In my experience, the first challenge is in defining "historical fiction." To begin with, I mean "historical realistic fiction." Fiction set in an imaginary past is "fantasy" or "historical fantasy" or "alternate history" or even "science fiction." It presents its own challenges, but they are distinct from those faced by writers of historical realistic fiction.
Some define "historical fiction" as any fiction set twenty years previous to the time in which it was written. Others say it's fifty years. My personal definition is "set in a time of which the author has no memory." So, if you're in your twenties, that might be as early as twenty years ago. If you're in you're seventies, than it's probably something like sixty years ago - or even seventy. What's important is that you are not writing from personal experience, and I'll explain why that is in a bit.
On to the other challenges. You're probably thinking, "The challenge is in getting the facts straight," and while that's certainly true, facts are far more than names and dates and places. Those kinds of facts are fairly simple to establish using Wikipedia or any other encyclopedia or work of history.
The real challenge is in getting the facts of social customs, norms, attitudes, etc. correct. Historical fiction recreates a world that is as foreign to the author's lived experience as it is to the reader's. And that's why it matters that you not be writing from personal experience. As the author, you should also be on a journey of discovery. You'll view the time from a different perspective than someone who lived through it. Items, customs, attitudes, etc., that were taken for granted by those living in that time will be viewed quite differently from someone living in the future, when those things have changed. An obvious example is that of phones. Young people today may never have seen an actual telephone with a handset, a cord, pushbuttons or a dial, and a receiver. An author of historical fiction would need to write something more than "He called his mother" in order to recreate that common event -- and if the author lived through that time, it very likely won't even occur to her that a detailed description is necessary.
Dress -- at least, outer dress -- is one area that authors of historical fiction are almost certain to get correct. For many of them, that's why they are writing it and that's why their readers read it. They are in love with hoop skirts or Empire gowns or Highland kilts. They may even get the footwear right. Where they often fail is with the underwear or lack thereof, and with the everyday dress of the common person. They miss the fact that clothes were not laundered after one wearing, or even several. They were "aired out" and brushed and spot cleaned. Underwear was washed more frequently -- that was its purpose; to protect clothes -- if you were wealthy. Otherwise, you slept in it. If you were lucky, you had two sets -- one to wash, one to wear.
The same for hairstyles. They describe in detail the elaborate hairstyles of the wealthy, but generally ignore the simple hairstyles of the working classes and of children. Too often, women leave the house bareheaded. All adults -- those about 14 and older -- wore some sort of head covering when in public until the late 1960s -- a headscarf, a mob cap, a beret, something. Most children did, as well, although there was more variation for them, depending on age, location, and social class.
Transportation is almost always correct, being another aspect that draws people to historical fiction. Although, again, the amount of walking done by the lower classes is usually ignored and the restrictions this placed on their abilities to move very far from their birthplace.
So, what are the challenges, beyond presenting the lives of the common people? Social norms/customs and attitudes. In regard to social norms, I mentioned one already -- adults covered their heads when they went out in public. Women always wore gloves (and please learn the etiquette of glove wearing! Take them off before drinking or eating) and men wore them when in formal dress. Men wore ties or neckerchiefs or ascot or something around the throat. They wore collars that buttoned onto the neck of their shirts and were changed daily or so. It saved washing the shirts. More than in our modern world, clothes were status symbols. They reflected the wearer's socioeconomic status and position in society. They could also be symbols of rebellion, or of religions or political beliefs. Examples are the simple dress of Quakers, the short, skimpy shifts of flappers, and the bonnets rouges of the French Revolution.
Another that really makes me crazy is when young men and unchaperoned young women will go on "dates." Often that actual word is used. Even courting couples did not spend time together unchaperoned. The young man would ask the father's (or parents') permission to court their daughter. That did not mean that the two of them started going on dates alone. It meant that he might walk her to and from church and be invited to Sunday dinner. He might call for her in his carriage and they might go for a drive in the park in the afternoon -- in full view of the public. The two of them might be granted some time in semi-private in the parlor -- with the door to the next room open. It would be acceptable for the two of them to dance with each other primarily, although not exclusively, at balls.
An even greater challenge is the temptation to ascribe modern attitudes to historical characters and to judge historical characters by modern standards. As I said above, modern attitudes about cleanliness are often ascribed to historical characters. They not only wash their clothes far too often, they bathe and wash their hair too frequently, as well. We laugh at Eliza Doolittle who "washed her face and hands before she come," and think of her as "dirty," but that was historically accurate.
While we certainly can point to women and men who challenged sex/gender roles, as well as racism, they were doing it within a specific socio-cultural situation. Their attitudes would continue to reflect the boundaries and norms of that society. They were able to successfully navigate those boundaries in large part because they were born to families with relative privilege and connections. Wealthy people obviously had more of both and were able to exercise greater autonomy, but women were still women and men were still men and the races were still segregated.
While working-class people might buck the system to some extent, it was within the confines of that system. A working-class woman might become a school teacher; she would not become a physician. A working-class man might become a Methodist preacher; he would not become a member of the Anglican clergy.
Too often those who hold the standard attitudes of the day are depicted as narrow-minded, rigid, sexist, racist, etc. The men are presented as physically and verbally abusive, while the women are submissive, depressed victims. Certainly there were such situations, but in general, the average woman was satisfied with her life. She accepted her role as wife and mother and took pride in it. The average man honored her achievements. He also accepted his role as financial and material provider and took pride in it. Both of them were living within rigid role definitions and both expected the other to do so. It is quite possible to write a story about a person who was not happy within those restrictions and who sought fulfillment outside of them without damning everyone else as either abusive or depressed.
And that is the greatest challenge of all.
No comments:
Post a Comment