|
Post by Tricia on Jan 2, 2006 16:12:35 GMT -6
All--
Over time, I've learned there are definately two camps about on these boards. One is the group that abhors historical fiction--perhaps even fiction itself--feeling the genre is not worth the paper, that it deemphasizes the historical process. A speaker I heard not too long ago lumped most men into this category.
The other group does find some value in fiction, and specifically historical fiction. If properly done, a story can reveal to us interior thought processes and emotion (things that normal history usually cannot without proper source material, material rarely in existence) as well as ... well, one's love life and other intimate moments.
Do you feel historical fiction has merit? Is it just entertainment, or can it do more? Or are you in the camp where there's absolutely no place for it on the bookshelves?
Happy New Year, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2006 18:14:50 GMT -6
Leyton--
I think there is great merit in historical fiction, providing the "fiction" part does not detract from the "historical" part. Historical fiction is simply a story; it's simply entertainment. It's the difference between Shelby Foote's discussion of the battle of Gettysburg (which I love) & the movie "Gettysburg" (which I love). Without historical fiction, everything becomes a documentary or some mindless, inane palaver, if its not just funny or musical entertainment. Without historical fiction, what happens to movies like "Fort Apache," "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," "Rio Grande"?
Again, as long as the "history" part is well-maintained or the deviations not onerous, I believe there is oodles of fun in a historical novel. Have you ever read any of the Patrick O'Brian, Aubrey/ Maturin novels? or seen the Russell Crowe movie, "Master & Commander"? Great stuff, marvelous entertainment, AND educational.
Think of how much a person can learn by reading a good historical novel instead of a dry history text. Maybe WE all like our Custer books, but think of those who couldn't handle Michno or Fox or Gray or Willert or Brininstool or Camp or Graham. Should that person be COMPLETELY devoid of knowledge of the LBH?
Best wishes & for once, I hope everyone can at least partially agree w/ me. Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Treasuredude on Jan 2, 2006 19:38:17 GMT -6
Leyton-- I think there is great merit in historical fiction, providing the "fiction" part does not detract from the "historical" part. Historical fiction is simply a story; it's simply entertainment. It's the difference between Shelby Foote's discussion of the battle of Gettysburg (which I love) & the movie "Gettysburg" (which I love). Without historical fiction, everything becomes a documentary or some mindless, inane palaver, if its not just funny or musical entertainment. Without historical fiction, what happens to movies like "Fort Apache," "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," "Rio Grande"? Again, as long as the "history" part is well-maintained or the deviations not onerous, I believe there is oodles of fun in a historical novel. Have you ever read any of the Patrick O'Brian, Aubrey/ Maturin novels? or seen the Russell Crowe movie, "Master & Commander"? Great stuff, marvelous entertainment, AND educational. Think of how much a person can learn by reading a good historical novel instead of a dry history text. Maybe WE all like our Custer books, but think of those who couldn't handle Michno or Fox or Gray or Willert or Brininstool or Camp or Graham. Should that person be COMPLETELY devoid of knowledge of the LBH? Best wishes & for once, I hope everyone can at least partially agree w/ me. Fred. As long as the fiction sticks to the known facts. I think it would be better for someone to be completely ignorant of the LBH battle than to get their knowledge through a fanciful made up story. THEY DIED WITH THEIR BOOTS ON is a great film. How many people have gotten all their Custer knowledge from that one movie? If people can read the book and realize that it's a made up story based on historical events, then fine. But a surprising number of people believe everything they read and most of what they see in movies. The movie TITANIC is the same way. People actually believe that it is a true story and not a fictionalized one in a historical setting. I've read Frederick J. Chiaventone's A ROAD WE DO NOT KNOW. It's an excellent historical fiction novel that bases itself in the facts. I've also heard that Terry Johnston's books are good but I've only read one, SIOUX DAWN, based on the Fetterman Fight.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 2, 2006 19:38:36 GMT -6
Leyton--
Another thing I hadn't really thought of earlier, or maybe didn't express properly... a historical novel helps personalize the history your reading; it makes you part of it. You sort of fall into the role of whomsoever you like or respect or are reading about. You're too young-- though there's a new movie about about him-- but Edward R. Murrow had a program on TV back in the '50s: "You Are There." HE/ YOU interviewed Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, whoever. Historical novels thrust US into the action. Sometimes I go to sleep at night fighting alongside Lee or Meade or Chamberlain at Gettysburg... .
