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.

‘A grain of realism’? Have you ever READ any Georgette Heyer? Her novels are meticulously researched. An Infamous Army was recommended reading at Sandhurst, it was deemed such an accurate depiction of the Battle of Waterloo.

It really irritates me that she is written off as some kind of chick lit author, usually by people who have never read a single word of what she’s written.

I'd find it interesting to read a novel where a character lived in a society shaped by these views but kicked against them (either inwardly or outwardly) in some way, for example by doubting the existence of God. I think there can be a tendency to simplify and generalise about our ancestors, whilst viewing our own age as nuanced and complex. The balance needs to be there though, to preserve some degree of authenticity. Good luck with your novel - what a brilliant project.

@TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross
Yes you are right about Infamous Army, so apologies from me.
I was thinking of books like Grand Sophy.
On her writing style, she often rushed her endings. Pressure from publisher or Tax man.

Surely it depends on the role you want your protagonist to play? If they're an anti-hero then it won't be such a problem but if they're supposed to be the sympathetic heart of the book that the reader really roots for then realistically it'll be a hard sell for people if you have them espouse views that would, to most readers, make them a bad person.

I’ve stopped reading newer historical fiction. I’d prefer a more accurate reflection of what a particular period would’ve been like, for me that’s part of the appeal of reading it in the first place. If you want to get it published you can only be so authentic though - publishers seem to be especially frightened of releasing anything that could be construed as ‘offensive’ in any way now.

Thank you to all who have replied. It’s really helpful to hear your thoughts, and thank you for the references to other books etc.

My reason for asking about this is because the person I am writing about holds a very particular set of religious/political views which determine her actions and therefore drive the storyline. Her views however, are very different from those of the modern world/my own, and that is why I find her so interesting/challenging – it is like putting on a completely different head.

So, I have a second question for you – do you prefer novels that are written with a first person point of view (I did this, I did that), or a third person (she did this, she did that)?

I generally prefer books that are written in the first person, and my instinct is to write it this way. However, I wonder if dealing with a somewhat challenging character is better done in third person – I find it interesting how Hilary Mantel deals with Thomas Cromwell (who is a pretty unpleasant bloke) by referring to him as ‘he’, as if she is keeping him at arms length.

What would your preference be?

Op in regards to first or third person that's so individual to each reader. I write in both depending on what I want from the story I'm writing. Sometimes I want to just tell a story as if I know the tale and want to share what I know. Other times I want to write in first person and have the reader come along with the protagonist and experience it in real time so to speak. If first person is your preferred method then that's what you should do as it's more natural and free flowing rather than trying to please readers. Your telling your story not theirs :)

Authenticity.

We are going to end up in a very sanitised world where we know nothing about history because we've erased it otherwise .

I've researched this period a lot so a modern viewpoint would really jar for me. I agree with PP that you should only really go into offensive thoughts/beliefs if they are relevant to the plot or if you are working with a real character if they have expressed them in someway. So if for eg you were writing about the wife/mistress of a privateer involved in the new world and slave trade then I would prefer to see an authentic voice but you could couple it with narrative/description that demonstrates the human suffering that this entails - easier perhaps to incorporate this if writing in the third person.

The sexism side might be easier to handle as there are plenty of so called "rebellious women" in the ballads and pamphlets of the time so you could address it with the internal dialogue of a woman who has to curb her own inclinations to fall into line with the dictates of her husband without necessarily being inauthentic.

I can't stand sappy women and misogynist men, such as in Georgette Heyer's novels, or Bleak House. In fact I had to stop reading Bleak House for that reason. However, these are of course popular amongst the general public.

I think there's a fine line between parroting the ideas of the past and having a character who recognises injustices and does something to try to remedy them. Elizabeth Gaskell's North and South is a great example of this.

I don't think it's the pronoun choice that makes Cromwell sympathetic in the Wolf Hall trilogy. I think it's that she makes his decisions seem rooted in such genuine, thoughtful, emotionally honest principles. So we might not agree with him, but she makes him seem a really decent person who tries to do his best.

IMO the reason some historical fiction sounds wrong, is that it presumes people think about issues in the abstract, so if the question is whether we believe in witches or not, the lead character will constantly be thinking about that in the abstract, as if they were about to answer a GCSE question. It's not realistic.

Just make sure it is properly researched from historians' work and not secondhand assumptions about how much more enlightened we are now.
They weren't a monolith in the past - some groups during the Commonwealth had very radical views.
Had to chuck a historical novel away the other week due to the author clearly having absorbed myths about the 19th century without checking.

Authenticity all the way, even if it is a novel
Everything historical is being whitewashed away. We can't learn from history if we continually revise or delete it
Women were considered to be their husband's property for hundreds of years; their life, goods and chattels belonged to him. Yes, it is almost impossible to think of this today, but it is still happening in many, many countries today (think middle east, etc)
Women are still considered unclean while menstruating or post-partum
Homophobia is alive and well in 100s of countries whether legal or not
The British remain convinced they are the arbiters of religious and cultural superiority

So, your historical novel is as up to date as it was in the 16 century; kerp everything in because nothing has changed

Please don't too closely emulate Hilary Mantel - I found Wolf Hall very hard to follow! That said, I prefer a third-person viewpoint. First - person seems presumptuous, somehow. Also in a first - person novel, the description is never quite as good, because it's unrealistic to have the main character constantly describing /narrating her surroundings!