Hilary Mantel: Women writers must stop falsely empowering female characters in history

Belle_91 · Jun 1, 2017

Here is the article which discussed Mantel's views: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-writers-must-stop-falsely-empowering-female/

As a historian, writer, and feminist, I'm reallllllly troubled by this. Maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way, but I feel like she's saying that women weren't powerful back in the "olden days."

I also haven't read any of Mantel's books--and now don't plan on it--but I also feel like she shouldn't be trying to throw shade at other authors. From what I understand, she has tampered with historical truth herself.

That's not the point.

The reason why I'm bothered by this is that, to me, she seems to say that powerful women are only a recent phenomenon.

Throughout history, women have wielded power. Maybe it's not power such as running for a presidency or holding a political office, but women have been--and continue today--to be powerful rulers and leaders. They resisted and fought back in their own way. Look at Joan of Arc, Eleanor of Aquitaine, Harriet Tubman...I could go on. Then there are the women who fought against the system, but don't make the history books.

I think writers should portray them with the mindset of the time their characters live in, but women have never been passive, which I feel is what Ms. Mantel is trying to say. They were empowered, just maybe by a different standard than we think of today.

I'm really struggling to write down my thoughts coherently, as I'm kind of seeing red right now, but I'm just so upset by this. It breaks my heart this comes from a fellow woman writer, who I thought knew she was writing about some pretty ballsy women for their day.

mccardey · Jun 1, 2017

Belle_91 said:
Here is the article which discussed Mantel's views: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...-writers-must-stop-falsely-empowering-female/

As a historian, writer, and feminist, I'm reallllllly troubled by this. Maybe I'm just reading this the wrong way, but I feel like she's saying that women weren't powerful back in the "olden days."

Is she saying that? Or is she saying not to make them falsely empowered? I'll look forward to hearing the lecture, but from the article it sounds more that she was saying the women deserve to have their story told within the actual framework of their times.

She's not a careless writer. I doubt she'd be speaking carelessly about writing. Nor is she careless about her feminism:

She is appalled by those who have forgotten what her generation, and her mother's generation, encountered. "very annoyingly, you get women nowadays who are educated and have got on in their professions, saying, 'Oh, but I'm not a feminist.'" Anger suffuses her face, an intensity almost indecent. "The only reason they can say that is that they're standing on the shoulders of their mothers, who fought these battles, I think for a woman to say 'I'm not a feminist' is [like] a lamb joining the slaughterer's guild. It's just empty-headed and stupid."

Perhaps they're trying to distance themselves from a particular caricature of feminism?

"Yeah. Well, they need to inform themselves. Women now take a great deal for granted, but of course the fact is that only a part of the feminist agenda has ever been worked through."

Unimportant · Jun 1, 2017

I agree that it looks like she's focussing on 'false' empowerment. Of course there have been powerful women throughout history, and only an idiot would claim that women like Eleanor of Aquitaine were milquetoasts. But it is false to history, and to women, to write stories if the author dos not faithfully make the "characters operate within the ethical framework of their day" as she says. Pretending that all women were out agitating for the vote in 1912 is not just unrealistic, it erases the struggle of the suffragettes against their fellow women. Pretending that sixteenth century noblewomen didn't wholeheartedly participate in arranging marriages for their daughters for financial/status benefit, ditto. Endowing a fictional eighteenth century housewife with twenty-first century ideals of anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc to make the character sympathetic is a cheap and ultimately useless way to connect with readers.

Helix · Jun 1, 2017

I wouldn't trust the Telegraph to represent anyone fairly or accurately, even with a handful of quotes from one of five lectures.

Having noted that, this sounds to me like an interesting discussion point to me:

“Many writers of historical fiction feel drawn to the untold tale. “They want to give a voice to those who have been silenced.

“Fiction can do that, because it concentrates on what is not on the record. But we must be careful when we speak for others...

“If we write about the victims of history, are we reinforcing their status by detailing it? Or shall we rework history so victims are the winners?

Mantel's scope in the Reith Lectures:

Throughout her five lectures titled Resurrection: The Art And Craft, Hilary Mantel will ask questions about the legitimacy and usefulness of historical fiction, examine the role of research, and explore how a writer might serve the recorded facts whilst giving breathing space to the imagination. Her lectures will seek to address how a writer might deal with the gaps and erasures of history and whether there is a kind of truth that only fiction can tell.

