i watched the first episode of hbo's rome the other day. it's no gladiator (they should ave just bought all the costumes) but it was good enough that i'd watch it again (but why or why do they all speak in brittish accents??), the characters engaging enough (thought cicero is not quite as i pictured him). but then i saw it.. stirrups. that's right. romans didn't use stirrups. okay, i understand for the actors' safety why you might want to use stirrups, certainly for the action scenes (gladiator did) but i thought the least they could do is not use them in casual scenes (as gladiator did not).
a minor thing, yes, but it led me to wonder, what fudging is acceptable in a historical piece? i was struggling with this while reading david anthony durham's pride of carthage. he takes quite a few liberties, which he freely admits to. it's an interpretation of historical events, he says, and he tinkered with the time line of events to make it conform to a narrative. most ostensibly, he condensed the appx 15 years hannibal spent in italy to a mere 5... i suppose to keep the threads of romance alive. but this really bothered me because it's a major fact. if you can't keep to the major facts, maybe you should be writing fiction, and not historical fiction. why? because people who read historical fiction expect accuracy. i don't want someone to think hannibal only spent 5 years in italy. besides which, once one fact is off, all the other facts become suspicious.
historical fiction should stay true to the facts. i realize with history, this is a little sketchy. but i think with good research you can come up with the facts that most scholars agree on. contested facts you can interpret, or offer your own interpretation, staying, of course, within the spirit of the characters and times. motive and personality is where the fun of historical fiction comes in. how will the author construct a hannibal that makes him do what he does? i think the author is also free to tweak motives because all of it is conjecture, even if you go to original sources. i think it's perfectly acceptable to ascribe ideas to people not historical. for instance, hannibal decides on a strategy, but maybe he got it from one of his generals not recorded in the history books. finally, bonus points for incorporating quotes attributed to the individual in question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree that historical fiction should stay as close to the source as possible. Stirrups are a no-no
Anne,
Every now and then I can’t help but do a search of the blogs, curious as to mentions of my work. That’s how I came across your post today. Thanks for choosing to mention my book at all, and for having read it in the first place. I agree with you on a great many things (those British accents in historical movies, concern over Brad Pitt, Vin Diesel and cookie cutter heroes, for example).
And I certainly struggled and cogitated over issues of historical accuracy. Believe me, the decisions I made weren’t made lightly, and I’m very aware that I can’t please all the people I’d like to. But I did try hard to bring as much of the complex facts of the entire conflict to the novel as possible. I think I achieved that in many ways and I’m confident that if you did read any of the other fictional accounts of Hannibal’s life you’d find that Pride of Carthage sticks closer to the facts than any of them. It’s my argument – although you don’t need to buy it completely – that the choices I made with the historical record I made so that I could better novelize the Second Punic War for as many people as possible. On the other hand, I included many bits of historical information that other Hannibal novels didn’t deal with at all. I’m hoping there’s some balance in that.
Shortening the time frame wasn’t about keeping the romance alive. That’s a minor concern, actually. What it did have to do with is knowing that I had to craft a compelling fiction that doesn’t stall halfway through. The real events of the war certainly do that. They drag on over years, uncertain, slow, having lost the vigor and flare of the early events. If I duplicated that in the novel I’d have gotten a lot of complaints about how bogged down the narrative gets. As a novelist I thought that would do more harm to the reader’s experience than if I used the fictional tools I have to keep the material compelling right to the end. This is not to say that I disagree with your fundamental point that historical fiction should stick close to the facts. I do agree with that. It’s just that as a novelist I have to make millions of different choices. Condensing the time frame was one of them.
As to the designation “historical fiction”… Well, that’s a catch phrase categorization that I don’t have any control over. I’d prefer something like “fiction inspired by history”, but that’s too many words and creates new problems. I’d also be happy to just call my work fiction. But I don’t have control of the categorization. If someone asks me what Pride of Carthage is about and I describe it they’ll likely respond – “Oh, it’s historical fiction!” At which point I shrug and accept it, just as other writers do. I know many writers of “historical fiction” and I’ve never met any that believes their work is a definitive document that should be read as factual. That’s why the “fiction” part of it is so important. So why do I – and others – choose historical topics? Because I can’t help it. History is so compelling, and, for better or worse, I’m drawn to imagine those distant events in fictional terms.
I encourage any interested reader to carry on by reading non-fiction works on Hannibal. Nigel Bagnall, Ernle Bradford, Serge Lancel, John Prevas, Gregory Daly (just to name a few): have all written informative and engaging books on the subject. I’d also say that when you read enough of them – as I did – you realize how rarely historians agree on “facts” that one would think would be beyond dispute. No two books about Hannibal are the same; that’s why there are so many of them.
Okay, Anne, I apologize for rambling on so much. It’s just that this issue is one I’ve thought about for years now. It remains problematic and always will, I think. Now, however, I’m going to get off the internet and start my writing day.
Best,
David.
wow, i'm quite flattered by your response, and thank you for elucidating some of your choices. i feel i need to say i have a lot of respect for writers (though i realize that doesn't come out in my post) - it's volumes easier to criticise fiction than to write it yourself. and as an aspiring writer myself (pure fantasy fiction, at least for now - no need to deal with pesky historical facts!) i'm getting slapped daily with the realization that writing is hard; harder, maybe, than any other endeavour that i've embarked on. a lot of the difficulty is related to the craft of story telling, which i can imagine would only be complicated by having to incorporate historical facts and to attribute intent behind each action.
and in case you're still reading, i'd like to add i really enjoyed your battle scenes. i was impressed by how you were both able to convey the scope of thousands of people moving and narrow the focus to a pinpoint in time.
thanks again for your comments, and best wishes for your next work.
anne
Anne,
Thank you for your gracious reply. You're an aspiring fantasy writer? That's a good market; I wish you the best in breaking into it. I'm hoping to make an impression in it myself this summer. My novel, Acacia, is a fantasy, the beginning of a series actually. Please look out for it. It's got a lot of what Pride of Carthage had going for it (including some epic battle scenes) but doesn't have any of that tricky historical detail to worry about. Well, actually, there's plenty of history to complicate things, but at least it's a history created entirely by the novelist.
Oh, and in reference to another of your posts... I don't think you have to be too scared about the Vin Diesel Hannibal project. Vin has been devoted to the project for years now, but it hasn't really shaped up. Essentially, it's not happening as hoped for. The dismal or lacklustre performances of Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven, King Arthur, etc, have made Hollywood skeptical - once again - of ancient world epics. Recently, Vin has turned his attentions to making an animated Hannibal movie for cable, with him as the voice of Hannibal. So, that's probably happening. It's something, but not too frightening, I think.
Post a Comment