I've been writing as a published author for more years than I care to think about. (I was accepted by William Heinemann/Random House UK) in April 1993 - You can do the maths.) During that time, views on historical fiction have changed - back in the pre-1980s the popular writers were Catherine Cookson, Georgette Heyer, Victoria Holt etc. Good stories, but not necessarily accurate history. Then, as the 1990s began to fade, Historical Fiction took a down-turn and lost it's popularity, despite Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe and the arrival of Elizabeth Chadwick and Sharon Kay Penman Barbara Erskine (friends of mine, I must add ([OK name dropping bragging, sorry!])
 |
| Barbara Erskine, Me, Elizabeth Chadwick |
Fortunately, interest in the genre picked up again and is still going strong - but it did change. Accuracy and the overall feel of reality became expected, probably, I suspect, influenced by the expansion of the Internet where factual facts can be easily discovered. (Who uses a library now to look something up?)
I agree that an author of historical fiction should get the facts right...
- No, you couldn't smell the sea from London's Embankment in Tudor times (until relevantly recently the only smell coming from the Thames was of sewage, the Embankment did not exist before late Victorian era, and anyway the sea is more than thirty miles away from London.)
- No, England does not have hummingbirds. (Our smallest bird is the
wrenfact amended! The Goldcrest is our smallest bird... my fault for not checking, but I always thought it was the Wren!) - No, English oak trees are not tall and spindly - that's the American version
- No, Richard III did not drink coffee...
 |
| English Oak |
But what about the other things? That unpleasant, nastier side of history?
I've had grumbles from readers complaining that the battle scenes I've written are too violent. (Well, yes, battles were not exactly nice places to be!) Sex, if it is explicit is another contentious issue, particularly when the female involved is regarded as underage. In an historical context, however, many girls (especially those of noble, important families) were betrothed before they were fourteen - often much younger. A woman was regarded as 'old' by the time she passed twenty-five. Life expectancy in the past was nowhere near as long as it is now. Violence, torture, cruelty (hanging-drawing and quartering, bear-baiting, cock-fighting...) was accepted in historical times. Newgate, Bedlam, the Bastille - places where mercy and caring were never entertained. A child could be hanged for stealing a loaf of bread. Women were regarded as part of the furniture - how much do we, as writers, include these 'nastier' things in our novels?
 |
| The Roman Empire - slaves in chains |
And then there is slavery. I know one author who said she would not read any novel that involved slaves. Another said she would never write anything about slavery. Other novels gloss over the truth, or romanticise it, or elaborate, or dumb down. And now we also have the toppling of statues and the debate about how should this era of the past be portrayed in real life, let alone that of fiction.
Dare I, in a future adventure of my Sea Witch Voyages (set during the early 1700s) write anything about the Slave Trade? My lead character, Captain Jesamiah Acorne was (well, still is, quietly on the side) a pirate. The Atlantic was full of ships transporting black Africans to a life of misery. These poor people were a valuable trade commodity. To be accurate of the period, Capt Acorne should be happy to transport slaves in dreadful condition aboard his ship in order to make a fat profit for himself. As it happens, however, he will not ever do so. My guy values freedom, for himself and others, regardless of the colour of their skin or country of origin.
But taking a 21st century moralistic view of the past is, I feel, as bad as denying the truth of the awful things that happened. We must talk open and honestly about the cruelties of the Roman Amphitheatre where the spilling of blood and slaughter - of humans and animals - was undertaken purely as entertainment. We must never forget the Holocaust, or the deliberate massacres of those of a different belief to the Christian Church. I'm not a fan of glorifying the Crusades - I think it's time to stop promoting those knights who went off to fight the Infidel as heroes. (And yes, I include Richard the Lionheart here. I detest the man). Murder and massacre is murder and massacre, even if it is done in the name of Christ. Or any god, come to that!
My point, I suppose, is that an historical novel is a work of fiction, but the author has a duty of care to write, where possible, the facts, when they are known, as accurately as possible. And we should not flinch from portraying the facts, even when they do not sit comfortable in our hearts and minds.