There's a summary of each lecture here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2017/hilary-mantel-reith-lectures

The whole series will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 from 13 June.

Belle_91 · Jun 1, 2017

Okay. I apologize. I guess I had a knee-jerk reaction. Sorry. Carry on with your normal lives.

Lillith1991 · Jun 2, 2017

Unimportant said:
I agree that it looks like she's focussing on 'false' empowerment. Of course there have been powerful women throughout history, and only an idiot would claim that women like Eleanor of Aquitaine were milquetoasts. But it is false to history, and to women, to write stories if the author dos not faithfully make the "characters operate within the ethical framework of their day" as she says. Pretending that all women were out agitating for the vote in 1912 is not just unrealistic, it erases the struggle of the suffragettes against their fellow women. Pretending that sixteenth century noblewomen didn't wholeheartedly participate in arranging marriages for their daughters for financial/status benefit, ditto. Endowing a fictional eighteenth century housewife with twenty-first century ideals of anti-sexism, anti-racism, etc to make the character sympathetic is a cheap and ultimately useless way to connect with readers.

I think you make a great point in the bolded bit, Unimportant.

But I think we also tend to view the past as monolith, even those of us who write Historical Fiction. To the point that people often view any deviation from the main views of the time as authors imposing their views on things despite things being far more complicated than that. To wit, people often have trouble with the idea that Abigail Addams was, in her own way as dictated by the times, anti-racism and anti-slavery. And, yes, by our standards she was certainly racist. But in the 18th century, her views were a progressive one. And we as modern readers and writers need to learn to be comfortable with those type of views within the historical context of the time, instead of, as you mentioned, pasting 21st century ideals onto them because they're not progressive enough. Or ignoring history because we think our time period is the one that invented the concept social and racial equality.

MaeZe · Jun 2, 2017

I like Philippa Gregory's comments in the OP article:

“I think we often imagine them as less powerful than they truly were because we are dependent on the descriptions of them written by male historians at the time which stress their virtues, which include obedience, duty, and suffering.”

It's a fine line trying to get women's history right. Current history has it wrong. Men wrote it with men's accomplishments in mind. We need more historians willing to to recognize and correct the record. But I can also see the point of not getting one's historical fiction right be it making women too modern or too invisible or stereotyped.

What were women like on the battlefield? We Have Always Fought
by Kameron Hurley

All those cannibal llamas.

It makes it really hard for me to write about llamas who aren’t cannibals.

One of my favorite lines. If you haven't read the essay and this subject interests you, find the time.

Historians choose what history is worth recording. The History of Erasing Women's History

The tools of oppression begin with the stories we tell ourselves about ourselves, and that's why you have to set the record straight.

Florence Nightingale was a statistician and scientist. Instead history more often than not, records the fact she was well to do and made sacrifices to help wounded soldiers.

That doesn't mean women weren't second class citizens. In many ways they still are. If you want historical accuracy you have to write how that impacted them and how they overcame it like the Bronte sisters submitting stories for publication under a male pseudonym. Or write how they didn't overcome it and suffered because of it.

Anyone who writes historical fiction with strong female characters needs to do a lot of homework. You have to go beyond the history readily available and dig further. Like the author did to write Book of Ages - The Life and Opinions of Jane Franklin

And, yet, she had a skill that set her apart: She could write. Lepore says that though girls in Massachusetts at the time were routinely taught to read, only gentleman's daughters could do more than scrawl their names, if that. It was big brother Ben who taught Jane to write and, thus, enabled their lifelong animated correspondence. Ben also stoked Jane's thirst for intellectual and political reading material. "Benny" and "Jenny," as they were called as children, were each other's companions of the heart — though as Lepore puns, one ascended to the ranks of "Great Men," while the other remained behind with the "Little Women."

I'm fascinated by history books that are based directly on letters and other documents direct from the time. But if you think about this case, think how many women's stories are absent from the historical record simply because so few could write.

angeliz2k · Jun 3, 2017

I agree, it is a fine line. You don't want to portray wimpy, unsatisfactory women just because that's how they sometimes appear in the historical record. The fact remains, however, that woman did have hurdles in their lives that we don't have today, and women were viewed by themselves and by others in very different ways than we view them/us today. I think the problem is that it's become common: every writer of historical fiction seems to want his/her character to be a raging Feminist, because those are the views they themselves hold. It just wasn't that way, though. While there were progressive ideas, they were relatively rare and would have raised eyebrows. I think it's important for us as historical fiction writers to show a variety of world views and viewpoints--and sometimes not to inject that into the story at all. Oftentimes, though people lived under implicit world views, they weren't consciously thinking about it. This is true of issues besides gender equality, as well. At certain times and places, politics became pertinent to daily life, but for the most part . . . people don't go around thinking about political theory and the State of Mankind all day. They have their lives to be concerned with.

