- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 8,943
- Reaction score
- 3,151
Aaanyway, to be more on-topic: I cannot enjoy a historical novel if the people in it feel and sound completely modern. While I believe that we as humans have not changed at all during the past thousands of years (we share the same emotions, fears, desires, relationships, etc.), political views, society in general and beliefs certainly have, and I don't feel like a historical novel is being honest with me if it "shields" me from those differing views.
I don't mean that the book has to "approve" of the thoughts of the period. A character thinking one thing and that thing being supported as "right" by the book thematically are two completely different things. For example: A victorian gentleman, the MC, thinks that women are good for nothing. This is his opinion and I'm happy that he has it - after all, there were a lot of men during the period who believed that (though there must have been tons of exceptions, naturally).
This (IMO) is a plot supporting and even preaching his cause:
MC goes on heroic quests, female sidekicks try to help him out, they all fail miserably because of their feminine qualities. Author expects reader to laugh at the sillyness of women.
And this a plot which supports a modern POV, without changing his opinions:
MC goes on heroic quests and is occasionally helped out successfully be a female character. Though he may continue to believe women useless and make all kinds of excuses for these events, the reader sees that his (and/or society's) views are at odds with reality.
While this is not really a perfect example, I hope it helps me to illustrate my point: historical POVs are fine, but I like a book's themes to support the modern worldview.
Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)
In the given example, I agree with you. Sexism and social status stuff are less an issue now. Though ageism is more a problem.
AND, unfortunately, modern POV on religion is a bit like the Victorian POV on pornography. (Says a woman who had to hide her religious inclinations from her modern parents. And if you go into the Beta Reader section of this forum, there's a thread where people say what they will and won't read. Many say they won't read religious works without any apology; the few who say they don't read gay/lesbian tend to apologize.)
We forget that religious women provided girls with educations, provided young men from disadvantaged families with a chance at a better life, provided early hospitals and orphanages, and in general, made life bearable. That's not even talking about the religious ecstasy that many modern people poo-poo or haven't heard of or can't quite wrap their minds around. (A lot fewer people suffered from depression in days that, to our way of thinking, ought to have been more depressing. I don't think it's a coincidence.)
So, I'm not going to buy the argument that the narrator needs to make a case that modern is better a hundred percent.
Blessings,
Siri Kirpal