Judging period dramas on historical accuracy

Flicka · Sep 10, 2016

Probably some of you have seen this.

"Period dramas should not be judged on historical accuracy, say historians"

The headline got my hackles up. "Should"? People can – and do – use all sorts of criteria for judging fiction that others may not agree on. There's no right or wrong. If someone judges a tv show on the number of hedgehogs included, that's up to them. I wouldn't, but I wouldn't say they shouldn't. It's up to them, you know?

However, the headline is misleading as it's not quite what they say. It's more that they problemetize the concept of "historical accuracy". What does it even mean? And how do they feel about it?

It's a subject that keep cropping up among us writers of hist fic, so I thought people here might be interested.

My own take – both as a writer and a viewer/reader – is pretty close to what Hannah Grieg says:

“For me what’s important are ‘is the narrative meaningful for the time in which it’s set? Are the characters’ motivations informed by the choices that I would understand as being the choices that were faced by the people at the time? Does it carry me emotionally in the way that I might think about the historical past?’

“Those are the issues that really matter to me as a historian, and less so about whether we’ve sourced exactly the right wine glass”.

I think that's why I need to do lots of research before I write. It's about getting a feel for the period, about putting myself in the mindset of the period, before I can write. And personally, I can't get that from anything but a wide range of sources and academic works.

I sometimes think about something P.D. James says in (I think) The Murder Room (or if she said it in the talk I went to when it came out; I don't rightly remember). It's how every (real life) murder is typical of its period. The victim, the killer, the motivation, the means... It's all sort of "historical context specific" and in a way representative for the period in which it took place. I think that's how I feel about writing hist fic. The people involved, their worldview, the constraints they operate under, the technology available to them... It all comes together to determine the story. Not just what they wear or the words they would use, but the actual conflict and how it can be resolved. While maybe it's true that there are only a finite number of storylines, the challenge for me as a writer of hist fic is to take the generic storyline and anchor it so firmly in the period (and geographic setting) that it couldn't credibly take place anywhere else. I want to it to be a sort of microcosmos that captures the historical setting.

But YMMV. This is just my take. Yours?

Siri Kirpal · Sep 10, 2016

Sat Nam! (literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

Depends on what it is. If the motivation is all wrong for the period, I may quit reading. You don't have a boy wishing he could spend more time with his father if his father is a plowman during the early Middle Ages.

If it's a minor detail in the middle of the book, I'll note it, but keep reading.

If it's an obvious error of page one, I probably won't read the book.

If it's a matter of interpretation, no problem!

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

Marlys · Sep 10, 2016

Fair or not, I do hold visual media to a different standard than I do books. A movie or TV show has limited space to tell a story, and sometimes historical details get sacrificed in the interest of plot economy and/or compelling visuals. So I'm more likely to let things slide than I am while reading a book--I was able to (mostly) enjoy The Tudors, for instance, when I'd have walled with vigorous force a novel that combined Henry VIII's sisters and moved events around. On the other hand, I could not abide Reign, which never seemed to give the merest nod toward reality.

angeliz2k · Sep 10, 2016

Medium really does play a major part in all this. It's easy for me to say, "He was wearing a Yankee uniform". It's a different matter for someone to create an accurate Yankee uniform from scratch. It's just as easy for me to say, "The battle raged around them." It's another thing altogether to film a battle. There are all kinds of limitations in film that we don't have in books. On the other hand, they have the "visual" aspect to bolster them, which is why they can "get away" with more. If people see it, they believe it, even if it's incorrect.

But should we be judged on the historical content of our stories? Yes, to some extent, as much so as on plot and characterization. It's one aspect of the whole, and it should be handled with care. There are those who really lose sight of the forest for the trees, though. I was watching a video about "Hamilton and History", and I was this close to throttling one of the commentators because she just kept harping on the things that should have been in the musical. Lady, it's not ten hours long. I've also seen people collapse into near-hysterics over characters saluting [slightly] wrong and wearing the wrong shade of crimson. Relax, get off your high horse, and realize that nothing will be 100% accurate and all we can do is our best.

Rant over.

Sunflowerrei · Sep 11, 2016

angeliz2k said:
There are those who really lose sight of the forest for the trees, though. I was watching a video about "Hamilton and History", and I was this close to throttling one of the commentators because she just kept harping on the things that should have been in the musical. Lady, it's not ten hours long. I've also seen people collapse into near-hysterics over characters saluting [slightly] wrong and wearing the wrong shade of crimson. Relax, get off your high horse, and realize that nothing will be 100% accurate and all we can do is our best.

