Hello!

Hello!
I'm covered in flour - it would take too long to explain...

Sunday 24 February 2013

Authenticity is a slippery eel....

I am currently working at fever pitch on the novel for which I have a full manuscript request (I'm just underlining it because that news never gets old!) - which is set in 1939 to 1942.

What I've been pondering though is that parallax error between historical fact and historical fiction - or rather, how the collective subconscious perceives an historical period, compared to how the historical researchers and academics see a time, and which makes for the better read?

To give a couple of examples, I'm not writing a bodice ripper as such, but it's a popular genre - and often features a beautiful heroine in roughly the 18th century -  shall we say around 1780 - and you probably get a handsome highway man who's really the son of a Duke, or a scandalous countess with gambling debts and so forth - and a jolly good romp would be had by all.

But, if one reads into social history and consults documents of the time, would the characters concerned be as attractive if they were shown using the beauty preparations of the day, such as eyebrows made from mouse skin (grey was a popular colour for ladies hair), not to mention face cream made of puppy fat and large cut outs of galleons made of leather and stuck to the face. In those days, one or two teeth at adulthood still together in working order was considered a pretty good show, but it's not the impression we have from countless TV dramas where contemporary actors all have a fine set of gnashers, unless they are playing characters roles when snaggle tooth smiles are acceptable.

Think Vikings - never wore horned helmets until Hollywood said they should, indeed, a huge amount of Norse culture as been swept aside to present them as pillaging villains from 'The Vikings' to Mike the Knight - but would people buy an altogether more touchy feeling Viking story? 

In the end, I suspect it's mostly a case of the quality of writing, that a good author will create a good and believable world, and unless one is taking huge liberties with real events ( while pretending otherwise) then a little historical license is probably allowed - never letting the truth get in the way of a good story and all. It's interesting to ponder if the books we like to read are the ones which give us the image of the past we are familiar with, and because it's one we are familiar with, we deem them authentic - where as book that are researched up to the eyeballs can, on occasions, feel less authentic not because they are, but because they go against the grain of public perception, however wrong that perception is.

Of course, that is the ultimate attraction of historical novels that once one slips beyond living memory, then lots of things are up for grabs, it is always a best guess scenario - and even within living memory perception of events is a slippery eel indeed. The past is another country, and the best novels are like the best travel guides, they should make you feel you've been there and, when you turn the last page, wish you will be allowed to return some day.

In case you're wondering, the photograph was taken in 1944 at the liberation of Paris. Or it's supposed to be - there is some argument as to whether it was taken at the time, or staged a little while afterwards before the barbed wire was removed - or even staged in the 1950's as war nostalgia began to set in and memory softened. So, it's either two lovers sitting watch together and making a stand against fascism, or two actors paying tribute to and idea of themselves the French would rather acknowledge, then images like this - but both could be the seed for a hundred different stories.


8 comments:

  1. Hi TF!
    Mouse skin eyebrows?! Yuk!
    Apparently, Napoleon said that history is a series of lies that people agree to believe - so perhaps all of it is up for grabs!
    Alternate history is an idea I might follow.
    Hil

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And let's not get into the whole 'merkin' subject, a very popular fashion accessory in restoration London - rather the opposite of today's Brazilian? That is a good quote from the diminutive despot, I do quite like the idea of writing books that are set in a time where you've changed the out come of an event in history, which I know has been done before, Father Land for example. I've been watching 'World without End' which has as it's central conceit the idea that Richard II was not murdered rather horribly, but escaped and then goes to live as a monk in secret, the rest of the thing was a bit hokey, but I enjoyed that side of the plot, as I always felt a bit sad for him.

      Delete
  2. Hi Sophie

    Thanks for accepting my 'friends request'. I have been wandering around the dusty corners of The Cloud for some days now and am delighted to have stumbled across these musings. If your book (and it's a period I enjoy reading about) is half as good as your blogs and the analytical reasonings/downright interesting stuff contained therein, then you're onto a winner! Can I read a bit of it sometime...?
    Steve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gosh, well, every unpublished, or publish author always wants a reader - I will certainly send you a chapter or two, I'm currently working on draft number 5 and wresting with the crucial but tricky chapters two and three, which as I know what they concern, is a much funnier assessment of the situation to me than it can be to you - but when they're done I might just send the to you and you'll get the joke!Keep on dusting!

      Delete
  3. What a great post, something I've been thinking about. Getting a bit panicked about my research and authenticity in my work. Will go through again with a fine toothed comb. I want the "feel" to be right ... but as it was before my time, not sure what the "feel" really was. Tricky.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hello! We're writing at a similar time period, what I found useful above and beyond history books, was being able to read accounts written at the time, or more importantly still, contemporary novels written as things happened, thinking especially of Irene Nemeroski (which is a terrible miss-spelling), and which I'm sure you've also looked at, but somehow I felt reading a voice from the time gives you the feel for the period even more so than the history books, however well written, or even, sometimes, the accounts, which can be factual at the expense of emotional - stiff upper lip and all!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Oh, no, I haven't read any contemporaneous (is that the word?)novels from the period, what a great idea. I have read several history books and I had a good luck at a land girl outfit in my local museum ... seeing/touching/smelling articles from the period really helps to give you a flavour of it. Will look up Irene Nemeroski, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hi Tx, this article reminded me about an interview John 'The Duke' Wayne gave, a couple of years before he died. On the question of authenticity as his film/director career progressed in his later years, he was loath to make films of the American wild west. He was keen that the true wild west should be portrayed not the way Hollywood wanted to show it. On the question of voice and the written word, I love reading Pride and Prejudice for that very reason. It's sad that authenticity isn't encouraged in the writing of today. Baz.

    ReplyDelete