How much should/does historical fiction read like fantasy?

[Teresa Edgerton]

A thought has wormed its way into my brain, and I only hope I can express it clearly, seeing as it's about 4:30 in the morning here, and I'm semi-awake and posting only because of a bad attack of indigestion.

Anyway, a question as to the validity of a historical fiction sub-forum on a board devoted to sf/fantasy started off a train of thought which eventually produced the following question:

Considering that through most of history people had a sincere belief in magical forces at work in human affairs, and that magic and science were inextricably linked, shouldn't a novel told from the viewpoint of someone from an era when belief in the supernatural was particularly strong reflect that belief, and shouldn't it present the subjective experience of the viewpoint character in such a way that events often seem to unfold in response to some supernatural cause or agency?

Should, in short, an historical novel read much like a fantasy novel? And if so, how many of them do?

It might be fun to work my way through a reading list of books like that, so suggestions of books to look for would be very welcome.

 

[Alexa]

I like both historical and fantasy novels. I cannot say I read an historical novel like a fantasy one. In an historical book, I expect to see more historical details as background of the main story. In a fantasy book, the imagination of the author is vey important and I don't care about historical details. If the story has another dragon or vampire story with nothing new, I won't touch the book.

One of the best book I read as a mix of history and fantasy is the saga of Diana Gabaldon (Outlander, Dragonfly in amber, Voyager, Drums of autumn, The fiery cross vol 1 and 2). "A breath of snow and ashes" should be published in september, this year. She also wrote "Lord John and the private matter". I didn't like Lord John in the Outlander series, so I didn't read it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

This is a very good question, and in my opinion is equally valid when levelled against fantasy stories - which seem to take place in a rationalistic world additionally populated by supernatural magic, rather than in a superstitious world filled with unknown forces and events.

I guess there is a potential problem in both genres, to some extent?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

But people believing in magic, and in the close relationship between magic/religion/science IS an historical detail, Alexa. One I would like to see included more often. Should I take it that you would not -- or that you are happy either way, so long as the book works for you in other ways?

I wasn't thinking of problems, so much, Brian, as possibilities. But you make a good point. Fantasy writers and historical fiction writers both have a tendency to impose a rational twentieth/twenty-first century sensibility on their worlds and peoples. To a certain extent, it would be impossible not to, but some do it more than others.

 

[Alexa]

Kelpie, I meant classical history. For me religion and magic are together. More than 1 million people are neopagans nowadays.

I'm not a difficult reader. Give me a good intrigue and you may mix historical, religion and magic as you wish. You know, I believe Dan Brown's success is due to this kind of mix.

 

[Rosemary]

Once again I can only put forward my favourite author of Historical Novels and that is Edward Ruthurfurd. So far he has written, to my knowledge, six novels begining with "Old Sarum".

I have always had a great passion for history, so the the historical facts HAVE to be true. Even the magic is necessary, as it is so much a part of our ancient history. Even if it was only a Wise Woman in some tiny country villiage dealing with her herblore. It still has to be FACT upon which a fantasy can be based.

'Pillors of the Earth' by Ken Follet is another popular Historical Novel. So far I have not found a date or a figure in our history that is incorrect. Follet does research and more research and even more research - and it shows in his book.

 

[dwndrgn]

Considering that through most of history people had a sincere belief in magical forces at work in human affairs, and that magic and science were inextricably linked, shouldn't a novel told from the viewpoint of someone from an era when belief in the supernatural was particularly strong reflect that belief, and shouldn't it present the subjective experience of the viewpoint character in such a way that events often seem to unfold in response to some supernatural cause or agency?

I'm not sure I'm following you. Are you asking if an historical novel is based in a time period during which the populace was more than likely to believe in magic or God power rather than science, that the narrative should portray it that way? Not telling the reader that Joe Peasant got a blood transfusion but that Joe Peasant was magically cured by the local hedge witch? If this is what the gist of the question is, I would think that any respectable historical would do this. Otherwise, they aren't truly depicting the time period, they are just using props to hold up a story.

Now, one of the other posters mention Gabaldon's Outlander series. This is a different kettle of fish as she knows, that Joe Peasant has the pox and that she can't get it as she's been innoculated but the rest of the local populace thinks she's magically protected because she's a witch.

Just because I feel like it Kelpie, I'm going to suggest that Quicksilver by Stephenson and the subsequent volumes are just the type of historical you were thinking of. Many of the characters themselves are 'natural philosophers' so are trying to learn more about their world and may know more than Joe Peasant in the street. However, as he's 'learning' the properties of a prism, we already know that - but the author isn't looking at it that way. Absolutely excellent narrative, wonderful plot(s) and very amusing to boot.