Rant over.

I almost feel like the above is "this is why we can't have nice things." Specific to Hamilton--it's a musical, it can't be that long or else no one is going to sit through it. Having read Chernow's book, I can tell you that what was in was mostly historically accurate and you probably could write a whole other musical about Alexander Hamilton using completely different events. Chernow's biography is over 800 pages long.

As for TV dramas, I think it depends on the kind of series it is, if that makes sense. The Tudors combined Henry VIII's sisters into one sister and that actually did bother me, but not enough for me to stop watching--though it created a funny moment in the last season when Henry was waiting for the King of Scots, James V, to meet him in the north and referred to him as "nephew." Um, where did this nephew come from if you only had one sister who didn't marry the Scottish King? So that kind of stuff bothers me--if you're using real historical characters, could we have them doing real historical character things?

But yeah, as much as I loved Downton Abbey, and I appreciated all the period detail in the costumes--since it was clear from the first episode that it was a domestic drama set mostly in that house and that they got basic things like dates and titles correct, I may not have noticed if there were other things that were "wrong" historically speaking because I may not have known what was correct. Do I care if the wine glass was correct to period or if the Battle of the Somme was fought in 1916?

I'm more strict if I'm reading a historical novel though.

TellMeAStory · Sep 11, 2016

I'm old enough that I fuss about shows that get details of the 50s and 60s wrong. For pity sakes people, just ASK!

Flicka · Sep 12, 2016

angeliz2k said:
Medium really does play a major part in all this. It's easy for me to say, "He was wearing a Yankee uniform". It's a different matter for someone to create an accurate Yankee uniform from scratch. It's just as easy for me to say, "The battle raged around them." It's another thing altogether to film a battle. There are all kinds of limitations in film that we don't have in books. On the other hand, they have the "visual" aspect to bolster them, which is why they can "get away" with more. If people see it, they believe it, even if it's incorrect.

But should we be judged on the historical content of our stories? Yes, to some extent, as much so as on plot and characterization. It's one aspect of the whole, and it should be handled with care. There are those who really lose sight of the forest for the trees, though. I was watching a video about "Hamilton and History", and I was this close to throttling one of the commentators because she just kept harping on the things that should have been in the musical. Lady, it's not ten hours long. I've also seen people collapse into near-hysterics over characters saluting [slightly] wrong and wearing the wrong shade of crimson. Relax, get off your high horse, and realize that nothing will be 100% accurate and all we can do is our best.

Rant over.

Sunflowerrei said:
I almost feel like the above is "this is why we can't have nice things." Specific to Hamilton--it's a musical, it can't be that long or else no one is going to sit through it. Having read Chernow's book, I can tell you that what was in was mostly historically accurate and you probably could write a whole other musical about Alexander Hamilton using completely different events. Chernow's biography is over 800 pages long.

As for TV dramas, I think it depends on the kind of series it is, if that makes sense. The Tudors combined Henry VIII's sisters into one sister and that actually did bother me, but not enough for me to stop watching--though it created a funny moment in the last season when Henry was waiting for the King of Scots, James V, to meet him in the north and referred to him as "nephew." Um, where did this nephew come from if you only had one sister who didn't marry the Scottish King? So that kind of stuff bothers me--if you're using real historical characters, could we have them doing real historical character things?

But yeah, as much as I loved Downton Abbey, and I appreciated all the period detail in the costumes--since it was clear from the first episode that it was a domestic drama set mostly in that house and that they got basic things like dates and titles correct, I may not have noticed if there were other things that were "wrong" historically speaking because I may not have known what was correct. Do I care if the wine glass was correct to period or if the Battle of the Somme was fought in 1916?

I'm more strict if I'm reading a historical novel though.

I thought the question "but what IS historical accuracy?" interesting. So would you say that it can be different things for books and movies/tv? Like is visual accuracy is like a different layer? Or are you merely willing to suspend your belief more for visual media in general?

mayqueen · Sep 13, 2016

On the issue of what is historical accuracy, I really enjoy this post by a historian on the difference between historical accuracy and historicity in the two shows The Borgias and Borgia. The post essentially argues that historicity is more important, and I think I tend to agree. I rolled my eyes through The Borgias but really enjoyed Borgia, despite some obvious things (like how all the characters speak in different accents -- somehow I preferred that over everyone speaking in that obnoxious faux-British "period piece" accent that everyone uses -- huge fan of Vikings in part because they don't do this). I'm more forgiving of television and movies because they tend to have more limitations and try to appeal to different audiences.

