Writing historical novels...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by General Ludd

It can safely be said that no one really noticed (or cared for) the innacuracies in those movies, in that the vast majority of the audience did not.

I had no idea you'd carried out such a comprehensive survey.

Certainly the people I met who'd been unfortunate enough to have seen 'Braveheart' were appalled at its grotesque errors.

Still, as a famous American once said:

No one in this world, so far as I know- and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me- has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.

Happily, novels are a different kind of beast. They allow for solitary leisure and reflection, perhaps not found in the nearest multiplex, and textual errors of speech, technology and historical inaccuracies are more obvious.

If someone is writing an historical novel these days, they usually try for an air of verisimilitude- it's not as if we're talking about Shakespeare having Cleopatra invite Charmian for a game of billiards, or clocks striking in 'Julius Caesar'.

This isn't to say that modern dress stagings of old dramas don't work well- the Loncraine/McKellen staging of a 'fascist' 'Richard III' added insight to the play and Richard's character.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm or not.

Alas. Expert help is available.

Exactly.

It is sometimes said brevity is the soul of wit- well, not always.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I had no idea you'd carried out such a comprehensive survey.

Certainly the people I met who'd been unfortunate enough to have seen 'Braveheart' were appalled at its grotesque errors.

Still, as a famous American once said:



Happily, novels are a different kind of beast. They allow for solitary leisure and reflection, perhaps not found in the nearest multiplex, and textual errors of speech, technology and historical inaccuracies are more obvious.

If someone is writing an historical novel these days, they usually try for an air of verisimilitude- it's not as if we're talking about Shakespeare having Cleopatra invite Charmian for a game of billiards, or clocks striking in 'Julius Caesar'.

This isn't to say that modern dress stagings of old dramas don't work well- the Loncraine/McKellen staging of a 'fascist' 'Richard III' added insight to the play and Richard's character.

True enough, that someone reading a historical novel is probably more interested in the historical accuracy than a movie goer (unless it's obvious that the book has no intention to be accurate) but even still, nuances like the fabric of a military backpack would be considered trivial to most readers, I think.


The important thing in a historical novel (or movie) is that it's believable and consistent with whatever it claims to be, not that it's an accurate recreation of history - afterall, what is history but conjecture, anyways?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by General Ludd


True enough, that someone reading a historical novel is probably more interested in the historical accuracy than a movie goer ...

Ture. This is because the former can read. The movie goers were probably looking for the theater showing "Girls Gone Wild go on Spring Break."

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


Ture. This is because the former can read. The movie goers were probably looking for the theater showing "Girls Gone Wild go on Spring Break."

Worse- an Adam Sandler film.

[Zkribbler]

I cannot believe that I preceeded the sentence, "This is because the former can read," with a misspelling of the word, "True."

[Nostromo]

I can't believe a British poster didn't point it out before you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by nostromo
I can't believe a British poster didn't point it out before you.

Wee aren't that perniqqity.

I couddn't be srue if it waz a mishpellung of 'SURE' orr 'TRUE' IN ENNY Kase.

'sides- Zkribbler iz goude fowkes.