tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post706573825463846837..comments2023-05-29T16:29:25.562+01:00Comments on Greyhounds and Fetterlocks: Historical AccuracyBrian Wainwrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-58448489847382170752012-03-18T15:49:46.778+00:002012-03-18T15:49:46.778+00:00Dual two cents:
The Tudor Era is really the #2 hi...Dual two cents:<br /><br />The Tudor Era is really the #2 historical setting after WWII? I'm not sure that could be considered true even in the UK.<br /><br />Sure, nobody's arguing that World War II is by far the most overexposed, but Tudor England? I mean we'd have to dispense with:<br /><br />Rome (Hollywood went Rome mad there for a while, culminating with the Kirk Douglas thing.)<br />The Stupid American Civil War (Just saw a delightful play about the writing of the screenplay for "Gone With the Wind" the other month.)<br />The Wild West (Even discounting all the purely fictional treatments.)<br />The 60s (If I have to see another movie about the moral superiority of my parents' generation to my grandparents' generation, I swear I'm going to scream!)<br />World War I/The Great War (Choose your own appellation.)<br />Victorian England (See especially anything about Jack the Ripper or Sherlock Holmes or Sherlock Holmes versus Jack the Ripper.)<br />The French Revolution/Napoleon<br />Early Bourbon France a la The Musketeers (Pretty much anything by or ripping off Dumas.)<br />The Bible<br />Joan of Arc (Not the Hundred Years War, JUST Joan of Arc.)<br /><br />And that's just if we keep things focused on Hollywood/European film.<br /><br />Toss in China/Japan and your stuck with Samurai flick after Samurai flick and an uncomfortably large number of adaptations "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", and stories about people trying to kill Qin Shi Huangdi<br /><br />I'd examine Indian Cinema but firstly I know nothing about it and secondly the dancing makes me uncomfortable.<br /><br />Second, I'd question the assertion that our post-enlightenment minds can't get around the essentially religious mindset of the Medieval European. I'm a self-proclaimed Richard Dawkins Atheist Fanatic, but I've read too much literature on pre-modern skepticism to believe that the differences were really all that greater than skin deep. I've also seen too much residual mysticism and arationality floating around the modern world to credit the notion that we're all better now.<br /><br />Jennifer Michael Hecht's "Doubt: A History" is a very good survey, and Carlo Ginzburg's "The Cheese and the Worms" is an antidote to anyone who thinks Christianity had a 100% monopoly on spiritual/cosmological thinking pre-enlightenment. <br /><br />I also have a copy of one of my mother's college tomes of "Medieval English Verse" which contains the pre-Chaucer gem "Dame Siriz and the Weeping Bitch", in which a roving priest enlists the help of Dame Siriz to convince a merchant's wife to sleep with him by claiming that sexually spurned priests have the power to turn the children of chaste merchants' wives into crying dogs. (The trick was performed by giving an innocent dog hot sauce and presenting it to the mark, who accepts the ruse without checking on the status of her child. Dame Siriz clearly knew she was not dealing with a great mind.) Point being that theological orthodoxy seems to have been a bit of weak point in Medieval Britain.JJFhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11948014831964413383noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-36719258455317915182009-09-15T16:43:04.714+01:002009-09-15T16:43:04.714+01:00The truthThe truthtrish wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01292123010612021866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-5068534120728500382009-09-14T04:35:23.850+01:002009-09-14T04:35:23.850+01:00I don't understand your scomment, Trish. What ...I don't understand your scomment, Trish. What are you referring to?Joanszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00310350850882768819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-64411752212235082592009-09-13T18:57:51.125+01:002009-09-13T18:57:51.125+01:00Somehow Brian I don't think you're the pro...Somehow Brian I don't think you're the proper person to bang on about historical accuracy.trish wilsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01292123010612021866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-51665651968168464962009-09-10T10:23:37.467+01:002009-09-10T10:23:37.467+01:00The more I consider this matter, the more complex ...The more I consider this matter, the more complex I think it is. Someone could probably write a doctorate thesis on the subject and still have issues left over.<br /><br />Joan I agree with you there is a point where HF crosses over into fantasy. I would argue the movie 'Braveheart' was fantasy rather than HF as it was so far from the facts. Not everyone would agree, I know.<br /><br />The problem is exactly where one draws that line. That's where I think there's a lot of scope for debate.<br /><br />There are three sorts of authors who to my mind 'offend'.<br /><br />1. Those who don't know the period but still try to write about it. These are legion among novice writers, but admittedly we all had to start somewhere and it does take a long time to learn.<br /><br />2. The type Lynn mentions, who claim to research but then clearly reveal that they haven't, or that they've misinterpreted what they've read. Some of these sell a lot more books than I do! <br /><br />3. 'Literary' authors who are essentially taking the mickey out of the genre by deliberately skimming research because it's beneath them. One such quoted Alison Weir as his main source for the WotR! Any historian of distinction would have put him right on that, but I suspect he didn't give a damn.Brian Wainwrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16867772590464992131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-43460231694448863002009-09-07T23:00:45.415+01:002009-09-07T23:00:45.415+01:00I too agree with your slant on how to handle histo...I too agree with your slant on how to handle historical facts within a fiction. It's fine to connect the dots with speculation, just so long as the speculation doesn't violate what is actually known. I think it's also okay to take sides on disputed "facts" that fit with what seems right based ones research.<br /><br />Besides, why call it historical fiction if the facts are changed, such as people living longer or shorter than they were known to have lived--why not delete the historical label and call it fantasy, mystery, adventure, or whatever?Joanszhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00310350850882768819noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5089245841310434420.post-91232770436005694532009-09-07T16:07:18.384+01:002009-09-07T16:07:18.384+01:00I think historical authors should do their absolut...I think historical authors should do their absolute best with the facts they have -- but, after that, you're right, it's fiction. What bothers me the most is when an author claims that they have done extensive research when it's obvious they haven't. I can roll with a fictionalized account just fine as long as the author makes note of what they did or did not know for sure -- or what they finagled to fit the story.Lynn Irwin Stewarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11902088926070471878noreply@blogger.com