I'm amused that the article is about the Poldark reboot because talk about a modern dude plunked into a fancy outfit!

Sunflowerrei · Sep 13, 2016

Flicka said:
I thought the question "but what IS historical accuracy?" interesting. So would you say that it can be different things for books and movies/tv? Like is visual accuracy is like a different layer? Or are you merely willing to suspend your belief more for visual media in general?

What is historical accuracy is an interesting and endless question for sure. For me, I guess I'm conscious that with a movie or TV, they really have to appeal to a modern audience and they often have a compressed amount of time to tell a story. I know it's not necessarily true, but I feel like in books, we have time to revel in a series of events and twists and turns of history that a television audience would not sit through.

One of my favorite historical fiction novels is a fictionalized biography--The Greatest Knight by Elizabeth Chadwick, about the life of William Marshal. I shudder to think a producer and director might try to give his life and that book the Robin Hood treatment or only focus on his life in the tournaments and on Crusade, even though Marshal was a canny politician, knight, solider, and managed to survive the twists and turns of early Plantagenet rule.

Sonsofthepharaohs · Sep 15, 2016

mayqueen said:
On the issue of what is historical accuracy, I really enjoy this post by a historian on the difference between historical accuracy and historicity in the two shows The Borgias and Borgia. The post essentially argues that historicity is more important, and I think I tend to agree. I rolled my eyes through The Borgias but really enjoyed Borgia,

Me too - when I first started watching Borgia, I was expecting some cheap knockoff version of the Borgias, made with half the budget and some rather questionable talent. But I was pleasantly surprised to discover that it was so much better than its glossier rival. It felt more authentic, the setting seemed more real with so many intriguing details that I kept stopping it to go and look something up out of interest. I rarely bothered to do that while watching The Borgias, which was more like mindless popcorn telly. I just switched off and enjoyed the show (which I have now almost completely forgotten). Whereas with Borgia I was totally engaged with the subject matter. The story and characters were so much richer and more complex that I had to use my brain a bit more, and I still remember storylines and scenes over a year after I watched it.

So, I tend to agree with that post as well - I don't necessarily mind the odd historical inaccuracy (or even a LOT of them - someone mentioned Reign, which I really enjoyed once I'd got over the farcicalness of it!) as long as it's for artistic reasons. If it's just out of ignorance I have less tolerance, however...

gothicangel · Oct 1, 2016

Late to the party, but I admit to being a Poldark fan. Historically its full of holes, and Ross is laden with 20th century sensibilities. Ross is a Byronic hero, and really needs a good slapping. What I do find interesting is that the books where written at the time of the collapse of the English Country House, and this seems to be what the Francis plot is about (in reality his title is only in name, he has lost everything else).

greendragon · Jan 4, 2017

Marlys said:
Fair or not, I do hold visual media to a different standard than I do books. A movie or TV show has limited space to tell a story, and sometimes historical details get sacrificed in the interest of plot economy and/or compelling visuals. So I'm more likely to let things slide than I am while reading a book--I was able to (mostly) enjoy The Tudors, for instance, when I'd have walled with vigorous force a novel that combined Henry VIII's sisters and moved events around. On the other hand, I could not abide Reign, which never seemed to give the merest nod toward reality.

All of this, and with those exact examples.

I see historical fiction, whether in film, TV or book form, to have multiple purposes. To entertain, to inform, and to inspire. The 'inform' part often gets shoved aside, such as in movies like Braveheart. I can still enjoy Braveheart, but cannot give it as a 'good example of historical fiction' due to the glaring inaccuracies. It does entertain, but it poorly informs.

I've gone so far as to change minor details in my story if I can't find an example of what I first thought to do during that time period. Nothing major, just minor - but I know someone, somewhere, would pick up on it if it's wrong

I'm more forgiving in my historical fantasy stuff.

I think we're stricter in books than for TV/movies not only because there's more room for the details, but also because it is, essentially, a different audience. By definition, a more well-read audience, and more likely to notice the differences, ostensibly.

snafu1056 · Jan 6, 2017

I'll give a movie/show/book a little more leeway if it was created in the pre-internet era. Research was a little harder back then. Certainly more time-consuming.

gothicangel · Jan 15, 2017

A little off tangent, but the last book I read was called Treason (James Jackson, I think), about the Gunpowder Plot. Now the research about the conspiracy was immaculate, but one-sided. I was very annoyed that the author had fixed his research on the English view of James VI, he obviously hadn't even looked at the Scottish sources/books on James. I don't even think they realised that he had been baptised a Catholic, before being raised a Calvinist after the abdication and exile of his mother.

gambit924 · Jul 28, 2017

gothicangel said:
A little off tangent, but the last book I read was called Treason (James Jackson, I think), about the Gunpowder Plot. Now the research about the conspiracy was immaculate, but one-sided. I was very annoyed that the author had fixed his research on the English view of James VI, he obviously hadn't even looked at the Scottish sources/books on James. I don't even think they realised that he had been baptised a Catholic, before being raised a Calvinist after the abdication and exile of his mother.

