Speaking of historical pet peeves, I do wish people would get over believing those urban myths about the Victorian era, which was incredibly rich and varied. Lytton Strachey is really not a good guide.
Historical fiction pet peeves
- Thread starter Some Lonely Scorpio
- Start date
Speaking of historical pet peeves, I do wish people would get over believing those urban myths about the Victorian era, which was incredibly rich and varied. Lytton Strachey is really not a good guide.
One of the reasons I love the historical fiction of Sarah Waters - which is incredibly well researched, usually very well written, and always just a little bit pulpy - is that she exposes aspects of Victorian life (and life in the other eras she writes about) that are generally not part of the popular image of it. This is on my mind as I just reread Fingersmith, which is rather Dickensian - if Dickens could have faithfully transcribed thieves’ cant, introduced characters who spent their evenings browsing choice pornography, and given us maids having sex with their mistresses.
Of course. I was making fun of the myths but they do seem rampart. Reminds me, my book needs more whorehouses.
Added to my must read list!
Last edited:
I once wrote a story that featured the central characters having some rather insulting racial stereotypes. A story where having those stereotypes is an important part of the story's plot. I was debating in my mind whether or not to post what I've written, so I've decided to post it if anyone thinks that it's worth seeing.
A major subtheme of my first published novel was racism. Which meant I had to have some racists in the story. I remember agonizing over some of the things they said and did, but the story would have been pointless without them.
The name one is fairly common, though sometimes you get surprised. I remember once being on a forum where somebody complained about a medieval story with a heroine named Tiffany, and someone pointed out it is a legit medieval French variant on the name Theophania.
Another that I see a lot is people who don't know the rules for titles -- for example they have a hero called "Lord Jake" who is the Duke of Rulland. No -- he should be "Lord Rulland." Lord Jake is a courtesy title. (At least in the Georgian/Regency which is most of what I look at.) Then they have the King getting addressed as "Your Highness" and a Duke as "My Lord" etc.
Another that I see a lot is people who don't know the rules for titles -- for example they have a hero called "Lord Jake" who is the Duke of Rulland. No -- he should be "Lord Rulland." Lord Jake is a courtesy title. (At least in the Georgian/Regency which is most of what I look at.) Then they have the King getting addressed as "Your Highness" and a Duke as "My Lord" etc.
Titles can be very tricky -- the "rules" we talk about so much are pretty well-defined for England after 1700 or so, but if you go much earlier, the rules don't work nearly as well. At the court of Henry VIII, for instance, it would have been perfectly normal to call the King "Highness" and a duke "my lord." (In fact, Henry VIII caused quite the international controversy when he started styling himself "Majesty" -- that was something previously reserved exclusively for emperors, and embodied some pretty ambitious and complicated legal arguments quite unrelated to etiquette.)
And titles work completely differently once we leave England. Even in Scotland it's not quite the same.
And titles work completely differently once we leave England. Even in Scotland it's not quite the same.
Kind of off-topic, sorry, but I'd love to read a story about a closet Cathar! Medieval European heretics generally are a fascinating and don't seem to get the amount of ink their weirdness could merit in fiction ...
My manuscript has Waldensians, who luckily kind of fit into my setting. Some of my ancestors were Waldensians so it was nice to put them in since I knew my family would get a kick out of seeing our obscure forebears turn up in the book ...
Right
This is the justification I was looking for. No anachronistic language in dialogue, but some wiggle room (within reason) otherwise. Still struggling with the dialogue sounding too formal and consistency, but I chose to write a historical. No one's making me.
Possibly one of the most annoying things is Romans speaking with an English accent. Romans spoke Latin, and quite unsurprisingly, Latin and Italian have a whoooole bunch in common. So why do they not have, er, Italian accents? Actually, "Rome' encompassed people from dozens of ethnic and language groups. It would sound more like modern New York-accents and languages from all over the Empire.
I recently read a published novel of WW2 submarine warfare where the author has his sailors saying things like "on your six" and " Gangway, working Navy here", both modern day terms.
Another where a Roman swung into his saddle by using the stirrup. The stirrup didn't make it to Europe until around 700 CE.
The seeming desire to assign cartoon villain status to Nazis and Confederates (even, I kid you not, as ghosts) rather than write them as living, breathing characters.