I think Mantel is right. I personally believe that putting a veneer of modern ideals on characters does no one any services.

[By the way, there's a similar debate in regards to slavery and race relations. Can you portray enslaved people as empowered without being somewhat unfaithful to reality? Because they were, after all, enslaved. You can't simply portray them as victims, either, because that's equally as false. Where is the line?]

ETA: Belle, don't be sorry. This is an interesting discussion.

cornflake · Jun 3, 2017

There's a PBS reality show series, the House series, in which (there's a BBC version too that crossed over) regular people are placed in a faithfully-recreated time period, for some months usually, and filmed living as if it's whatever era. The show is awesome, some eras more than others, but the ways that modern people do or don't adapt is always part of it.

In the Frontier House series (the best one of the bunch, by far), in which three families were sent to recreate American homestead life in Montana, one of the families had a couple of teenaged girls with them. The girls smuggled anachronistic makeup (it's PBS; they are dead serious about the recreation -- you don't get modern hygiene products even) and also ended up doing their chores in basically their underclothes a bunch, eschewing their outer dresses and/or corsets and stuff.

At one point, the historian addresses this, but not by saying they're breaking the rules, but by noting that they were unintentionally kind of historically accurate. This is how women in homesteading states got the vote way, way before women did nationally, officially, in the U.S. There wasn't anyone else to work on the farms but the families out there, and the women did as much work as he men, so the women just basically said, fuck it. They, especially the younger women, did often just dress in whatever the hell, in stuff they'd be excoriated for wearing in public in a different area, and demand a vote, and had men over the proverbial barrel. History books often fail entirely to mention this stuff, because 'in the late 1800s, women dressed like X ... women got the vote in 1920...'

Yes, modern sensibilities are modern, but it's as much a mistake to think "progressive" thought was not really a thing because of the time, or confined to a few radical people, as it is to brush large swaths of people with it by default.

I agree there's no point in falsely empowering, but I don't think because they were from eras in which there were different overarching ideas, and in eras in which the history of the time was written largely by men, there's reason to think empowering is by default false.

ElaineA · Jun 3, 2017

To stretch the genre-related boundaries a bit, this is a conversation within historical romance circles as well. There are a lot of Regency heroines behaving like very modern women--being falsely empowered. Because readers are modern, of course writers are catering to their sensibilities. But readers, bloggers, and reviewers are starting to push back. (I recently read a string of vehement comments about Regency noblewomen riding their horses astride, frex.) It's another fine line. Romance has evolved from bodice-ripped heroines--a positive step--but anachronistic behavior carries just as distinct a danger of Readerus interruptus, unless the writer is careful. On the other hand, sweeping era generalizations and reliance on "general understandings of history" are often worse.

As with all things writing, it's up to the writer to contextualize, and do it well. A writer can sell me on a FMC behaving in a modern-appearing way if the ground has been laid as to why this character is behaving in a way that perhaps feels modern, but isn't necessarily (as in cornflake's Frontier House example). In romance, that aspect--the backstory or context--has gone missing from too many historicals. To the point I've given up reading them. So yes, give me forward-thinking/behaving characters, but don't forget to include why this character is more Ida Lovelace-like than Elinor Dashwood-like (with more than a sentence of "oh, her father let her in his library and WOOT! Kama Sutra pikshurs!"). It takes a little work, but it's really not that hard.

Alessandra Kelley · Jun 3, 2017

That article seems to imply that these criticisms may be aimed at one other author.

As to their substance, I can understand annoyance with spunky historic heroines mouthing modern pop-feminism platitudes, if that is what being criticized here.

And yet, as constrained and repressive historic women's situations may have been, neither were women limp, passive vessels and nonentities. Legal records and business archives alone show us that in many times and places women have clearly been as active, interested, educated, and businesslike as they could manage.

