Does anyone else get mad with historical novels that bend the facts?

[SalusLibrorum]

I've been reading some Philippa Gregory books that I was given, and whilst they're an ok read, they are driving me nuts.

It really annoys me that some people will rely on these books to get 'historical knowledge' and much of it is wrong or just plain ridiculous.

[Stitchybubbles]

It is also a bug bear with me, but I try to look past it and just enjoy the book for what it is.
My latest was with The Lady Elizabeth by Alison Weir, there was a big thing in this novel that was purely fiction, but it added spice to the story, but at the end of the novel AW did write a add on thingy to say why she put it in, so I didn't mind too much.
I think nearly all historical novels do this is in one way or another, but I think it's purely to make the story sound more interesting or juicy. One author that doesn't or should I say didn't do this so much was the late Jean Plaidy.
Think of it this way, if readers really enjoy the book and want to know more about the historical person, then they know to read a history book about them and that way they'll find out the truth and it'll be a good read anyhow.

[damian_steele]

What annoys me more is when the same thing is done in so called "documentaries". At least with a piece of fiction you know that it is unreliable to start with; with these "documentaries" people actually believe the contents are true. For examples of what I mean see the material dealing with the attacks on 9/11, the plane that was supposedly brought down by the passengers and others which allegedly deal with historical fact. Despite the issue that these things contain information which is completely opposite what was reported at the time, more people will remember the "documentary" and believe it to be truthful. Therefore over time the revisionist history becomes the "truth", simply because nobody remembers anything different.

[SalusLibrorum]

I used to LOVE Jean Plaidy novels when I was a kid (and Margaret Irwin, and Margaret Campbell Barnes), I think I collected and read most of them. Perhaps that's why today's historical novellists annoy me so much, there really is no need to bend the facts.

Even Bernard Cornwell felt the need, for some reason, to move some of the dates for the Peninsular War battles better to fit in with the story. It makes me so cross, you can't rewrite history - what happened happened when and where it did, and your story should fit around the actualities.

I have loads of Alison Weir's real history books, I love them. I didn't want to read a novel by her though, and it sound like I have done the right thing. Thinking about it, I have way more factual history books than novels, I also like Antonia Fraser.

[SalusLibrorum]

What annoys me more is when the same thing is done in so called "documentaries". At least with a piece of fiction you know that it is unreliable to start with; with these "documentaries" people actually believe the contents are true. For examples of what I mean see the material dealing with the attacks on 9/11, the plane that was supposedly brought down by the passengers and others which allegedly deal with historical fact. Despite the issue that these things contain information which is completely opposite what was reported at the time, more people will remember the "documentary" and believe it to be truthful. Therefore over time the revisionist history becomes the "truth", simply because nobody remembers anything different.

Oh yes, and don't get me started on the Hollywood versions of history....GRRRRR.

What is even more worrying is that the audience believe everything they see, because it's on the screen.

[Spyder1942]

history is not truth its someones interpretation of events some times with a motivation to distort the way things happend

[SalusLibrorum]

There are some things that are documented facts. That's just the way it is. Battle dates do not move around (except when there's a change between calendars - and that's documented too). Sure there's opinions of why things happened or what motives may have been behind events, but some things are concrete - for instance Elizabeth I never met Mary Queen of Scots, not even secretly, so why are film makers so keen to get them meeting? Why do battle dates get shifted around? - Bernard Cornwell even admits to doing it in the preface to one of his books. There are many such instances of blatant fabrication, or intent to rewrite history and it makes me very cross, especially as many people will accept what they read as fact.

Philippa Gregory especially annoys me, and don't get me started on that ridiculous TV series 'The Tudors'.

[cruellady]

The influence of cinema on the perception of fact is certainly worrying, especially in regard to US audiences. As to hist fic, I prefer Dunnett, who works documented characters into her fiction.

Salus, you'll be delighted to hear that, wait for it, a second series of the same 'Tudors' nonsense is to be screened in the Autumn - I saw a trailer for it yesterday! :: runs for bunker and slams lid shut ::

Cru
x

[klj]

It is also a bug bear with me, but I try to look past it and just enjoy the book for what it is.
Think of it this way, if readers really enjoy the book and want to know more about the historical person, then they know to read a history book about them and that way they'll find out the truth and it'll be a good read anyhow.

I tend to agree with you on this - if it leads people to history books great, if not even the inaccurate historical novels may give the reader some idea about the times that they may not have had. I tend to enjoy them regardless, but read alot of non-fiction history so don't feel so mis-guided by fiction. Of course I started my historical fiction reading with the Flashman books, so.....

I'm a bit more concerned about the media and movies. Both tend to tell the stories wrong - or at least without checking the facts. And just because the news states things went one way and a documentary says something else you can't assume the news was correct and the documentary wrong anymore!

[Gothicina]

I rarely read historical fiction anymore, I used to spend too much time double checking to see how accurate it was.

The exception being Dennis Wheatley.