SOS! Arguments in defence of historical fiction!

Swordswoman · May 11, 2012

No-one here needs to be told about the value of historical fiction, but a git by the appropriate name of Stagg has just trashed us all in the Telegraph (UK):
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/cultur...-are-terrible-so-thank-god-for-hilary-mantel/

I happen to like Hilary Mantel (Booker Prize winner 2011) but that doesn't make what this creature has said any more true. He dismisses what we do as 'genre fiction', which it most certainly is NOT in the UK, as if all we do is write 'romances' by Mills & Boon rules. I'm not dissing romances, I know they're a lot harder to write than they look (and I write that as someone who sold two while I was still an undergraduate) - but it's not what we're about in the UK when it comes to historical fiction.

My publishers have asked me to respond - not because I'm especially qualified, but because I have a new book which came out just this week and I stand a chance of getting the platform. I'm going to try.

Does anyone here have any fact-based arguments that would be useful in composing such a defence? I have a vague memory of Jean Plaidy gaining serious kudos in academic circles for her contribution to historical knowledge - but can't remember exactly how, damn it! I know Josephine Tey has it for 'The Daughter of Time' - but can anyone give me a specific reference?

I have arguments coming out of my ears along with the steam, but I need FACTS.

I need help, please - and I can't think of anywhere better to ask than here.

Louise

Kerosene · May 11, 2012

Facts! Fiction is purely fiction.

Sorry about that. I don't have anything to add or help you, god I feel awful.

But I support you in this. I've always loved Historical Fiction. It helps bring life to legends.

Swordswoman · May 11, 2012

Thanks for the support, Will - that alone helps.

WillSauger said:
Facts! Fiction is purely fiction.

Absolutely. What I'm after are FACTS about FICTION - ie examples where the kind of writers he's dismissing have proved their contribution to a serious field in a measurable way. I can argue my case without them, but it would really help to have the odd link or demonstrable fact to illustrate what I'm saying.

I'm searching myself, but if anyone's got those facts at their fingertips I'm going to find them here.

Louise

waylander · May 11, 2012

CJ Sansom - author of the Matthew Shardlake series - has a PhD in history from U of Birmingham.

Swordswoman · May 11, 2012

Thanks, waylander - that's great.

Please can I buy you a beer next time I'm in London? I'm only 20 minutes out by train...

Louise

waylander · May 11, 2012

KM Briggs, the distinguished folklorist wrote at least one novel (Hobberdy Dick) that could be described as historical fiction.

Beer is always welcome!

Flicka · May 11, 2012

To be honest, I find a hard time getting worked up about this. Who is this Stagg person and why do we need his approval?

Lil · May 11, 2012

For goodness sake, War and Peace is historical fiction. So is Vanity Fair. So is Tale of Two Cities. One could go on and on.

Idiots spout idiocy. Why pay attention to them?

Alessandra Kelley · May 11, 2012

So is The Three Musketeers.

Puma · May 11, 2012

I think this has to be substantiated somewhere in academia, but kids, teens, learn more about history from good historical fiction books than from their history texts that condense all of Europe or the US history into 500 pages. One of the betas for my book said "I wish history (text) books had been written like this, I would have learned a lot more." Historical fiction writers have to know about their period - everything from clothing, mannerisms, foods, etc. that immerses readers in the period rather than just charging along from war to war.

Who was it said, Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it (or the mistakes)? Maybe something for you there.

Don't know if that helps, but maybe it gives you some ideas on directions to go to look for good cites of the same type of ideas. Puma

Hip-Hop-a-potamus · May 11, 2012

I think Puma nailed it.

I didn't know as much as I should have about the Civil War until I read Gone With the Wind (I was 11 the first time). I loved watching experts (including Teddy Roosevelt) track a killer in The Alienist. I watched the turn of the century unfold for Frank Lloyd Wright and his lover in Loving Frank. I don't get as much satisfaction from modern-era novels because they don't teach me as much.

I read historical fiction because it teaches me about things I want to know. But in an entertaining way, rather than just the dry nonfiction tomes that scholars write. Sometimes I like those too. But the fiction really makes it come to life. You see and hear the people in front of you. If it is well-written, you can actually see historical figures come to life, rather than just being a painting on a page or a description in a biography.

