tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post4172982564361647136..comments2023-10-12T02:21:40.102-07:00Comments on English Historical Fiction Authors: Where Does History Come From?Debra Brownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03256313302199653185noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-68066424057812181972015-03-04T09:23:42.977-08:002015-03-04T09:23:42.977-08:00Great post and good comments, All! I'd like to...Great post and good comments, All! I'd like to add that too often historians (academics?) feel compelled to stick to the "facts and nothing but the facts" -- which means that in the absence of evidence they don't think at all! This can lead to ridiculous conclusions -- as Josephine Tey pointed out in the "Daughter of Time." (Paraphrased, conventional historians argued that although Elizabeth Woodville knew Richard III had murdered her sons, her desire to go dancing at court again convinced her to turn her daughters over to the care of her sons' murderer. Huh????) I have read some the most ridiculous nonsense that completely regards human nature in "history" books. Good historical novelists, those who really do their research and also use their understanding of human nature to try to explain history, can go where no historian dares to tread. A good historical novel that does not violate known facts but adds an understanding of human nature to provide explanations of those facts can be far more effective in our understanding of history than a book that shies away from using imagination in the service of explanation.Helena P. Schraderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06535398166485310212noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-22262098809486973592015-03-04T00:13:52.620-08:002015-03-04T00:13:52.620-08:00That's certainly my take on it, Evelyn. The mo...That's certainly my take on it, Evelyn. The more you talk to people, the more you understand that 'their' history begins with what fires their imagination.Derek Birkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07707897736595813602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-49554697694741691642015-03-03T07:14:18.645-08:002015-03-03T07:14:18.645-08:00A really good thought-provoking post, Derek. You&#...A really good thought-provoking post, Derek. You're absolutely right, of course, as we discover when our research takes us to conflicting views of the 'facts'. Nevertheless, historical fiction does teach history to those who read it (or view it if on the TV etc.) who would not otherwise know anything about the subject at all. It also brings history alive. History is relevant to who we are as a nation (any nation), explaining how we came to be where we are now. It is also about people, not about dry laws, or battles which seem to have no impact today, which, sadly, is what my history classes consisted of at school. And is that not why we write our fiction, so that people generally may experience what it was like in the past, and even learn something? Power to the pen of history writers!<br />Evelyn Tidmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03842383416965177046noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-58224171578080375172015-03-03T03:32:51.090-08:002015-03-03T03:32:51.090-08:00Partly agree, Margaret, but he was not writing to ...Partly agree, Margaret, but he was not writing to inform, more to please. The character mjght have been drawn to please Elizabeth, but his Richard II hardly followed the Tudor line exactly. The impact of the character of Richard III over centuries is really the point I'm making.Derek Birkshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07707897736595813602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-31273177104610060082015-03-02T23:32:34.077-08:002015-03-02T23:32:34.077-08:00The old adage - 'history is written by the vic...The old adage - 'history is written by the victors' is as true today as it was from the dawn of time. Nice post.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14392302173600743714noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2456802468539868519.post-85425114167280369492015-03-02T23:06:44.283-08:002015-03-02T23:06:44.283-08:00Good post, Derek, except that I would question you...Good post, Derek, except that I would question your interpretation of Shakespeare's primary motivation for the content of his plays, the 'history' ones in particular. I'd suggest that they tell us a lot more about who they were written FOR than who they were written ABOUT (and I don't mean to entertain the general audience.) They were written for the victors and were a mix of political propaganda and expediency - he had to eat after all, and they would have been much less likely to be performed if he'd said the wrong thing. Royal patronage was vital to the survival of his theatre company - and if R III was 'good' then Henry VII was 'bad' - not the best message to present to his son. It's useful to look at them as examples of the political correctness of his day. (And one of these days I'd love to rehabilitate Lady Macbeth - courtesy of Shakespeare she has been maligned not just in Britain, but all over the developed world.)M Skeahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06773276114320929717noreply@blogger.com