|
| Wendy
Z |
| Posted: 08
Feb - 09:03 am |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 27
Member No.: 5
Joined: 21-February 03
|
My
name is Wendy Zollo, and I'm the listowner
of the penmanreview. The list is made up
of people of diverse backgrounds and a range
of distinctive knowledge. We *adore* the
Middle Ages - last year we talked about Medieval
Women, and this year we will look at how
they are drawn in modern historical fiction.
I don't know where this topic will lead us - last year we covered
everything from occupations to contraception. As a group we believe
in freewheeling discussion and exploring new places, sp please
join us in our exploration of women in historical fiction!
I'd like to open this thread by talking about one of my favorite
women in history, in one of my new favorite novels - the woman,
Anne Boleyn, the novel, Dear Heart, How Like You This by Wendy
J. Dunn. To keep this introduction short (unlikely - we're a
rambling group!) and allow the list and others to expand on it
later I'll just point out some items wherein Anne Boleyn is not
portrayed as the typical, social-climbing, high-strung female
of most novels.
She is viewed though the eyes of the poet Thomas Wyatt, her (possible/probable?)
childhood friend and as a adult male who was in love with her
soley for her being and not her influence. This is an important
point as it removes the stigma's attached to Anne's persona.
He doesn't see her as hysterical and agitated but simply as someone
who has become trapped by her own gender and foolishness to a
powerful man (Henry VIII) and loses control of the most important
thing a female *can* have, the mastery and direction of her own
life - rare in the Middle Ages but not unheard of. This lose
of control unnerves and chafes at her and she does what she can
to exerciser her influence to get it back.
It is important to remember how different this POV is form other
portrayals of Anne. Though it still shows her cunning and intelligence
it presents her humanity and frailty as other novels haven't
thus far.
Wendy Z. |
 |
| Tamara
Mazzei |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 10:17 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Admin
Posts: 28
Member No.: 1
Joined: 16-February 03
|
Alas,
I haven't read Wendy J Dunn's book (yet),
but Anne is a fascinating character, if for
no other reason than the many ways she's
been portrayed in both fiction and non-fiction.
| QUOTE |
| He doesn't see her as hysterical
and agitated but simply as someone
who has become trapped by her own
gender and foolishness to a powerful
man (Henry VIII) |
As you suggest, Wendy, Anne has often been
presented as hysterical and agitated. I shouldn't
wonder that a person would become a bit agitated
in Anne's precarious situation! On the other
hand, I find it hard to believe that was
her general nature before her danger became
apparent. She was familiar with her millieu
and must have known at least some of what
she was getting into.
I've seen Anne portrayed as an innocent victim, a sly witch,
and various things in between. I admit to not knowing that much
about her, but I can also envision her as a non-hysterical, non-agitated,
non-foolish woman who played for high stakes and lost.
~Tamara |
|
| Wendy
A Zollo |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 05:09 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 77
Joined: 2-March 04
|
<<[QUOTE]
I shouldn't wonder that a person would become
a bit agitated in Anne's precarious situation!
On the other hand, I find it hard to believe
that was her general nature before her danger
became apparent. She was familiar with her
millieu and must have known at least some
of what she was getting into.>> Tamara
Which brings up an interesting point about *all* historical females
and how they are portrayed by authors. How much reality do we
want to see in our fiction?
Do we want to read a textbook or do we want to read a feathery,
flowery, romance? Or do we as discerning readers want as much
of the *real* Anne Boleyn, Eleanor, Maude with just a pinch of
flavor to make them readable?
Wendy A Zollo (Wendy Z) |
|
| Elizabeth |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 06:48 pm |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 7
Member No.: 63
Joined: 13-February 04
|
I
haven't read Wendy Dunn's novel either so
can't comment on it specifically.
I think that as readers we need to be able
to believe in the characters we read about
in historical fiction. An author can strive
by detailed research to get close to a historical
personality, but 'strive' is the operative
word. How well do we actually know the depths
of our own friends and family, let along someone
hundreds of years removed from us? The author
provides us with an interpretation, but perhaps
some interpretations are more realistic than
others. Of course, what is realistic, again
depends on the mindset of the individual reader.
I found it hard to believe in the Anne Boleyn
of Philipa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl.
To me Anne's bright and brittle nervousness
was overplayed and her fearsome intellect underplayed,
but others may have viewed it as a spot on
rendition in their mind's eye.
I think too, the amount of historical awareness that a reader
brings to a novel will colour his/her ability to believe or not
believe in the characters. The more one knows (or thinks one
knows <g>) the more demanding of 'veracity' one becomes.
Best
Susan - member of Penman Review and historical fiction author
in the day job.
|
|
| Lesley |
| Posted: 02
Mar - 10:27 pm |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2
Member No.: 78
Joined: 2-March 04
|
| QUOTE (Wendy A Zollo @ 02
Mar - 05:09 pm) |
Wendy said:
Which brings up an interesting point
about *all* historical females and
how they are portrayed by authors. How
much reality do we want to see in
our fiction?