Likewise, I love writing historical fiction, because as I write, I teach MYSELF, and then can present what I've learned to enlighten others about something I find fascinating.

What a douchebag.

Deb Kinnard · May 11, 2012

Puma said everything I was going to say. I've read probably dozens of history books that deal with my eras of choice, but nothing brings home the "feel" and sensual experience of the middle ages better than the books of the terrific his-fic writers. For romance, Roberta Gellis is incomparable (she has I believe either a Masters' or a PhD in medieval languages). Also Bernard Cornwell has a terrific grasp on how to make the medieval life come alive.

P.S., good thing we do not, in fact, need this chap's approval. He comes across as an arrogant git.

Flicka · May 11, 2012

I have a very strong suspicion that Stagg thinks many of the books I like (and the books I write) are crap. I suspect we don't read for the same reasons and I honestly don't think saying that hist fic teaches people about history will make him rethink his attitude to 'genre' fiction.

I also know that doesn't bother me the slightest. He doesn't come across as the sort of person I have very much in common with. So I like big historical melodrama. I don't feel that I need to prove that's OK to Mr Stagg.

With all due respect, all I feel I would accomplish by replying to Mr Stagg is proving that we really crave the aporoval of twits like him - and that by denying any relationship with genre fiction as if that is something shameful we must define ourselves as different from. I'm not going to claim I'm not really friends with entertainment literature to be accepted by the schoolyard bully.

But that's me. YMMV, of course.

mayqueen · May 11, 2012

Ugh, I hate when people talk about "genre fiction" as though this is somehow a valid critique of certain genres. I've read similar arguments about speculative fiction and fantasy. I recall reading some debates about whether or not a "genre fiction" novel would ever win a Booker prize, but of course many historical novels have.

The first line just blew me away:

Before Hilary Mantel, historical novels were a joke.

Who thought this? And why is it true? It's simply not.

Now, there are some valid critiques here. Historical fiction is pretty easy to write badly. It's a hard genre to do well. But that doesn't make it a joke as a genre. And that doesn't make Hilary Mantell the Magical Savior of the Genre.

mephet · May 11, 2012

Well, in my eyes historical fiction is 'genre fiction'. I don't know about official definitions, but that's just what I've always seen it as.
...I'm not really helping, am I? : D Sorry!
But why should genre fiction be considered a bad thing? The days of literary snobbism and "ew, that's commercial 'genre fiction', I'm not touching that" are over, or at least I hope so. I strongly oppose to the article's author's view that "originality and depth are less important than following the formula" in genre fiction. That's like me saying that in literary fiction "all coherency and plot are pushed aside in favour of 'deep' but in truth meaningless filosofical musings". It's an ignorant and generalizing statement. You cannot pick a genre and say "everything in this is bad". It's like picking a race of people and saying "everybody here is evil". The world doesn't work that way. Yes, there are historical/fantasy/scifi/romance/western/yougetthepicture novels that are tripe, but there are also absolutely brilliant books of the same genre out there.

flapperphilosopher · May 11, 2012

AHHHh!!! I'm not even going to read the article, because it's too early in the morning to fill with righteous rage. But as far as historical fiction being "just" genre fiction???

How about Booker Prize winners The Blind Assassin by Margaret Atwood and the English Patient by Michael Ondatjee (I think that's spelled wrong, sorry)? A couple other historical fiction Booker nominees off the top of my head: English Passengers by Michael Kneale, Half-Blood Blues by Esi Eduygan, The Dark Room by Rachel Seiffert, this novel I can't remember the title of about travelling actors in medieval England? All last 20 years, all of them way more "literary" than "genre". [not a value judgement, and not saying the Booker is the end all-- just seems like the kind of thing a loser like that would respect!].

I have to get ready for work, which is probably good because I could rant on for a while, but AGHHHHH.

