I think that taken in this perspective, your reasoning is not applicable to historical fiction only. If a writer has to consider that his reader believes what he/she says to be true, then even if you invent a character which has, for example, mental health issues and it is evil, then you will have to take into account that this could reflect to reader considering that mental health=being evil. But to which extent a writer can be charged of this responsibility and how much is the reader to be charged of the consequences of his/her own responsibility (i.e. not distinguishing between fact and fiction)? I do not think there is any agreement on this, as every person will answer the question in a different way As far as my personal knowledge of writers go, I can say that there are (sadly) really few contemporary writers that write with such a moral intention in mind; I don't think that most of them will portray an historical figure as good or bad because they want to show him or her that way, but that just how they think that character will be functional/enjoyable for the reader (then we can discuss for hours if this approach is right or wrong -I think it is indeed very dangerous in general).
Historical accuracy is completely legitimate, what I called `childish' is when a critic is motivated by the very subjective argument that that historical figures would not have act that way because ...it does not respect my idea of that historical figure; and as far as my experience goes this seems to be the most common motivation to bring down historical fiction. I think here again comes the problem of not distinguish between fiction and fact; I am sure if, for example, bot you and I would write on the same historical character, making sure that we will stick with the facts at the best of our knowledge, we would still probably come to a very different portraits, which would both be, in my opinion, legitimate. You can be accurate up to a certain point, but when you are writing a fiction you have other things than history to consider. For example, in my opinion the biggest flaw (one of) of Mantel's A place of greater safety is not that much in the characters, but in a ill-designed plot which simply does not work well, it is very chaotic for someone who has not a background in French Revolution and mix quotations and fiction in a really awkward way. I found his depiction of characters much more justifiable in the book than what she said, for example, in the infamous BBC documentary on the Terror where she was stepping out of her role as a writer and acting like an historian: there the whole `sit down child' line was indeed outrageous, definitely not innocent and very dangerous. In a narrative portraying Saint-Just as the sadistic evil Lucifer firstly is a flaw in the fiction construction as the writer is just using a flat stereotype (the Villain), not creating a character, which should not be just `black' or `white'. The risk is -and it is a question that I ask myself constantly- is that by setting paramater most fit for historical research than for fiction to prevent the possibility of any historical fiction at all.
(sorry for the long reply, English not being my native language makes explaining theoretical points more difficult).
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2011-11-20 06:45 pm (UTC)I do not think there is any agreement on this, as every person will answer the question in a different way As far as my personal knowledge of writers go, I can say that there are (sadly) really few contemporary writers that write with such a moral intention in mind; I don't think that most of them will portray an historical figure as good or bad because they want to show him or her that way, but that just how they think that character will be functional/enjoyable for the reader (then we can discuss for hours if this approach is right or wrong -I think it is indeed very dangerous in general).
Historical accuracy is completely legitimate, what I called `childish' is when a critic is motivated by the very subjective argument that that historical figures would not have act that way because ...it does not respect my idea of that historical figure; and as far as my experience goes this seems to be the most common motivation to bring down historical fiction. I think here again comes the problem of not distinguish between fiction and fact; I am sure if, for example, bot you and I would write on the same historical character, making sure that we will stick with the facts at the best of our knowledge, we would still probably come to a very different portraits, which would both be, in my opinion, legitimate.
You can be accurate up to a certain point, but when you are writing a fiction you have other things than history to consider. For example, in my opinion the biggest flaw (one of) of Mantel's A place of greater safety is not that much in the characters, but in a ill-designed plot which simply does not work well, it is very chaotic for someone who has not a background in French Revolution and mix quotations and fiction in a really awkward way. I found his depiction of characters much more justifiable in the book than what she said, for example, in the infamous BBC documentary on the Terror where she was stepping out of her role as a writer and acting like an historian: there the whole `sit down child' line was indeed outrageous, definitely not innocent and very dangerous.
In a narrative portraying Saint-Just as the sadistic evil Lucifer firstly is a flaw in the fiction construction as the writer is just using a flat stereotype (the Villain), not creating a character, which should not be just `black' or `white'.
The risk is -and it is a question that I ask myself constantly- is that by setting paramater most fit for historical research than for fiction to prevent the possibility of any historical fiction at all.
(sorry for the long reply, English not being my native language makes explaining theoretical points more difficult).