Historical novels – authenticity v. offensiveness?

[duckyegg]

Looking for some guidance from the wise folks of Mumsnet, please.

I am trying to write my first novel – it is set in 16th/17th Century England featuring a female lead character, and is based on real life events. I’ve done quite a lot of research into the period, reading original documents etc, and have gained a lot of insight into how these people would think, behave and view the world. The opinions of a 16th/17th Century Englishwoman seem to be as far removed as it is possible to be from modern views and may well include some, if not all, of the following:

• Sexism (the man is the head of the household, and a wife should be in subjection to him)
• Racism (the English are better than other nations)
• Homophobia
• Religious sectarianism (strongly held Protestant/Catholic views, and viewing the other side as evil heretics)
• Colonialism (it is fine to go and settle in other lands, as non-Christian people are savages)

So my question is – do modern readers want to read this in a novel?

I’ve read a couple of novels set in this period where the author seems to get around this by giving the main character a modern mindset. It makes it easier for the reader to identify with the character, but can seem inauthentic – like a 21st Century woman scampering around a historical setting in a dressing-up outfit.

As a reader, what would your preference be?

Is authenticity most important, or is it better to have a main character whose views you share?

Would really appreciate some guidance with this before I get too far into writing.
All voting and comments very gratefully received – thank you!

YABU – I don’t want to read a novel where the main character holds these offensive views. I want a lead character whose values are similar to mine so that I can identify with her.

YANBU – I want all the characters to be as authentic as possible, even if I don’t share their views.

Well, I like the Flashman novels so I probably would go for authenticity. The man is a rapist and a racist. I suppose that’s one way round it: a totally amoral main character.
I can see it’s difficult though and I’m not sure they (The Flashman novels) could find a publisher today.

I suggest you go and read through the Outlander subreddit, the book that probably threads very carefully alongside "YABU" scenario as the heroine is conveniently a time traveller (and even then, unusually progressive even for a woman from 1940s / 1960s), but with occassional glimpses from "YANBU" world from secondary characters. And you will see that many people are indeed mortally offended that an 18th century sailor is not enlightened about feminism or equality.

Me personally, I prefer believable characters, true to their epoch, with vices and flaws native to the time as well. You need to give them something immediately redeemable, I think, to show that they are inherently good.

I hate "historial" books that have been written with modern sensibilities in mind. They just don't work. I for one read historical fiction to see how awful things were and how far we have come.

Would a 17th century heroine frequently be asked to express her views on the topic of gay rights?

‘Racism : the English are better than other nations’ : thats not racism, it is what they would have defined as patriotism. Racism is disliking someone for racial characteristics, for example skin colour or facial features.

Most of the women in the period you are writing about would have had very little concept of anyone of a different race, unless they lived in a port town or were high status and travelled out of England. A Foreigner was someone who came from across the county border ( still is, where I used to live in France!).

What is the point of transforming the past into a pallid reflection of the present? Surely the point of a historical novel is to transport you into the minds and hearts of the people who lived then? You don’t have to endorse what we currently consider to be their mistaken views.

Accurate and historically factual all the way. We can't change history, nothing anyone does today, no matter how many busts and statues they demand are removed, is going to change anything that happened in the past. Stick to the realities, otherwise I think it reads too try hard.

I had to navigate a lot of this when writing my own novel (about the 1612 Pendle witch trials). I think the fact that you are telling a story based on real life events means you may well have to weave these things in. With my novel, there are obviously very heavy themes of sexism and patriarchal religion, but readers have taken this as part of the time that it is set and, of course, they are integral to the story. The publishers were happy and readers seem to be to!

Focus on what is necessary for your story. Historical romances may well avoid this sort of thing to allow for a better reading experience- your own novel may need it.

Sounds really interesting by the way, and good luck!

historical accuracy where possible, but you can also think about whether / how your character might confront these issues. I'd find it hard to read a novel where the main character lazily instructs her butler to buy some more slaves for her plantation with no negative consequences, but it might be realistic to have a main character who makes ignorant negative comments about foreigners or who makes sexist comments but still feels and rails against the negative consequences of society's overall sexism.

I think it's best to avoid the contentious topics if possible. If you have to cover them, try to be true to the era but I'd remove the worst of it if you want the character to be likeable.

Not a novel but the recent(ish,) adaptation of Anne of Green Gables annoyed me a lot by having a story line where she was unthinkingly welcoming to members of the local black community, and everyone else around Anne ended up being too with very little difficulty. I felt it was completely unrealistic for that that would have ever been the case at the time or that that storyline would have played out that way in the book and to pretend it would was glossing over unpleasantness in the past. Similarly there was a storyline on her being completely accepting of a gay friend. She was a sheltered girl growing up in a highly religious community on Prince Edward Island in the late 19th century - come on!