I'm currently reading a collection of essays, Women in the Medieval Islamic World (Gavin R. G. Hambly, ed.). There's an essay by Yvonne J. Seng, "Invisible Women: Residents of Early Sixteenth-Century Istanbul" which starts with a report by the Fugger merchant Hans Dernschwam, who in his 1553-1555 diary stated with great confidence that Muslim women in Constantinople never were seen, never did a blessed thing but eat soup and yogurt, and never left their homes except under gigantic black veils to go to religious services or baths.

Seng rather drily contrasts this with records of the time which show wealthier Muslim women in Constantinople running banks, buying and selling property, building libraries and soup kitchens, commissioning architecture, taking people to court, giving lectures, investing money, renting out farms and businesses, etc. etc.

Dernschwam could be forgiven for not being privy to the private business interests of the upper classes of Constantinople Muslim women. But he has no excuse for ignoring the city's throngs of Muslim women who did not wear veils and constantly went hither and thither buying and selling groceries and carrying laundry and herding goats and running small businesses and fetching water and farming and taking care of their household's needs out in public. They were right there! On the streets!

Dernschwam never saw any of them to speak of. His record wrote them right out of city life. Anyone relying on his writing (which was, after all, eyewitness, primary source material) for a historic novel set in Constantinople would have no women to speak of beyond, I don't know, passive prizes and props for men, certainly no one who might actually drive the plot.

So, sure, modern pop-feminists transplanted to historic periods might -- I think Ms. Mantel is saying -- whitewash the harsh realities of the time for women.

However, whenever there are records, it's clear that outspoken, strong, thoughtful, hardworking, (relatively) independent women have never been entirely absent, not even from the most repressive societies.

gothicangel · Jun 3, 2017

All that Mantel was saying is that historically, the power that women where afforded was through men. So Eleanor of Aquitaine's power came from being Queen Consort of France and England, and then through her sons Louis VI and Richard the Lionheart, she did inherit the Duchy in her own right, but it also made her 'the most eligible bride in Europe.' Harriet Tubman couldn't have done what she did without the help of male abolitionists. Even Elizabeth I depended heavily on men like Cecil and Walsingham to retain her throne. I suspect that is why Elizabeth never married, fearing the same fate as her cousin Mary, Queen of Scots (as soon as she had her son James, her Earls and Lords where conspiring to place him on the throne instead - James was crowned at the age of 6, Mary forced to abdicate).

gothicangel · Jun 3, 2017

The full transcript of the lecture can be found here:

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/jun/03/hilary-mantel-why-i-became-a-historical-novelist

Further to what I've already said, I remember in Wolf Hall/Bring Up the Bodies', Anne Boleyn understands completely that her power comes at first from Henry, and to consolidate her position as Queen is to have a son, having a daughter leaves her vulnerable to the same fate as Catherine of Aragorn.

Marian Perera · Jun 4, 2017

ElaineA said:
To stretch the genre-related boundaries a bit, this is a conversation within historical romance circles as well. There are a lot of Regency heroines behaving like very modern women--being falsely empowered.

For me, one problem is that modern views on diversity and empowerment are the hallmark of heroism. So I know a character who doesn't consider all races equal is either a villain or they're going to see the light soon. Meanwhile, the historical heroine's determination not to let her parents arrange a match for her, because she's quite happy being independent and supporting herself by running a school for ex-prostitutes, is equally predictable.

After reading a lot of historical romances, I'm getting a little tired of this.

greendragon · Jun 12, 2017

How about a heroine who defies her parents, marries whom she wants - and it's a disaster, he dies, and she ends up marrying the guy they arranged for her, knowing she's settling for a 'settled' life rather than true love...

That's my latest WIP. (12th century Ireland).

I struggle with this. I want my female characters to be strong, powerful, have agency, and yet not be so unusual to the mindset of the age as to be unbelievable. Certainly, each time in history has a spectrum of attitudes, but that spectrum is still within a narrower one for the time, culture and mores. It's only those that 'misbehave' that make history, after all.

My next WIP will have a female character who is meek and tries to change things behind the scenes, manipulating and setting rather than doing herself, as she is terrified of her husband and the church. I hope I can pull it off.

Cyia · Jun 12, 2017

If there were no women with modern mindsets in the past, then current women would still be sharing the mindset of their ancestors.

angeliz2k · Jun 12, 2017

greendragon, I like that story line. Of course women are capable and amazing and intelligent . . . and we make mistakes sometimes. I don't think that makes a person any less "strong". Women need to be allowed to be flawed, too. It's the learning from the mistakes that's important.

cooeedownunder · Jun 12, 2017

Cyia said:
If there were no women with modern mindsets in the past, then current women would still be sharing the mindset of their ancestors.

