Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Kelly Scarborough's avatar

I have to admit I'm a proponent of presentism in my own work, which leans commercial, and I noticed that one of the agents on the State of the Industry panel commented that presentism is fine so long as it is applied consistently throughout the novel. In this age where media channels are cross-pollinating, and print, ebook, audio, video, short-form video and all of that collide, I can appreciate both strict accuracy and presentism. I was shocked when Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots met in The Serpent Queen, but I was entertained, and the real facts were only a Google Search away. Call it speculative historical fiction if you will. And what about the modern take Shonda Rhimes has applied to Queen Charlotte? So commercial, and such a hit. This summer, I'm going to a museum exhibit of the Queen Charlotte costumes at a castle in Sweden, which Shondaland has taken on the road. The primary question you identify--what is real and what is not--should be welcomed by historical fiction authors, IMO. It's what we do. And then there's a great middle ground--what could have happened, but probably did not. Even the hyper-accurate Hilary Mantel suggests a series of mutual attractions between Thomas Cromwell and various women that aren't really supported by the record, but theoretically could have existed. And the series really seized on those hints in the book. I think supplying these elements added more than entertainment value, as the record is incomplete, and the man probably had emotional attachments, perhaps with different women than Mantel chose, of whom we know nothing. And, I really enjoyed your HNS panel showing that all these forms of our craft can coexist.

Expand full comment
N.J. (Nancy) Mastro's avatar

This is such an important topic, and people will no doubt be all over the map. Thank you for writing about it. I would have loved to be at the presentation. I am leery of presentism when it distorts what really happened. In a world where facts no longer matter, the line between fact and fiction is further blurred and impacts historical perspectives. We know two people can look at the same event and draw different conclusions, past or present. The point is they look at the same event, not different events. Yes, I know history was mostly written by white men (sadly), but when it's all we've got, it's all we've got. We can infer lost voices, of course, and we should. And we should incorporate new evidence, which makes history fluid and ever changing. That's exciting. Bridgerton and Hamilton, however, play loose with facts and present a slant that may help modern viewers feel good, but they do not illuminate history. They entertain.

Personally, instead of presentism, I appreciate it when historical fiction writers stay true to documented facts and build appropriate sensitivity into their stories. One of the finest examples of this among recent publications is Yellow Wife by Sadeqa Johnson. Johnson is a Black author, and she does not shy away from the horrors of slavery. She boldly uses the harsh, ugly language of the period. The writing is raw and gripping and hard to read sometimes. What I appreciate most is that she doesn't soften or sugarcoat this part of history. She doesn't try to protect modern readers or fear offending them. She brings them a powerful truth.

Am I for strict accuracy in historical fiction? No. It's, well, fiction. Writers have room to bend facts to serve a story. And part of historical fiction's role is to entertain. But I think it's really important to know how far to bend the historical record and to know and be clear why, or historical fiction writers may lead people away from a better understanding of the past rather than enlighten them, which feels irresponsible to me.

Expand full comment
15 more comments...

No posts