The tendency to assign modern attitudes and outlooks to historical characters. (I think there's a good deal of Mary-Sue ism here for a lot of writers. That's they way they think, so therefore their character should, too.)
I recently read a published novel of WW2 submarine warfare where the author has his sailors saying things like "on your six" and " Gangway, working Navy here", both modern day terms.
Another where a Roman swung into his saddle by using the stirrup. The stirrup didn't make it to Europe until around 700 CE.
The seeming desire to assign cartoon villain status to Nazis and Confederates (even, I kid you not, as ghosts) rather than write them as living, breathing characters.
The tendency to assign modern attitudes and outlooks to historical characters. (I think there's a good deal of Mary-Sue ism here for a lot of writers. That's they way they think, so therefore their character should, too.)
There's a TV trope called "The Queen's Latin" about just that thing, R.A. Lundberg. I'm okay with it because 1) ancient Romans didn't speak English at all and no one speaks Latin anymore, so there's no correct accent, and 2) for a lot of shows, it's just logistical; British productions will use Brits.
Nazis were pretty damn evil; there's a good case for Confederates being less systematically, thoroughly evil. I write about them (Confederates--and Yankees, too, by the way) myself.
Nazis were pretty damn evil; there's a good case for Confederates being less systematically, thoroughly evil. I write about them (Confederates--and Yankees, too, by the way) myself.
Well, you have Hollywood to thank for that. If you note, that in Hollywood films, 95% of the time villians are English (or at least have an English accent). So, Romans with English accents is more than a bit ideological, considering when the big Biblical Epics started being made, so was the State of Israel (which the US and UK governments had very different views on). That's one of the reasons that I have a soft spot for the 2011 film The Eagle for (despite its faults) as the Romans are Americans (reflecting modern politics). Italian is no closer to Latin than French or Spanish, they're all Romance languages.
"It’s only a a convention that filmmakers pretty much universally since the 1930s have had the Romans played by Brits, and usually by people that seem to have gone to Oxford and Cambridge, as far as I can tell. That convention obviously comes about because in the ’30s and ’40s, Britain was the Empire and there’s obviously a little history between America and Britain and colonialism there too, and that obviously feeds into that." - Kevin MacDonald talking about 2011 movie The Eagle.
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/73831-exclusive-kevin-macdonald-on-the-eagle#5x20eVQop
http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/features/73831-exclusive-kevin-macdonald-on-the-eagle#5x20eVQop
Last edited:
greendragon
Registered
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2015
- Messages
- 4,217
- Reaction score
- 475
- Location
- Beacon Falls, CT
- Website
- www.greendragonartist.com
I have no problem for this IF there is a believable back-story as to why this person acts the way they do. However, there MUST be consequences for their anti-establishment actions and words. And those consequences must be historically accurate. I can forgive one aberration, but not several. If Eleanor of Aquitaine leads a revolt against her husband, King Henry II, then she'll get locked up in a tower for 10 years. That's the way things worked.
I laughed loud at this! So true...
A Cathar and a Vaudois walked into a brothel...
My biggest pet peeve (other than the name thing, which DOES bother me. I mean, I comb the Annals of Ireland to find appropriate names that aren't too hard to pronounce and yet still sound Irish and reasonable. Do some work!) is making societies homogeneous.
Even in a small area such as 12th century Wales, there were different beliefs and customs within the area. And 12th century customs aren't the same as 14th, even if they were both medieval societies. Coastal Wales was different from Border Wales. Both were far different from Northumbria. Cultures change by geography, time, and controlling power, especially during a long time like 'medieval.'
Bumping this as I'm working on a piece for SYW in close 3rd of a snarky young woman who's about as far left as you could be in her era. Most of the snark is in the narration though as she knows enough to play nice with those in power while attempting to undermine them.
Last edited:
My pet peeve is when a historical fiction author gets facts blatantly wrong and then presents it as history. I understand combining events and skipping boring parts if it makes a better story--it's historical fiction, after all. But changing characters' backgrounds enough that they aren't even the same person irks me. Conn Iggulden's "Emperor" series comes to mind on that front. Call me a Roman history snob if you will, but I couldn't even get through the first book.