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Well, it was a couple of months ago that I asked the question -- and in the middle of a sleepless night at that -- but I believe that my point was that insofar as the story is being told from the perspective of the characters, shouldn't that story reflect the prevailing world view? And how accurately can you depict a period if you leave out something that important?

You can put in all the "grit" and blood you want, but if your characters aren't perceiving the world in magical terms and reacting to it in that way, then you're only halfway there in terms of realism. A writer can't tell everything, of course, but the details that go in ought to be representative in some way, and what could be more representative in a story about the medieval period than the magical world view? Or, if you are writing about the 17th or 18th century, the excitement of that age of geographic and scientific discovery, and the struggle to fit in each new piece of information with what was already "known"?

 

[LadyFel]

Hm...I don't really know...

I see where you're coming from, Kelpie, but most of the historical fiction I've come across is basically the author taking real-life characters and bringing them to life through events that actually happened...And yes, there was a lot of superstition, and some of it does come through in these works...

I think the superstitions and the fantasy, magic, etc, come through in a way but can't really be at the fore of the stories, because they WEREN'T at the fore then either...To these characters, magic, poisoning, mystery and superstition was a part of life just as breakfast was...And certainly you'll find them consulting seers (I wonder how many of those left the country after Henry VIII didn't get his son from Anne Boleyn ), attributing what we know today to be natural phenomena to the work of God, or a curse, (there was an eclipse of the sun, a full blown one, the day Richard III's wife died, how's that for an omen, even Hollywood can't come up with wthat nature deals out sometimes )...This is of course up to the Rennaisance, I haven't read too much about later periods, as I've never been that interested in them...Maybe I should...

But I definitely agree that the authors should stay true to the way things were...It's just a matter of balancing things out...

 

[Adasunshine]

Know I'm a little late on the topic (am new tho) but have a recommendation...

Can't really answer your question but can recommend 1610 by Mary Gentle. In the blurb it claims to be a fantasy novel but it's also historical fiction.

The reviews shown inside the book can't even make up their mind what genre it really is.

Definitely worth a read though.

xx

 

[PenDragon]

Kelpie, try Bernard Cornwell's Winter King Trilogy (Arthurian). It has great gritty detail and historical realism for the period (Post Roman Briton) and Cornwell perfectly nails people being suprestiuos, beliving in curses, magic, gods and rituals. It's very good.

 

[Elanor]

Yeah, you put this topic in my mind
I like when ancient or medieval history links to fantasy because I like amazing combinations… May be I’m rather a light-headed person but my heart beats hard when I hear lore about ancient heroes such as Beowolf or the King Arthur… But it’s known that all heroes from ancient legends lived some ages ago. Of cause their “curriculum vitae” was distorted and embellished by minstrels but if the glory of their deeds and battles has being alive for more than thousand years they were outstanding persons, don’t you mind? Oh, I wish a few people would remember about my life after my death, don’t mention peoples of the world ~_^
Could you give me advice where I may find all the mentioned books or, in other words, where I may book them?

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Elanor, I think that most or all of the titles mentioned are available from amazon.com or other online bookstores.

 

[aarti]

I'm coming late to this thread But I think fantasy authors do a better job than historical ficiton authors in introducing the element of magic, or really just making believable the idea of characters who *believe* in magic and that sort of power.

I think an author who does well with blending history and fantasy (though he's classified as fantasy) is Guy Gavriel Kay. I especially love his books A Song for Arbonne and The Lions of Al-Rassan. Neither of them have much *magic* per se, but they are set in a world with two moons. That is almost the only real "fantasy" element in them, except for some sort of inexplicable "feeling" that magic is around you and possible. I don't know if that's what you mean, Teresa. But I think he does well with creating that atmosphere.

I think the main problem with historical fiction having "magical" elements is that they are written by modern authors It's hard for a 21st century author to include an element of the mystical in his work when he has been raised learning and knowing so much of science that was always attributed to magic or a higher power before.

I can't think of any historical fiction off the top of my head that melds the fantastical with the historical well. Maybe this is because most books that do that are actually classified as fantasy or alternative history?

