are more in tune with the author's beliefs and sympathies. No, it's the kind of historical fiction where miraculously, all sympathetic characters have an attitude straight out of the author's present, any kind of bias is only shown by the villains, and that goes double for anything connected to romance and sexuality. (Just to clarify, because I've also seen "but history!" used as an excuse by people who seem to think same sex relationships of any kind didn't happen between the end of Perecleian Athens and the Weimar Republic: that is assuredly not what I mean, au contraire.) In recent years, one of the most irritating examples that I've consumed as been Minette Walter's novel "The Last Hours", more about why I disliked it so much here.

On the tv side of things, due to a certain refocusing of my interests, last year I watched part 1 & 2 of a recent Czech-Austrian tv series about Maria Theresia; this Christmas we got part 3 & 4 (taking the tale up to the end of the second Silesian War). The first two episodes, covering our heroine from her teenage days up to the end of the first Silesian War, were not exactly historically accurate, but they were soap opera kind of fun. Part 3 and 4 had to deal with a part of her that troubled even contemporary admirers, i.e. attempting to regulate extramarital sex via the police. The tv creators tried to sell this to a 21st century audience by a) partially blaming an evil Jesuit (tm) influencing her, but more importantly by b) giving her an arc where she's humbled (in more ways than one, but this is one of them) by having a one night stand herself, and thus seeing the light about live and let live in terms of extramarital sex. This, again, was just one way in which the tv series, even in terms of a frothy soap, lost all connection to its historical origin, but it was certainly the most blatant one owing its existence on the law of projecting modern opinions on characters of the past, no matter how utterly unsuited for such opinions the character in question is.

(Footnote here re: Maria Theresia and sexuality; just as wrong would be to present her as "repressed", which is the other thing often done by historical fiction with historical characters with decidedly unmodern attitudes towards sexuality, btw. She had no problem discussing it, enjoyed having it, and being a product of the 18th century, talked about bodily functions in general in a way that made the 19th century editors heavily censor her letters to her daughters. She still was strictly against extramarital sex.)

What it all comes down to, I think, for me, is this: it's lazy, if you do your projecting on such a massive degree. It's making a short cut because you don't believe you'll get your readers/viewers to get into the historical characters you present otherwise, when to me part of what makes these people full of rich complexities is that in some ways, they really were different from us, and the products of their times, no matter how many parallel traits to the present they also show.

The Other Days

Comments

[oracne]

This is an excellent post. I've lately been thinking about all the ways one can portray the complexity and diversity of history in fiction, while still remaining true to it. I was on the "Diversity in History" panel at Arisia, and one thing I pointed out is that we have records of X number of, say, women dressing/living as men because they were eventually caught and there are police records of what happened. But I feel we should assume that one record means there were likely more who were never caught, never recorded, which gives us some freedom to imagine what their lives would have been like. If we're true to the sexism, etc. we need to also try and be true in the other direction.

[selenak]

Assuredly. Especially since negatives - in any regard - always get more easily recorded than positives. And no era is one fixed set of attitudes, not even within the same country, let alone the same continent.

[kore]

Exactly, with criminal records all we have are the reported/prosecuted cases. And sometimes people are prosecuted to make an example of, but that doesn't mean they got everyone.

[mildred_of_midgard]

Interesting write-up! Did you see my link to Ada Palmer's write-up on history in fiction more generally? I would be interested in your thoughts on it. And also on the subject I'm currently wrestling with, namely when one should use:
- Whatever one currently understands to be most historically correct, with the awareness that that is a constantly shifting goalpost. (Like when you discover that a memoirist is actually a novelist in disguise, *cough*.)
- A dominant school of thought that has held for hundreds of years despite counterevidence, whether that counterevidence be recent or long-known.
- Whatever works best for the story, because creative license!

There are no easy answers, obviously, but since you write so much historical fiction, I would love to hear your thoughts.

[selenak]

The Ada Palmer write-up: I thought she chose the wrong examples to make her point. And I speak as someone who watched both Borgias series. She severely misrepresents several scenes and characterisations in The Borgias - to nome but one, Giuliano della Rovere is not presented as sincerely shocked by the Borgias and as a defender of virtue -, and that was one of the reasons why I didn't watch Borgias: Fear and Faith and the two subsequent seasons for ages. (Oh, and incidentally, I disagree no one the Renaissance would have blinked as someone beating his wife to death. Which I base on having read the diaries of an actual rl Renaissance executioner, who executed a good number of men for beating their wives to death. When I finally did watch the three "Borgia" seasons, I enjoyed them, in a different way than I did The Borgias, though not because of the greater historicity. I can link you to my write-up, if you're interested.

So, anyway, Palmer: if I had watched neither show, I would have been very impressed with that essay and probably agreed with a lot of it. Since I watched both, I was, well, less than impressed.
- Whatever one currently understands to be most historically correct, with the awareness that that is a constantly shifting goalpost. (Like when you discover that a memoirist is actually a novelist in disguise, *cough*.)