Deleted member 42 · May 11, 2012

I have a Ph.D. partly because of historical novels by Dorothy Dunnett (http://www.dorothydunnett.co.uk/). Reading Dunnett's "Lymond Chronicles" helped steer me towards medieval literature. I've written about it here: http://digitalmedievalist.com/reading-lists/dorothy-dunnett/

I note that Mr. Stagg is a blogger, and "commenter," not an actual journalist or literary critic. He's attempting to drive traffic by being controversial. I note as well if you look at his other pieces on the Web he's more than a bit sexist, and verges on misogyny.

Finally, I suspect he's lacking in formal literary training since he seems to be somewhat lacking with his understanding of what genre means. The English and American novel cannon, and novels in general, are rich with all manner of genre fiction. Perhaps he might consult a basic guide to literary terms in order to effect a better understanding of what, exactly, genre is, and the rich place historical novels hold in terms of the history of the novel. Scott, Balzac, Hugo, Cooper, Pynchon—all are historical novelists.

I survived · May 11, 2012

My Professor used The Scarlet Pimpernel as part of his required reading in Early European History, It brought that period to life better than anything else could. Also Jim Murphy writes several books for YA that I think of as historical fiction but maybe that may not be right. For instance in The Great Fire he follows 4 real people through the fire. Some of these people are really composites of people woven into one. But it uses tons of maps and primary sources, I love it!

And one that was Genre fiction when it was written but now seems like historical fiction is Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriot Beecher Stowe of which President Lincoln said "The little lady who started a war." So there's nothing wrong with being genre fiction either.

lorna_w · May 11, 2012

His argument against most historical fiction seems to be an argument against popular/genre/pulp fiction, and that old chestnut is plain old classism. The working class reads plot-driven fiction. Bourgeois people who think too much of themselves or listened too hard in lit courses or want to feel superior to others set up the divide between serious fiction and pulp fiction. It's a false divide. All fiction has a form/ula. If it didn't it would be unreadable. (One of my sales, I'm a bit ashamed to admit, was after reading an "experimental" fiction journal, laughing at it, then parodying in less than an hour the formula of the things. Sold in a heartbeat as "serious" experimental fiction. Twas far easier than plotting.) If he doesn't like (I'm not sure who to name, Cornwell? O'Brian?) or Girl with a Pearl Earring, fine. No big deal to me. There's room for all sorts of tastes, and if my taste doesn't match his, perhaps in part because I was born poorer than he, it's okay. There's room for both me and elitist wankers in the library.

Swordswoman · May 11, 2012

Flicka said:
To be honest, I find a hard time getting worked up about this. Who is this Stagg person and why do we need his approval?

We don't. He's opened a public debate in a major national newspaper, and, as I said, I've been asked to respond. There's no need for anyone to be worked up.

Lil said:
For goodness sake, War and Peace is historical fiction. So is Vanity Fair. So is Tale of Two Cities. One could go on and on.

If you read the blog (and I don't blame you for avoiding it) you'll see he specifically exempts both 'War and Peace' and 'A Tale of Two Cities'. I wouldn't class 'Vanity Fair' as historical fiction myself, as Thackeray was writing only 32 years after the Battle of Waterloo.

I'm more interested in finding objective evidence that the writers he does mention are not merely 'pulp', and also suggestions of other writers who would be difficult to dismiss in such a way. There are historical novels in the UK which could be classified as 'genre fiction' - ie books that follow a specific formula, as most Regency romances do - but Stagg seems to be sweeping under this heading almost anything historical that wasn't written by Hilary Mantel.

I understand his point, and it's fair to say it doesn't only apply to romances. The Bernard Cornwell school of military historicals (under which my latest could be said to fall) does certainly have 'genre' elements, and so do the many, many novels about the Roman military. Much as I love these books, I wouldn't seriously argue otherwise.

What I do intend to argue is that a) not all historicals are 'genre', and b) 'genre' does not necessarily have to mean 'pulp'. But my opinion (like his) is still only opinion, and I was looking for useful examples and facts I could use to illustrate it. Patrick O'Brien, for instance, writes naval historicals, but no-one would ever call his books 'genre' - or pulp.

I also find it interesting that apart from Hilary Mantel's fictionalised biography of a famous man, the only other writers Stagg lists as worthy are male...