Tally-ho! Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jan 2, 2006 22:25:46 GMT -6
Leyton,
I must confess to being in the group that does not normally enjoy historical fiction. I was an English major (American lit specialty), but I rarely read fiction now due to time constraints. There's so much to learn that I would rather spend my reading time with non-fiction.
I totally agree with the 'Dude about the Titanic movie. What a waste! Unfortunately, most Americans don't read anything deeper than People magazine.
Diane
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 3, 2006 7:15:42 GMT -6
I'm sort of with Diane on this, as a general rule; the facts are usually much more fun than anything anyone could invent. (Especially in the Custer arena -- "you couldn't make it up", as the saying goes!) Plus there's a massive problem with LBH fiction, with everybody dying. Writers either have to dodge the ending (as in "Marching to Valhalla") and infuriate the reader, or invent a spurious "sole survivor" character who can live to tell the tale (as in more books than I care to mention). Chiaventone solved it brilliantly, but few others seem to have.
However ... because of 19th-century sensibilities (or hypocrisy, or whatever you want to call it) there are so many areas of the Custer/7th Cavalry story that will forever remain undocumented, and that we can only guess at through deduction, judging probabilities, reading between the lines, and joining the dots. Which is more legitimate? To present that guesswork as possible fact, in a work of non-fiction (with a suitable larding of "perhaps" and "it seems probable" and so on)? Or to present it as wholehearted fiction? I'm not at all sure.
Which camp DOES "informed speculation" fall into? Any verdict on that?
|
|
|
Post by alfuso on Jan 3, 2006 7:27:13 GMT -6
Fred
I thought YOU ARE THERE was Cronkite. (I loved it. Another early introduction to history)
Murrow had a series of "here we are" type interviews where he went to a celeb's home.
alfuso
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2006 7:54:12 GMT -6
alfuso--
Now you have me questioning myself. I could have sworn "You Are There" was Murrow, but maybe you're right. Why would I remember Murrow so vividly? Now that I think about it, Cronkite's voice does seem to go w/, "YO-U-U AR-R-E THE-R-R-E!"
Best W-I-I-S-S-H-E-S, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2006 7:59:33 GMT -6
MEMO TO: Diane, Elisabeth, & All You Other Muddle-headed Fun Killers
FROM: Fiction, too, Can Be Fun
C'mon! What's more relaxing, more diverting, more rivetting (is that spelled correctly?), than a good old fashioned historical novel, based on FACTS? Treasuredude's right, however; it's got to stick to the facts. AGAIN... have you read Patrick O'Brian's stuff? Indirect historical novels, but still... .
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Jan 3, 2006 8:40:15 GMT -6
Leyton-- Another thing I hadn't really thought of earlier, or maybe didn't express properly... a historical novel helps personalize the history your reading; it makes you part of it. You sort of fall into the role of whomsoever you like or respect or are reading about. You're too young-- though there's a new movie about about him-- but Edward R. Murrow had a program on TV back in the '50s: "You Are There." HE/ YOU interviewed Julius Caesar, Abraham Lincoln, whoever. Historical novels thrust US into the action. Sometimes I go to sleep at night fighting alongside Lee or Meade or Chamberlain at Gettysburg... . Tally-ho! Fred. Fred-- Absolutely agree with you there. Fiction--if well done (there's that caveat again)--can allow you to live inside the historical figure's head and examine his/her internal dialogue or thought. I can also agree with Elisabeth that in LBH lore, the usual end of the story--ending with everyone killed--can be kind of depressing ... and the vast majority of folks like an end with a happier outcome. There's also that cliche' that is so true in regards to GAC, "truth is stranger than fiction." So I guess the moral of the story is: don't end your book on that Montana hillside and don't create that sole survivor? BTW--"Master and Commander" is also by Patrick O'Brian. Then again, you probably knew that! Regards, Leyton McLean
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Jan 3, 2006 9:37:13 GMT -6
Fred, don't get me wrong, I (i)love(/i) fiction itself (especially anything with murders in it!). Maybe it's just that with Custer/LBH, we've got (i)so(/i) much fact -- verbatim testimony, letters, reports, scandal & gossip, etc. -- that it's kind of hard to beat reality ...