Well said.

Siri Kirpal · Jun 12, 2017

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

I may have told this story somewhere on the forums before. This occurred sometime in the late 1890s in rural Missourah where my great-grandparents had a farm. It was the men's job to chop the wood; it was the women's job to cook. Well, the wood was getting low. My great-grandmother mentioned the matter to my great-grandfather. He didn't do anything about the wood pile. Great-grandmother did not mention the matter again. The wood got used up. The men came in from the fields on a hot summer's day demanding their dinner (that was the term for what we now call lunch). Great-grandmother said there wasn't any wood to cook it, so she'd set it out to cook in the sun. The men were suddenly out chopping wood!

Which is to say: it's entirely possible to show inherent "modern" sensibilities without deviating one inch from actual not-so-modern practice.

Also, I too am a bit weary of the all-arranged-marriages-are-bad trope. I know -- yes, in this day and age -- numerous people whose marriages were arranged...and numerous young people who want their parents to do the arranging to spare them the misery of figuring out how to attract a spouse. (They're Sikhs, but even so.)

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

greendragon · Jun 13, 2017

Siri, I love that anecdote! It shows spunk and determination, and the fact she didn't take crap from them

Siri Kirpal · Jun 13, 2017

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

Yes, isn't it a kick!

Oh, and I forgot to mention in my post that it wasn't only Wyoming where women got the vote before 1920. California, Washington State and Oregon, in that order, all had universal suffrage by 1913.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

gothicangel · Jun 14, 2017

Yes, but these things happen over a long period of time. Greer didn't write The Female Eunuch in a vacuum, she was following in the footsteps of the women who came before (Mary Wollenstonecraft, the Suffragettes, etc.) A women in Ancient Greece, with 21st century ideas is disingenuous. It took 2500 years for these changes to happen. I think it is also insulting to women's intellect, that publishers don't think we can't empathize with these bygone mind sets.

Roxxsmom · Jun 14, 2017

Empowerment and agency aren't just about wielding power overtly, within the conventional channels available at that time. Women have always been there, quietly creating, acting, fighting, and striving, even when their accomplishments and contributions are largely written out of history. There have also been women who were outrageous, powerful, scandalous, and audacious by the standards of their times, and there were times and places in history that were more accepting of strong, independent women than others.

However, fiction taking place in historical settings can sometimes gloss over the stigma and pushback women experienced when they defied current conventions. A woman does something amazing, and suddenly everyone supports her, or just accepts it as normal. Is that what this author is talking about?

I have mixed feelings about this, because much fiction that is written in a historical context (such as many romances and historical fantasies) is meant to be escapist in nature, playing to modern fantasies about the more romantic aspects of the past instead of the grittier reality. Some like to sneer at this, but I think it's legitimate if it's not being sold as a realistic representation of history. It's also true that some who think they're being "grittily realistic" are actually being unrealistic in some ways, or luridly lingering on the "rape and torture" aspect of history.

I enjoy writing and reading made-up fantasy in settings where women doing important stuff and moving freely in society is taken as a given.

However, there's also a need for stories that portray the struggles women (and other people too) really faced and sometimes overcame, if only in part, so they could do interesting and important things. There's also something to be said for stories that accurately portray the quieter, behind-the-scenes lives of people who aren't in history's spotlight, but fought small, everyday struggles and had small, everyday victories. It might be harmful to the goals of modern feminists and other people struggling for economic and social equality if people forget that things were a great deal more awful and limiting in the not-so-distant past. I've seen this--women who disavow feminism because they take modern rights and freedoms for granted.

Without an understanding how history really was for women and other marginalized groups, it's easy to forget how precarious and precious the rights we now enjoy are or to take seriously the attempts that many are now making to rescind them. And many people learn everything they know about the past from works of fiction.

Hilary Mantel: Women writers must stop falsely empowering female characters in history

With her nose stuck in a book

No COVID yet. Still masking.

socially distancing

With her nose stuck in a book

The Hobbit-Vulcan hybrid

never mind the shorty

practical experience, FTW

All about that action, boss.

Sophipygian

Toughen up.

Toughen up.

starting over

Rewriting My Destiny

never mind the shorty

Grateful for the day

Swan in Process

Swan in Process

Toughen up.

Beastly Fido