Is it easier for you to understand history through fiction?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I know it is for me -- none of the nonfictional history I try to read gives me much of a picture of things. Maybe what I'm getting from old fiction (I do read the biographical and intro and footnote stuff very often)isn't exactly accurate, but it at least lets me get a sense of things, or so I think. My formal education in history was very poor, FYI. Anyone with a decent formal background still find this tendency in themselves?

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 20:52 (twenty-one years ago)

I think it depends what sort of understanding you are looking for. I felt I got a new grasp of life in the old west from Larry McMurtry's western novels (especially the Lonesome Dove quartet): the way people thought, the different pace of life and so on, as well as loads of detailed stuff - but you wouldn't get much real history from it, any info on how the Native Americans were gradually destroyed, or the effects of railroads or whatever. I'm more interested in learning how lives were lived than in dates and facts and battles and all that, so it suits me - though I don't think much historical fiction is any use for that anyway. Old fiction tells you something different again - there are significant differences between reading Jane Austen and Georgette Heyer beyond the aesthetic, and without needing to bring Pierre Menard into the discussion, in how they tell you about their slice of Regency life.

I read no history at all - I have one good historical encyclopaedia, but I'm only prompted to open it once every several months, so I'm probably coming from the same area as you.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Tuesday, 3 August 2004 21:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Picture This was a historical fiction and it did make it easier (and funnier) for me to understand what all happened in ancient Greece and Netherlands, but then it's the only such book I've read, so I'm not sure.

― Fred (Fred), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 06:16 (twenty-one years ago)

I have a minor degree in history and it has done me no good at all. I read no "proper" history books, just historical fiction or narrative history (such as Longitude or Batavia's Graveyard). Whenever I do try to read a proper history book I get an attack of boredom and my eye slides over the page and takes in nothing. I don't have a lot of interest in reading about broad sweeps of history, I'm far more interested in how people lived their lives on a day-to-day basis, and I think some historical fiction captures that very well. Like what? Well, like Girl With a Pearl Earring, or somesuch.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 08:02 (twenty-one years ago)

I've been getting into historical fiction more and more. The author goes out and does the research and all you have to do is read it in fiction format. How cool and easy is that? I really liked The Name of the Rose, An Instance of the Fingerpost, The Crimson Petal and the White, Year of Wonders. I haven't read Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series, but it's meant to be a very rich read.

Fred- Who's the author of Picture This? I'm getting all sorts of odd returns from my search at Amazon...

― Vermont Girl (Vermont Girl), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 10:59 (twenty-one years ago)

VG--You might like Dorothy Dunnett's Lymond Chronicles. The first one is Game of Kings (and all the others make some allusion to chess) and deals with an anti-hero in 16th Century Scotland and England. Wonderfully researched and some pretty nice prose, as well. Unfortunately, the first book is by far the hardest to get into, but the series is a really satisfying read.

The Outlander series, though nicely researched, is more romance than historical fiction.

― SJ Lefty, Wednesday, 4 August 2004 14:46 (twenty-one years ago)

I've heard of the Lymond Chronicles and suggested it to a co-worker of mine who's a Outlander fanatic. I don't think she ever went out looking for the books, though.

― Vermont Girl (Vermont Girl), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 15:10 (twenty-one years ago)

Vermont Girl-
Joseph Heller is the author of Picture This.

― Fred (Fred), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 20:33 (twenty-one years ago)

Whoops, I think I asked this the wrong way -- I meant, I get my history from OLD fiction -- like, learning a bit about the medieval world by reading fiction from that time. Come to think of it though, I always have gotten a kick from old historical fiction, seeing how one past age saw another paster age...

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Wednesday, 4 August 2004 23:07 (twenty-one years ago)

I was about to go off on the question I thought you posed (which I interpreted much like everybody else did), because when we head historical fiction, all we're reading is what the author imagines the history of the times to be like (one might as well get a picture of the future from reading science fiction -- flying cars, anyone?), but I think that the approach you were REALLY suggesting is a great one. What better way to get a flavor of early-19th century London than by reading Dickens, or life in America in the 1950s than from the Beats? Reading history is still useful for filling in some of the gaps (there is something to be said for perspective as well), but you could do a LOT worse than stepping into the writings of the times.