Do you want to write about how it really was or about how would you have preferred it to be?
Some of the popular writers such as Georgette Heyer have a grain of realism but mainly it is a device to introduce pretty dresses and horses.

They were republished in 2015! I analysed "Flashman and the Dragon" as part of my PhD on racist representations of the Chinese in ho

Sorry - in historical fiction!

What is the point of transforming the past into a pallid reflection of the present? Surely the point of a historical novel is to transport you into the minds and hearts of the people who lived then? You don’t have to endorse what we currently consider to be their mistaken views.

Exactly this!

Yep... agree too.

But surely it all depends. Does OP want to write a book that gives an insight into the past, or does she want to write a book that pretends to give an insight into the past whilst actually being about the present more than the time it is set it.

Or does she not care, it's all about sales and it really is a question of writing whatever she thinks will sell.

I read a lot of historical fiction, and I expect authenticity - and the attitudes of the time are as much of the scene setting as making sure the descriptions of the clothing, the houses, the things that happen etc are. I don’t expect a 16th century character to act or think like a 21st century one.

I hope that makes sense - I know what I am trying to say, but I think my brain is scrambling it.

Do you think it's possible to actually know how a historical character would think?

I think that you can learn a lot about the attitudes and mores of a particular historical period by reading the documents that have survived, and also, to a certain extent, from the art of the period.

YANBU Recently I read a Faulker novel, Intruder in the Dust, wincing at every use of the n-word, and the racist attitudes, but that is how people spoke and thought in the Southern state of the USA in those times. To have that ugly past whitewashed would diminish the truth and the struggle of those who came after, and the significance of the novel in its day.

Also recently I watched a Netflix drama, Hollywood, in which a film with a black American female romantic lead with a white male lead was actually made in the 1940s, and the film winning the oscars, and Rock Hudson able to go to the Oscars ceremony as an openly gay man holding his black screenwriters hand. Poetic licence if fine, but a wish fulfilment phantasy about triumphing over racism, sexism and homophobia in the 1940s is naive.

The past was horrible. It should make you feel uncomfortable. Dickens was good at making people feel uncomfortable in his own time.

Sarah Waters manages the historic/modern mindset thing quite well, but I still feel it's a bit too right on.

YANBU.

I am an adult, and well educated. I am therefore quite capable of dealing with the fact that not everyone who has ever lived agreed with me, or subscribed to the prevailing virtue-signalling pieties of the 21st century’s generation snowflake.

I think it depends what you are writing,
I don't mind reading books where people have opinions that are different from mine and If you were writing about a very specific period in history because you are writing about real people then it is probably important to be authentic. Same as if you were writing a boook where the main character is working on the underground railroad, obviously the circumstances have to reflect reality.

On the other hand, having what are now known to be cruel and horrible opinions stated as fact does narrow your audience.
I dont like reading about the hero of a story who also thinks I should be in a freak show or that my sister should be enslaved, because it feels bad. and I'm not saying that people shouldn't write those books, but I'm not going to read them because thankfully we live in a time where I dont have to listen to those horrible opinions especially if its not relevant to the storyline.

And also if it is a made up story with made up characters and its not a story that that revolves on the concept of colonialism, then I dont see the point.
If you are inventing people, inventing buildings and events that didn't actually take place in history even if they are based in the past. Then you are creating a world and If I was going to get to invent a world and invent a past, I'm not gonna invent one with racism in it.

Authenticity. There is no point writing an historical novel that is a load of bollocks, basically. And the PP talking about Georgette Heyer having a 'grain of realism' obviously doesn't realise how very seriously Heyer took her research. She was an absolute expert on Georgian matters and they are absolutely accurate in every tiny detail. She was obsessive about it. They are far from a 'device' to introduce pretty dresses and horses. Yes, they are frothy romance - but the historical detail is spot on.

Authenticity the whole way. How else do we get reminded of how things were. It also sparks conversation.

I hate historical dramas written with XXI century mind. They just don’t work, they’re awful. There was a character in the last series of Poldark, daughter of wealthy man , who wants to marry her of well, while she wants to be “ her own person” and gets involved with anti- slavery movement. She’s ending up leaving her father and England for America, where she’s going to “build the life for herself”. Yeah, right. With no money, no skills and not being able to represent herself within law. Likely she’d ended up as courtesan.
OP, write a fantastic novel. I’ll read it.

Realism where it pertains to the plot and without explanation. Don't contrive in any of these realisms, and don't lose the thread by explaining why. Focus on the story, and whether those views of the heroine are relevant to advancing it. If the heroine has views that are overtly offensive to the reader it will be incredibly hard to make her sympathetic.

It has to be authentic otherwise it wouldn't be classified as a historic novel.

A well researched historical novel based in facts and real events is alway better! That includes all the stuff we as a society don't approve of or have come to understand that they are wrong/ untrue.
Think about your readers, who would read your novel?