That's interesting. I have always been a fan of King James, he was an interesting man. In fact all the kings (and queens) descended from him were interesting. It makes sense that he would have been baptized as a Catholic seeing as his mother was Catholic and probably would have advocated for a return to Catholicism if she had actually been given the chance to do anything. Her story is rather tragic. Her first husband, Francis II of France died, her second husband, The Lord Darnley was murdered, and then she spent the rest of her life as a prisoner. Sad really.

gambit924 · Jul 28, 2017

Marlys said:
Fair or not, I do hold visual media to a different standard than I do books. A movie or TV show has limited space to tell a story, and sometimes historical details get sacrificed in the interest of plot economy and/or compelling visuals. So I'm more likely to let things slide than I am while reading a book--I was able to (mostly) enjoy The Tudors, for instance, when I'd have walled with vigorous force a novel that combined Henry VIII's sisters and moved events around. On the other hand, I could not abide Reign, which never seemed to give the merest nod toward reality.

I would have to agree with you on Reign. It wasn't very historically accurate at all. In fact it was almost jarring. Francis II wasn't killed by Scottish assassins, he dies because he was a sickly child. His brother Charles was only 10 years old when he ascended, so the chance that he would become a pervy murderer, or whatever they were trying to say about him, were slim. Those are just a couple of things that bothered me about it. The Tudors I liked because it seemed like it was fairly accurate and far more tame than some other shows. But sometimes historical TV shows do surprise me with both joy and dismay. It all depends.

Nebulys · Aug 2, 2017

Personally, as a baby historian, severe historical inaccuracies bug me, but there is still room for poetic license. For instance, the shows Reign vs. Outlander - Outlander manages to get away with being flexible with history due to it's cast of mostly original characters, as well as the science fiction element of time travel. Reign on the other hand, is about real people, and SO inaccurate that it's grating.

For me, the issues stem from the fact that in general, historical knowledge is very low. Add to that hit shows that are essentially historical fanfiction rather than historical fiction, and you have people believing all sorts of inaccurate things. Another aspect is the fact that when told accurately, history is very interesting. There's more romance, mystery, and intrigue than one could ever fit into a novel, so why make so much up?

benbenberi · Aug 3, 2017

AmeliaMae said:
Reign on the other hand, is about real people, and SO inaccurate that it's grating.

Historian myself - I have even done some extensive research on France & Scotland in the 16c. Reign was so totally inaccurate that if there was anything actually accurate in it at all it had to be purely by accident!

But I gave it a pass when I realized, after the first episode, that it was not actually attempting to tell a historical fiction at all, just borrowing some names and scenarios from history to invent its own original storyline unrestricted by fact. (Its original storyline being basically angst and romance among pretty teenagers, I wasn't terribly interested and didn't stick around past the first season.)

The costumes were a tipoff -- the creators were very clear that they weren't trying to recreate historical costume, didn't even particularly care about historical costume, but wanted merely to evoke a whiff of olden tymes with clothes that would be fun & interesting for their modern young audience.

I wish they had been able to tell their story and have all their pretty actors, costumes, etc. in a show that didn't misappropriate the names of people and places whose real stories were completely different -- and at least as fascinating, IMO, if a little less suitable for popular teen-angst TV treatment. It would be nice if Mary Q of S and/or the Valois court could someday get a real series. But REIGN was definitely not it!

Splendor · Aug 3, 2017

I actually like when author's take some liberty with historical fiction. I remind myself often that it's okay to do so.

Judging period dramas on historical accuracy

Flicka

Dull Old Person

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process

Marlys

Resist. Love. Go outside.

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty

Sunflowerrei

TellMeAStory

Flicka

Dull Old Person

mayqueen

practical experience, FTW

Sunflowerrei

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy

gothicangel

Toughen up.

greendragon

snafu1056

gothicangel

Toughen up.

gambit924

gambit924

Nebulys

benbenberi

practical experience, FTW

Splendor