― Mark Klobas, Thursday, 5 August 2004 02:27 (twenty-one years ago)

I've got a very good impression of what 19th century plantations were like from my reading of "Black Stallion".

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 5 August 2004 08:58 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I did address reading old fiction for this. Trouble is, there isn't a lot of fiction, or a lot worth reading, covering most periods in most countries, and anyway much of it has little to do with realism - you won't learn a lot of reliable stuff about Ancient Greece by reading Sophocles or Aristophanes or Homer, obviously. I mentioned McMurtry's western novels: I can't think of any American fiction from 100-150 years ago that would cover that area.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 5 August 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

I don't have a lot of interest in reading about broad sweeps of history, I'm far more interested in how people lived their lives on a day-to-day basis, and I think some historical fiction captures that very well.

my fear is that hist fic gives you the impression that you are getting an impression of how people lived their lives, when in fact you are not. But that might be the same for (bad) history.

I suspect the problem with reading old fiction to learn about old times is that the writer will leave out things that everyone living around then would know about, so you'll miss out on the things you would learn from reading one of those history books of everyday life.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Thursday, 5 August 2004 10:08 (twenty-one years ago)

my fear is that hist fic gives you the impression that you are getting an impression of how people lived their lives, when in fact you are not

It depends on the author. Philippa Gregory has a reputation for being accurate and well-researched, although I haven't read any of her stuff yet. But of course when I think about historical fiction my thoughts can't help turning to Patrick O'Brian, and I'll fight anyone who says he doesn't give you an impression of what it was like to be a naturalist-spy or fighting captain during the Napoleonic Wars.

― accentmonkey (accentmonkey), Thursday, 5 August 2004 13:07 (twenty-one years ago)

There's a difference between doing your research and really feeling it and understanding the differences in how people were. Anyone can do the first, but the second is much harder and rarer.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 5 August 2004 14:47 (twenty-one years ago)

"I mentioned McMurtry's western novels: I can't think of any American fiction from 100-150 years ago that would cover that area."

Have you ever read the writings of Bret Harte? That would be an excellent example of period fiction about the American West, as would Mark Twain's "Roughing It." You may also want to look at the writings of Mary Hunter Austin and Zitkala-Sa, while even the hundreds of dime novels of the period hold insights about the creation of the legend of the West.

As for Martin's other contention, I would disagree. I think that even the plays of Aristophanes and Sophocles contain great insights about their times -- the roles of the gods, for example, speak to the presence of the supernatural that they saw in their everyday lives. When we try to write novels set in the past, by contrast, we inevitably bring modern sensibilities into the picture, which distorts the depiction of the period. Even what the authors omit (as DV points out), tells us something about the times, which is one of the reasins why I always like using academic commentaries to illuminate the texts (Shakespeare gets even more clever once I get his contemporary references).

― Mark Klobas, Thursday, 5 August 2004 16:23 (twenty-one years ago)

Even Greek transcripts of senate hearings contain messages from the Gods, but I still don't see those plays as remotely realist in intent, and therefore there isn't that much that says an awful lot to me about the way they lived. I guess if I believed that the Gods regularly dropped in to sort out people's troubles I might go for it, but I don't.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 5 August 2004 16:41 (twenty-one years ago)

Ann, have you tried reading social histories? Right now I'm reading Medieval People by Eileen Power, and it's just little set pieces of what various medieval people's lives were like. I've just started it but so far it seems pretty interesting, and it's the sort of history I'm interested in (and acutally I was thinking of starting a thread looking for other such books).

What I really want to read is, you know, the 11th Century Erma Bombeck.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Thursday, 5 August 2004 19:11 (twenty-one years ago)

Fiction is just as valid a historical source as non-fiction primary sources. We used Boccaccio's Decameron as a primary source for studying Florence and the black death. It's a fantastically enjoyable book, but also very useful for historians.