 

[j d worthington]

You know, it's odd to me that this has become such a problem. After all, weren't people like Walter Scott and Anne Radcliffe (not to mention countless others) dealing with exactly this sort of problem when they were writing about earlier periods? Yet their characters are portrayed as believing in the traditions and beliefs of their period, while the overriding authorial voice is of the writer's time, allowing a "comfort zone" for the sceptical reader while avoiding making the characters seem like a bunch of gullible imbeciles. Has it really become that much of a divide with historical fiction these days? If so, perhaps some of the more modern writers need to dip back into the ones who created the genre (more or less, if we leave out such things as Homer and Virgil), and learn once more how such a story should be crafted; not to mention reading up on some of the excellent books both modern and historical that deal with the superstitions and other beliefs of the time. It mightn't hurt (though much of it is dull as ditchwater) to read something like the Malleus Maleficarum, as the beliefs exhibited there held sway for a great number of years throughout Europe.

My answer is yes: when dealing with the worldview of the characters, by all means reflect the views of the time, whatever they may have been and however foreign to our way of thinking. But the narrative voice doesn't have to accept those views save as a part of the milieu. If speaking from a first-person pov of the time, of course that character's likely to believe these things -- anyone who didn't was likely to find themselves quite literally in a very hot position....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

Yes, it's the viewpoint character/characters I'm talking about. It seems like a cop-out for every hero/heroine to be an extraordinary individual with a curiously rational and modern interpretation of events that would surely have been regarded as proceeding from some supernatural agency in their own time.

What is the point of writing about a different period of history if you aren't going to really delve into it, or make a real effort (one can never entirely succeed, of course) to reflect the experience of the people who lived in those days? The modern narrator (if the narrative voice is noticably present) needn't subscibe to that same worldview, but as I said in the first message, I think that every passage reflecting a character's subjective experience should.

If you don't do that -- in ways that are by no means confined to a belief in magic, but that's the aspect which interested me when I started this thread -- then isn't the end result more of a costume party than a historical novel?

 

[j d worthington]

Yes, I agree. As I said, perhaps the more recent writers in this vein need to re-establish contacts with the roots of the form; this may be something they've simply lost touch with.... and without it, "a costume party" is a very good description.

 

[dwndrgn]

Many time travel novels have their own perfect reason to have the narrative voice reflect a more modern view but still have their surrounding characters following the beliefs and mores of their own time. Diana Gabaldon uses this for her Outlander series - but her twist is that the original time travel ocurrs from 1945 back to 1745...so her narrator doesn't necessarily have the voice of the modern reader. However, the beliefs and ideals present in 1945 were quite different than those of today, and you can still feel the difference as she skillfully creates that voice.

Romance novels (the historical types) are riddled with this type of flaw. Of course, I can recognise it and still enjoy it . We still get a good view (depending on the skill and research of the author) of the time period, and we definitely know that we aren't actually there and can forgive a few devices that make it more interesting.

Hmmm, this reminds me of something - quite often lately when I tell someone that I read fantasy, their first reaction is why would I want to read those stupid bodice ripper things? Of course, I quickly tell them that I meant fantasy as in sword and sorcery, but that I read those other 'horrid' books too. Neither answer makes them revise their original opinion (what a wierdo!) but I don't particularly care. The reason I mention it is that until recently, I'd never heard of anyone mistaking something called fantasy for romance, but lately it has happened quite a few times. Maybe this should be a different thread, are romance novels actually fantasy?

*Edited to add: now have a separate thread up about historical romance.

 

[j d worthington]

Maybe this should be a different thread, are romance novels actually fantasy?

Oh, now, that would open up a whole new interesting can of worms!!!

Etymologically speaking, of course, fantasy is derived from the old romance novels -- but, then, so is darn' near every other branch of modern fiction (the sentimental novel seems to have metamorphosed into something else, and I'm not sure it quite counts). But that's being a bit pedantic, even for me....

 

[Teresa Edgerton]

People used to make that same mistake when I told them I wrote fantasy novels, dwndrgn. Or worse, they thought I wrote erotica. Then I got in the habit of saying, "epic fantasy," or "heroic fantasy" (not that everything I write fits into that category, but it seemed like a useful shorthand for "magical fantasy, not sexual fantasies, you idiot") which a few still didn't understand, but at least produced a blank stare in those cases, rather than a knowing one, a leer, or a sneer.

But since Peter Jackson made the LOTR films, people almost always know what I mean. And for the few who don't, I just answer their confused look with, "You know, like The Lord of the Rings," and they generally do know what I am talking about then.

We still get a good view (depending on the skill and research of the author) of the time period,

Now there is the rub, because in too many cases the skill and research of the author is quite lacking -- which is why I've almost given up reading historical romance novels, when I used to devour them.

Writers will throw in a handle of specific details that make it look like they've done a lot of research, but they'll screw up tons of other things, and the sad thing is that in many of those cases it's easy to see that it wasn't for dramatic purposes, because it's simply irrelevant to the plot -- or worse, the actual truth would have led the story in far more interesting directions, did they but know.