Do we want to read a textbook or do we want to read a
feathery, flowery, romance? Or do we as discerning
readers want as much of the *real* Anne Boleyn, Eleanor,
Maude with just a pinch of flavor to make them readable?
|
That must be a huge issue of authors of historical
fiction, especially in dealing with a "normal" woman.
Eleanor of Aquitane was exciting and independent
- but would a more typical woman of earlier
times be an interesting protagonist? Victorian
upper class women, with their incredibly
constrained lives, would probably bore us
all silly. And as much as we all dislike
fiction which has a woman with a modern mind
dressed up in period costume, would we be
able to relate the what many women felt their
role in life was?
Lesley |
|
| Wendy
A Zollo |
| Posted: 04
Mar - 06:15 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 77
Joined: 2-March 04
|
I
found it hard to believe in the Anne Boleyn
of Philipa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl.
To me Anne's bright and brittle nervousness
was overplayed and her fearsome intellect
underplayed, but others may have viewed it
as a spot on rendition in their mind's eye.
I think too, the amount of historical awareness that a reader
brings to a novel will colour his/her ability to believe or not
believe in the characters. The more one knows (or thinks one
knows <g>) the more demanding of 'veracity' one becomes.>> Elizabeth
I couldn't agree more! When does an author's take on a character
become *too* much of an individual reflection of their own thoughts
(this being when they have the research readily available to
back up medieval reality?)
Also true the more one knows the more difficult it is going to
be for *that* one reader to buy into another person's (author's)
vision - though that is why they call it historical fiction.
How many of us would readily read a book about a weepy, weak,
Catherine of Aragon, I wonder?
Eleanor of Aquitane has rarely been portrayed as such, most recently
by S.K.Penman in Time and Chance where admittedly she took a
back role to Henry and Becket's never-ending squabbling. Hopefully
the strenght of this remarkable women will abound in SKP's follow
up novel.
Wendy Z |
|
| Wendy
A Zollo |
| Posted: 06
Mar - 07:21 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 77
Joined: 2-March 04
|
And
as much as we all dislike fiction which has
a woman with a modern mind dressed up in
period costume, would we be able to relate
the what many women felt their role in life
was?
Lesley
(Yup, someday I'll figure out how to use that nice 'quote' box! 
)
Isn't it up to the author to draw us into the characters, make
them believable so we *can* relate to the roles that women held
during a certain era?
I know from running the penmanreview, we're a rather spoiled
crowd having been subjected to the best of the best in this regard
(Penman, Chadwick, Dunnett, Lawhead, Dunn, etc) - and what we
don't like we debate and as Elizabeth says we wall bang the truly
offensive.
We expect the author's research and style to be believable and
accurate and rarely settle for less. But historical fiction isn't
where one expects to find the truth about history and medieval
women, only the major pieces of the puzzle so one can debate
an author's reality.
Wendy Z |
|
| Taminator |
| Posted: 10
Mar - 06:58 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 73
Joined: 1-March 04
|
I
had major issues with The Other Boleyn Girl
when I first began reading it because of
the background knowledge I had of Anne Boleyn.
Gregory's Anne did not click at all with
me (nor did Mary,her sister, for that matter)
because I brought my preconceived notions
to the mix. But because I enjoy reading about
the era so much, I stayed with it and ended
up liking the story a great deal. I found
that I had to set aside my own issues and
enjoy the story for what it was--just that,
a story based on Gregory's own ideas of Anne
and Mary. I still don't accept her theories
as truth, but I *can* appreciate her different
stance. I can do this because I enjoyed her
style of storytelling and her characters'
actions rang true enough to her storytelling
(meaning that they acted in character for
the way she wrote them) to make it an enjoyable
read for me. I still don't agree with her
perception of either sister, and her story
didn't and won't change that. But I can appreciate
it. I sometimes think I don't allow for alternate
opinions of facts because I am so convinced
my own version is the correct one. But I've
opened myself up to the possibility that
there might be more than one interpretation,
and I have Gregory's book to thank for that.
Tammy
|
|
| Taminator |
| Posted: 10
Mar - 07:03 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 3
Member No.: 73
Joined: 1-March 04
|
So
what is the responsibility of the author
in staying strictly to the facts? All authors
make creative choices to make the story flow.
Most of the time it's perfectly acceptable
and only true scholars of the era would know
the difference (and it wouldn't change the
overall outcome of the story written either
way). But what of those casual historical
readers who might pick up a book such as
The Other Boleyn Girl and take it as gospel
truth? Is it all right to twist the facts
or place a spin on them without explanation
because most people will never know the difference?
Is it acceptable because it is fiction? I
suppose what bothers me most about playing
loosely with the facts is that most history
is so interesting that it really doesn't
*need* embellishment! When I think of Eleanor
of Aquitaine, Anne Boleyn, or Empress Maud,
there's no way I could come up with additional
tales that could make them more impressive.
I want the casual reader to understand that.
Most respected authors (Sharon Kay Penman
and Elizabeth Chadwick to name two) do add
the "Author's Note" and make the explanations.
I wish all authors had such integrity.
Tammy |
|
| mnewton56 |
| Posted: 13
Mar - 09:20 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 27
Joined: 1-March 03
|
Tammy
said:
Most respected authors (Sharon Kay Penman and
Elizabeth Chadwick to name two) do add the "Author's
Note" and make the explanations. I wish all
authors had such integrity.