― Vicky (Vicky), Friday, 6 August 2004 08:42 (twenty-one years ago)

Fiction becomes part of history too, after all.

― Archel (Archel), Friday, 6 August 2004 09:33 (twenty-one years ago)

fiction and history do not differ in so far as they are both narratives and use the same mode of expression.
maybe it is more interesting to start researching wondering what you believe history means to you. to me, any novel written in a certain period tells me a lot about the period itself. Any - supposedly non fiction - history tells me about my own times (if it is contemporary) as well as about the times it tries to enlighten.
I usually prefer understanding history through fiction, but that is just because fiction is the narrative mode closer to my understanding...

Casuistry, you may be interested in Jacques Le Goff's French Historian School and books

― misshajim (strand), Friday, 6 August 2004 09:46 (twenty-one years ago)

But don't you think a people's mythology tells you a lot about the mind-set of the times? Hell no, we don't live like any of the characters he's portrayed, but raise a hand if you've pointed a finger at the governor of California as a symbol of what's gone wrong with the United States. Swartzenegger's alter egos haven't personally beaten me up this week, but...

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Friday, 6 August 2004 19:14 (twenty-one years ago)

Yeah, I'm not saying they tell you nothing, because of course they do. I was reading a few Aristophanes plays last week, and they did tell me certain things, mostly by implication, but the intro and notes were essential for me to fit that into any picture of Ancient Greek life. I just mean there is a big difference between what you get from The Frogs or Oedipus Rex compared to Austen or Dickens.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 6 August 2004 21:56 (twenty-one years ago)

Hee hee, I just realize that our current transcripts of senate hearings would probably contain messages from thee god as well... plus ca change... well, actually, having only one god allowed to speak in the senate is kind of a devolution...

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Friday, 6 August 2004 22:15 (twenty-one years ago)

"I just mean there is a big difference between what you get from The Frogs or Oedipus Rex compared to Austen or Dickens."

True, but is that because Aristophanes is less insightful about the life of his times, or is it because it is more distant from our times and therefore in need of greater explanation? I would argue the latter; Austen and Dickens may need as much in the way of footnotes 2300 years from now for a reader to fully appreciate them as Aristophanes does today.

― Mark Klobas, Saturday, 7 August 2004 14:41 (twenty-one years ago)

It's because the Frogs is set in the underworld and the characters are mostly gods or dead playwrights vying to be called the greatest of all time. He was a satirist, and he therefore tells you as much about his times as, say, Gulliver's Travels does - i.e. some stuff by implication, but usually very little directly. The Wasps, for instance, is more quotidian and therefore more useful for these purposes, but it's still a highly exaggerated comedy piece, and still far less of a depiction of his times than any Austen or Dickens.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 7 August 2004 16:01 (twenty-one years ago)

A further interesting thing about that Medieval People book I mentioned above is that it was written by a woman in the 1910s or 20s (it's not on me) and so it still has that nearly-100-years-ago perspective (especially noticeable when talking about women -- it includes an epigraph along the lines of "Woman's place is in the home" attributed to "Homo Sapiens" and it seems non-ironic).

― Casuistry (Chris P), Saturday, 7 August 2004 20:09 (twenty-one years ago)

Ann, have you tried reading social histories? Right now I'm reading Medieval People by Eileen Power,

Thanks, Causistry -- I just ordered it for three bucks, woo hoo! Anyone ever wonder why they suddenly become fascinated with a certain period of history? Right now my mood is swinging like a chimp on amphetamines between medieval and Enlightenment... urk!

― Ann Sterzinger (Ann Sterzinger), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 19:10 (twenty-one years ago)

I suspect it has something to do, for me, with the combination of familiarity and distance -- which explains my interest in pre-15th C. Europe and, say, Saskatchewan, but why I'm generally not that interested in the Enlightenment, which seems far too similar to where we are right now.

That might be total BS though.

― Casuistry (Chris P), Tuesday, 10 August 2004 19:29 (twenty-one years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.