Despite the large ball of burning indignation, which is threatening to burst one of my blood vessels, I’ll try to respond. Bearing in mind the fact that Bring Out Your Dead had about the same level of historical accuracy as The Other Boleyn Girl, I think Mantel brings a whole new meaning to the word hypocrisy.
She spends the entire novel misrepresenting the past. How dare she claim it’s historically accurate. It’s a lie. I wonder if she has any concept of the word ‘integrity’, or whether she is simply delusional’?

I think both PG and Mantel are writers of historical fiction. To claim their writing is historically accurate is piffle. They are both about as historically accurate as The Mad Hatter’s Tea Party.

I just wonder if many fictional writers feel under pressure to give the public what they think they want. So in order to sell they provide salacious fiction rather than historical fact. In other words they sell out integrity for cash.
It’s just that if that’s the case then why not just write fiction? Why involve real people? Unless it’s real why do it? I don’t get it.

Louise said

I just wonder if many fictional writers feel under pressure to give the public what they think they want. So in order to sell they provide salacious fiction rather than historical fact. In other words they sell out integrity for cash.
It’s just that if that’s the case then why not just write fiction? Why involve real people? Unless it’s real why do it? I don’t get it.

Apparently these authors think the larger audience of readers out there can’t handle the truth. The real history is just as fascinating and sometimes as salacious as the fictional accounts. Writers should give it a shot.
Mantel, being an historian, should be able to write an excellent historical fiction about this period. These people are fascinating. Why make them monsters or fools when they were just people trying to survive.
Anyanka,
I like fantasy too. It’s true stuff though!

Historical fiction is just that, fiction – it may be loosely based on ‘facts’ and contain ‘real’ historical characters, but it is fiction nevertheless. I rather like those books which include an appendix at the end where the author makes clear where his/her opinions or inventions differ from the historical record, so that the reader is left in no doubt that what they have read is fiction.

I dislike writers like Alison Weir, who describe themselves as ‘historians’ when writing fiction. This simply confuses the reader who might assume that the novel is a true account of history, in a fictional form.

However, a lot of people are ‘brought’ to true history from reading historical fiction, so we should be grateful that the fiction elements often cause them to investigate a favourite ‘character’ or incident.

Yes, Louise, I totally agree – that’s why I hate it when the publicity stuff for Weir novels mention that she is a ‘historian’.

However, there has been some excellent historical fiction written – for example ‘We Speak no Treason’ and ‘Sunne in Splendour’ – both novels about Richard III.

Even the bad ones can, for some, be a starting point for their own research. However, I am sure there are also people out there who simply accept what is written as true. That is certainly the case for stuff on the Internet where people automatically assume it’s true, because it is on the web.

Claire said

I think that authors need to take responsibility for their work, particularly when it is well-known that some readers (many readers) are believing that their work is a retelling of history. All it take is a warning at the start and a good “author’s note” section at the back. Perhaps some extras on the book website about the author’s research and their fiction ideas etc.

I agree, Claire. I’ve read some excelllent historical fiction, where the author clearly states was is fact, and what is fiction or dramatised. It made the book more effective, since the reader is being told where that fine line was drawn. Elizabeth Chadwick, in my opinion, is an excellent example of this, although she never refers to herself as an historian, though. She makes clear notations about what is real, espcially when she did make changes for better fluidity when writing, what she guessed at, and what is complete fabrication.

My issue with Weir, Gregory and that lot is their insistence to pass themselves off as something their not. Thus, in a credentialist society, anyone who professes to be an “historian” (an increasingly loose and fluid term), even without the actual degrees, can demand a certain “I’m the expert, trust me” scenerio. So people are sucked into skillful marketing, books wrapped in shiny packages and blinds people to deplorable contents within. But, because these people are “experts” and “historians,” the masses will gulp up utter trifle and take it as gospel.

I’m not sure what her BA is in but her PhD is in 18th century literature.