Historical Fiction Response

Historical Fiction can be very interesting to read, but is often fraught with fallacy, particularly when it comes to such things as ideological notions not fitting into the setting of a particular book. However, while the books are classed as fiction, many readers assume that at least the plot line and the way events unfold are most likely what life in that time period was actually like.

Embedding current ideologies into historical fiction books is extremely prevalent, especially in newer books. Anne MacLeod stated in her article 'Writing Backward: Modern Models in Historical Fiction,' that "Even highly respected authors snip away the less attractive pieces of the past to make their narratives meet current social and political preferences." This demonstrates how common it is for authors to sugar coat the past, so to speak, in their books. Those aspects of the past that we consider unacceptable or are unwilling to admit is part of our history, or that we don't want our children reading about, are simply 'snipped away' and replaced with something far less colorful and more acceptable by modern standards. The Midwife's Apprentice is a good example of this. While I am not extremely well versed in the ins and outs of that time period, I can make an educated guess that it was highly unlikely for a poor, dirty beggar child to rise from the ranks of something worthless in the eyes of the villagers to someone whose services are highly desirable. In many cases children who were poor would've remained so, and likely would not have survived the elements. Children who at least grew up in the village would be the ones to have first chances of opportunities such as becoming an apprentice for such a respected member of the community. Anne MacLeod also commented that "Historical fiction writers who want their protagonists to reflect twentieth-century ideologies, however, end by making them exceptions to their cultures, so that in many a historical novel the reader learns nearly nothing--or at least nothing sympathetic--of how the people of a past society saw their world", a notion that also supports my claim of fallacy in these books.

The point that all this is trying to get at is simple. Excluding important aspects of past cultures and ideologies from modern historical fiction texts serves only to cloud the perspective of the reader and mislead them. MacLeod's final comment illustrates this point far more eloquently than I ever could. "To wash these differences out of historical fictions is not only a denial of historical truth, but a failure of imagination and understanding that is as important to the present as to the past." While I could never have said it that well, I do agree that exclusion of important details takes away from the reading experience as well as belittling the past that is a very real part of our existence today.