The consensus here seems to be that historical fiction is great as long as it sticks to the facts. Can I ask exactly what we mean by that? (I'm not picking a fight here, believe me -- I really, really want to know!) Do we mean: as long as it doesn't (i)subvert(/i) the facts? Or do we mean: as long as it doesn't draw unprovable conclusions from the facts?
I'm trying to think of an example, and I suppose the Monahseta question is as good as any. Would a novel that went for a firm "yes" on the Custer/Monahseta relationship be legit? Or one that featured an affair between Libbie and Weir? We've got hints and suggestions to base both those contentions on, but no proof. Is a novelist entitled to run with his/her conclusions on those questions? Or does that count as (i)departing from(/i) the facts?
Views, anyone?
(Aaargh, Diane -- my first attempt at italics -- what am I doing wrong??!!!!?)
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 3, 2006 9:39:29 GMT -6
I guess you can classify me in the group that likes dry, non-fiction. I want facts, just the facts, ma'am . . . no BS, not someone's opionion of what a historical character said or thought.
Of course if one is just wanting to read a good novel, that's fine . . . but when it comes to history we need facts.
Good point about neo-phytes getting their "history" from historical novels, TV, Hollywood . . . we know the damage that can cause to those who otherwise are not up to snuff on the "real" story.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 3, 2006 10:29:41 GMT -6
I guess I am forced to let the cat out of the bag here, which I really didn't want to do... probably because I will never do anything w/ it... but...
I have written a historical novel-- which I intend to do nothing with-- based on the LBH fight. First of all, I loved doing it. I felt I DID get into the heads of certain characters. My ending was the typical "one got away" routine, but I felt even THAT had a special twist. Within the manuscript I included only ONE EVENT that was pure fiction & that only to liven up the daily routine of the 40-day campaign. You may not like some of my conclusions, but I'll tell you this... there isn't a single, solitary statement that I have put on this forum-- any thread-- that does NOT appear in that manuscript, & many within the manuscript appear that we haven't EVEN DISCUSSED YET! So... aside from the blathering palaver of the dialogue (some of which I have to say, I think quite good)-- & the one fictitious event I included-- the darned thing reads like a Richard Fox/ Gregory Michno analysis/ exclusive. (And the end, of course. Sorry about that.)
This thing will never see the light of day, but you know something? I read it from time to time & it excites me anew. I get excited to change it w/ some new things all of you have taught me, & I think it needs to be spruced up a bit, but the characters have made so many of the people in the 7th Cavalry come alive for me... even if it's just a lot of bunk.
Ya gotta follow reality... & you've got to qualify the fiction beforehand. Yeah, I too love cold, hard facts, but every now & then my brain bleeds from too much typing on these pages & too much note-taking from the books I am reading. That little historical read once in a while is refreshing. YOU'RE IN THEIR HEADS!
Best wishes to all of you. Your great! Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 3, 2006 11:16:13 GMT -6
Fred:
Noting wrong with fiction for those who enjoy it. Good luck and I hope you get published
|
|
|
Post by markland on Jan 3, 2006 12:12:46 GMT -6
A good historical fiction novel should excite your interest enough to read the non-fictional treatment of the same era/event. Fiction is what got me interested in the frontier: Will Henry, Louis L'Amour, Ernest Haycock (I believe his book on the LBH is The Last Trumpet). But, think about it. How many people became interested and went on to study further the Civil War due to The Killer Angels by Shaara; the Napoleonic-era Peninsular Campaigns due to Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe books; the Greeks because of Pressfield's Gates of Fire; the conquest of America's eastern frontier due to Eckert's Conquest of America series; the age of wooden ships and steel men due to the Hornblower saga? Good historical fiction (and I mean good as thouse which generally stick to the facts) can serve as a springboard into serious and detailed study of history. And for that reason should be encouraged. Now off the soapbox Billy
|
|