But I think I have enough now, and time is running out. Many thanks to everyone for their help, and should the publisher succeed in placing the piece I'll obviously come back to let you know.

Thanks again, AWers! I knew you'd help.

Louise

PS Waylander - beer on its way via PM.

gothicangel · May 11, 2012

I don't think he listened hard enough in Lit classes, otherwise he would realise that Sir Walter Scott 'created' the Historical Fiction genre.

So, Robert Graves, Rosemary Sutcliff, Charles Dickens, James Robertson, Homer, Shakespeare are a joke? Oh-hum. I think he needs to read more

gothicangel · May 11, 2012

Swordswoman said:
I understand his point, and it's fair to say it doesn't only apply to romances. The Bernard Cornwell school of military historicals (under which my latest could be said to fall) does certainly have 'genre' elements, and so do the many, many novels about the Roman military. Much as I love these books, I wouldn't seriously argue otherwise.

You know, I've been trying to work this out for a year, and I couldn't put my finger on it.

I would love to read a great novel about the Roman Army that would fall closer to Robert Graves than Simon Scarrow. I'm not dumping on genre fiction here, I'm just sick of 'boys-own' military fiction, to me no-one will surpass Rosemary Sutcliff.

Swordswoman · May 11, 2012

gothicangel said:
So, Robert Graves, Rosemary Sutcliff, Charles Dickens, James Robertson, Homer, Shakespeare are a joke?

No. If you read the piece, you'll find he specifically credits historical writers of the past. This is his main argument:

It was not always this way. War and Peace and A Tale of Two Cities are historical novels. But more recently the genre has been taken over by Sharpe, Memoirs of a Geisha and Girl with a Pearl Earring. A few authors still write convincingly about the past, notably Ian McEwan and Cormac McCarthy, but these are very much the exception. By and large historical novels are just pulp fiction with a historical setting.

He references Dickens himself, among others:

It wasn’t just Dickens and Tolstoy who tried their hand at historical fiction – so did William Golding, Iris Murdoch, E M Forster and Anthony Burgess. It is only in the age of Hollywood adaptations that historical fiction has become such a store of caricature and melodrama.

I think he would agree with you completely about Robert Graves - and in many ways, so would I. Even though I write in the 'military history' genre, I've never believed 'commercial' needs to be 'bad'.

That's what I mean when I say I understand his point. There IS a lot of tripe about, and clearly Stagg's vision of historical fiction has been coloured by that. It's even true (in my opinion) that Mantel's Booker Prize win has restored some credibility to a 'genre' which has been often sadly debased.

But his vision seems to me skewed. He's assuming that all other modern historical fiction is of the bodice-ripper or 'Boys' Own' type - and it really, seriously isn't.

Flicka · May 11, 2012

Swordswoman said:
We don't. He's opened a public debate in a major national newspaper, and, as I said, I've been asked to respond. There's no need for anyone to be worked up.

I could exchange ''get worked up" for "care" or "respond". However, I can see why your publisher wants you to considering you have a new book out.

It's very strange to clump together all books taking place fully or partially in the past into a specific genre. I mean, he puts historical literary, historical mystery, historical family sagas and historical romance in one single genre? The man certainly isn't afraid of bold and shameless generalisation, I'll give him that.

Genrally though, I would be careful of using the term bodice ripper anywhere near historical romance. ETA: didn't mean you called them that of course but just using the expression tends to be interpreted as doing so...

mayqueen · May 11, 2012

Yeah, it seems like he thinks all historical fiction is of that variety, and then he read Hilary Mantell and changed his mind or something. There are plenty of more literary historical writers. Margaret Atwood has been mentioned. What about Geraldine Brooks?

SOS! Arguments in defence of historical fiction!

Resilient and kind

Your Pixie Queen

Resilient and kind

Who's going for a beer?

Resilient and kind

Who's going for a beer?

Dull Old Person

Sophipygian

Retired and loving it!

My rhymes are bottomless

Dull Old Person

practical experience, FTW

Deleted member 42

Hybrid Grump

Resilient and kind

Toughen up.

Toughen up.

Resilient and kind

Dull Old Person

practical experience, FTW