Well, you know: when Jean Anoulih wrote Becket, he discovered while writing one key premise for his play - the idea that Thomas Becket was a Saxon - was just plain wrong; Becket had been a Norman. But Anoulih wrote under the impression of the then very recent German occupation of France, his Normans are mostly Germans in disguise, and the entire Henry II/Becket relationship would have been different than the one he wrote if he had taken the historical truth into account. So rather than writing a different play, he decided to ignore the truth. This turned out to be no problem for a lot of theatre goes and later, when it was filmed, movie watchers, who loved it, not least for the sheer slashiness. It's a bit of a problem for me, not least because Anoulih treats Eleanor of Aquitaine like many a Slash fic treats the unwanted Canon female s.o., i.e. robs her of personality entirely and relegates her to sheer non-existence. But that's my personal preference.

Sometimes I wanted to write something about someone and then research led me another way. Sometimes it didn't. I can't tell you where I draw the line exactly, but I can't claim I haven't ignored the occasional inconvenient date or letter. I mean, it's fiction, in the end. Still, I try to grasp at some truth about the various historical characters, even if some of that truth is hard for me, and render it in a way that feels emotionally and intellectually compelling.

[mildred_of_midgard]

See, this is why I wanted your take on things! I did know you were a Borgias fan and figured you'd have something to say.

Having not seen either show, I will take your word on the misrepresentation, but I did think that, regardless of the specific details, she made interesting general points about the inevitability of getting historical detail wrong no matter how well informed you are. I did raise an eyebrow at openly killing your wife, even for adultery in flagrante, even in the Renaissance, but admit that I have very little sense of the Renaissance beyond a basic chronology of major events, especially outside of England or Florence.

Should I take it that the whole defecating in the hallways of Versailles is accurate, since I have seen it elsewhere (most recently cahn's writeup) and you didn't comment?

Still, I try to grasp at some truth about the various historical characters, even if some of that truth is hard for me, and render it in a way that feels emotionally and intellectually compelling.

I really like this description. :) I think I've been feeling my way toward a sense that plausible and well-developed characterization is more important to me than strict chronology, especially if it's a minor event. Like I'm not going to move Kunersdorf by two years without tagging it for canon-divergent AU, but I might move a Voltaire visit to Prussia by two months, that sort of thing. What I worry the most about is my own ignorance--at what point do I stop researching and just write? And my weak points are not events but how society functioned: *can* this character afford to send a coat through the mail? Would such-and-such a behavior raise eyebrows?

[mildred_of_midgard]

I meant to say that of course I want to see your Borgias write-up!

[selenak]

Here it is! (I linked the LJ instead of the dw post because the commenter on it had had the same problem with the Palmer article I did back, and for that reason still hadn't watched the "Borgia" series when she read my write-up on same.)

[kore]

This is very thoughtful, I like it a lot. (The example someone gives in the other post of the priest in Doomsday Book is right on the money.)

[jesuswasbatman]

The current one is "no woman was a warrior in medieval times and no woman could survive a swordfight against an equally trained man". I suspect the guy making the argument has never actually wielded a broadsword, even in a sporting context.

[selenak]

That wouldn't surprise me. I admit to a certain Schadenfreude every time another Viking Skeleton is found to be female…

[thawrecka]

I enjoy gleeful, purposeful anachronism from time to time, but with a lot of historical fiction, so often my problem is people writing to what the audience thinks the past was like. And given I've seen historical drama fans suggest that all European women married by 18 through history or were considered old maids, and that homosexual behaviours were unheard of in historical Japan, I don't have a lot of faith in what the average audience knows about history. (Myself included! The amount of real facts I know about most settings I like is really quite small.)

[beatrice_otter]

In 2013, Ada Palmer wrote an EXCELLENT blog post on historical accuracy and historicity in fiction: https://www.exurbe.com/the-borgias-vs-borgia-faith-and-fear/

[mildred_of_midgard]

Ha, I had linked her to the same thing a few days ago. :) You can see her take on it my comment above.

[beatrice_otter]

Great minds think alike :)

[jesuswasbatman]

There's also the less common situation where a modern prejudice is assumed to have been just as prevalent in the past. For example, I can think of two works I've read in which characters who were in one case from late-Victorian England, and in the other case from Generic Pseudomedieval Fantasy Europe, expressed the belief that fat women were unattractive to the majority of men.

[redfiona99]

Looking at it from a purely fictional character point of view, there's often something very jarring when a historical character is completely modern in their views (obviously because the writer doesn't want our hero to be a jerk). Sometimes it works, like I buy Stephen Maturin being forward-thinking because it fits with everything we know about him, but there are others where it just doesn't work.