I’ve been thinking about this reblog a lot, and it spawned something between a response and a stream of consciousness.
In some ways historical fiction is a lot like fanfiction in that the setting, the set pieces, the characters, their biographical info, their context and backstory already exist. With fanfic, some use the medium to fix/expand part of the story, like when I was 18 and wrote a novel length fanfic about Andromeda Tonks (Boy Wizard Books, Jessica Mitford Expy) because I was obsessed with the non-fascist sister. I didn’t write that fic to “fix” said characters presence in the books, but to do a deep intimate dive into her character.
With historical fiction (which I will call HiFi) we see similar patterns. I grew up reading HiFi about Elizabeth I, and this distorted my ability to really engage seriously with her bit of history because in the back of my mind she’s just my favorite character, not a real, complex, often-cruel, brilliant late-Renaissance queen. Some HiFi writers never progress past the fanfic approach. Like an AU HiFi novel where Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley are endgame and Mary Queen of Scots is Elizabeth’s quirky sidekick. I’d read the crap out of that, but I wouldn’t take it seriously.
A complex psychological yet fictional exploration of Elizabeth I in all her complexity, though, would be so cool. It would also be a very different type of work. I’m not sure if I’d want to read it. I imagine that that’s the difference between hard and soft HiFi.
A separate but related issue is that…readers don’t like it when books provoke/expect them to think, or be partners in the reading/learning process. Hard HiFi does that.
As for the authors…look it’s really shit author behavior to attack/engage with reviewers. It’s shit author behavior to lurk on your Goodreads page. Which I do because I am a badly behaved author. But engaging and doxxing? Jesus.
But on the other hand, that book might be their biggest accomplishment in life. In fact, it probably is. Getting a book traditionally published to the point where blogs are talking about it? That’s the dream. And after you jump through all those hoops for some random book reviewer to (from their perspective) attack the entire book? Oof. That’s their baby. And that may be their only source of livelihood. Take it from a NYT Bestselling author: large readership doesn’t mean endless money. Or any money.
I think some clarity would help, or maybe better media literacy? Should a HiFi author have to say “yo this is soft HiFi don’t @ me about the Armada”? Or should I have to say “this is a serious work of history written for intellectually curious individuals who lack patience for academic prose it’s not a fun girlboss beach read”?
I’d argue that authors shouldn’t have to say that, but on the other hand, having someone take your biggest accomplishment and say “it needs to be more like this other book written by someone who has no formal training as a historian,” or “this beach read set in Elizabethan times got information about menstruation wrong” can be a real gut punch and experienced as a personal attack.
I have another post on me about the ethics of historical fiction and what we lose when we flatten events to fit a narrative, but I reckon I’ve rambled enough for now
discoholicmusic
izzy806
romaincrisis
andulkaphoto
jbbartram-illu
yousharknotpass