I agree. A writer of historical fiction does have latitiude,
because he/she can invent motivations to explain their characters'
actions, and if the (historic) person's motivations aren't known
(e.g. Elizabeth Woodville, Anne Neville, Mary Boleyn, or Margaret
Lennox, to give a few examples), the author can direct the story
to tell the same tale in many different ways. OTOH, just as Tammy
mentioned, for the casual reader who isn't familiar with the
period in question, one can come away with a very distorted view.
I'm in favor of the HF author writing the characters to suit
the story in their minds, but if it is about historic personages,
I think they should not stray too far from known reality. And
an author's note explaining the view taken and any discrepancies,
shows respect for the readers.
Mary N. |
|
| Elizabeth |
| Posted: 14
Mar - 05:10 am |
|
|
Discussion Leader
Group: Discussion Leaders
Posts: 7
Member No.: 63
Joined: 13-February 04
|
Mary
said:
I'm in favor of the HF author writing the characters
to suit the story in their minds, but if it
is about historic personages, I think they
should not stray too far from known reality.
I agree...although it can be difficult when the known reality
leaves huge gaps. That's when the author has to try to reconstruct
or invent the story whilst trying to stay true to the character.
As you know, I'm engaged in writing the story of William Marshal
and although I am provided with a lot of 'reality' via a couple
of sources, there are still huge areas where there are only the
vaguest of hints to act as guides - notably in his relationships
with women. Two historians I've researched have different notions
of how those relationships functioned and I've gone for the historian
who seems more well rounded in his assessment and who (coincidentally <vbg>)
fits my own notions and additional research of William's attitudes
towards women. However it's not cut and dried. I am well aware
that there are 2 scenarios, both plausible, concerning his realationship
with his lord's young wife. He might have slept with her, he
might not. She might have been Guinevere to his Lancelot, she
might not. Without a time machine, no one will ever know for
absolute certain. I know what I think and what I'm going to write,
but an author of historical ficiton will often stand at a crossroads
of disputed opinion and have to make a choice. Obviously that
choice will colour the readers' opinion of the characters in
the novel. I do agree that an author's note is invaluable in
these cases and adds to a novel's integrity (speaking as a reader
here as much as a writer. I do enjoy reading the additional notes
at the back of a novel. I think that they are the next step in
leading you to want to find out more).
Susan |
|
| mnewton56 |
| Posted: 14
Mar - 09:07 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 27
Joined: 1-March 03
|
Susan
said:
...although it can be difficult when the known
reality leaves huge gaps. That's when the author
has to try to reconstruct or invent the story
whilst trying to stay true to the character.
Exactly -- that's where the HF writer has a scope that the biographer
lacks. He/she can invent motivations, fill out the known outlines
of a life. I enjoy reading the different POVs that two novelists
can bring to a story about the same historic personage, and feel
stimulated to investigate further. But when the HF writer fills
out those outlines and invents/elaborates on details; or chooses
one version when there are several opposing accounts -- that's
when I feel an author's note is in order (and you always porovide
one). I just feel it's important, if one chooses to write a story
featuring a historic personage istead of a fully invented character,
to align the story with the "facts" as fully as possible -- possible
being the operative word :-).
May N. |
|
| Wendy
A Zollo |
| Posted: 23
Mar - 06:50 am |
|
|
Member
Group: Members
Posts: 9
Member No.: 77
Joined: 2-March 04
|
I
just feel it's important, if one chooses
to write a story featuring a historic personage
istead of a fully invented character, to
align the story with the "facts" as fully
as possible -- possible being the operative
word :-).
May N. >>
Do you think this is more important when dealing with female
historical figures since they were so often looked over in the
recording of history (not always, but as a general rule - they
were given more of an outline instead of *say* an essay?)
Wendy Z |
|
| mnewton56 |
| Posted: 04
Apr - 09:23 pm |
|
|
PenmanReview
Group: Members
Posts: 17
Member No.: 27
Joined: 1-March 03
|
Wendy,
I know the month is over, but I am going
to try to reply to your question -- last
weekend I was in Bowling Green, KY at the
KY High School Speech Tournament and my daughter
was on Spring Break this past week, so I
was kind of out of comission for this discussion.
I do think it's important for HF authors to stick as close as
*possible* to recorded history when writing about historical
persons, including women - even, or especially, since women were
less well-documented. OTOH, the documentation that is available
may be from the POV of one chronicler, who may not have even
known the woman in question. So *his* POV may have as little
validity as that of a modern writer. I like to see a writer's
POV supported by something concrete - historical research into
the era, the clothing, social mores, food, religion as a powerful
force in people's everyday lives (if it was - and it does seem
to have been so in the medieval period). How likely are the characters'
actions and motivations, given their era and social customs?
That is where Susan and SKP shine. As far as I can tell, their
characters act in ways that are believable within their time
period, and the authors explain the social mores that cause their
characters to view the world, and act in ways that may differ
from the way we would today.
I hope I have explained this better than I have before :-).
Best,
Mary N.
|
|
