Reading for knowledge through fiction

[Halcyon]

Do you, experienced reader, find reading historical fiction an accurate, at least contextually, method for obtaining knowledge? Do you believe reading fiction about a very broad category such as US history would provide a reasonable frame of reference from a historical point of view? Certainly the best way to obtain the knowledge would be to read books actually about history, but if you want to enjoy them as a fiction novel, can you, so to speak, get away with it?

I’ve never read fictional history or any form of didactical fiction, but I recently bought Stonehenge by Bernard Cornwell and became aware of how ‘cool’ it was to gain a historical point of view though a good piece of fiction. What think you?

 

[ksheppard]

I personally believe that it is possible to gain knowledge from every book. Even the trashiest romance or thriller has the potential to teach something via its setting, its characters or even by the simple fact that you as the reader may not like it.

However, if you mean knowledge in terms of facts, then I believe that historical fiction has the potential for great learning and also for great deception. Many (most?) fictional authors take some license in how they bend or arrange the facts, historical or not, to fit the terms of their novels. In my mind, the great value in reading historical fiction is that it provides a beginning point in the journey, a place for the reader to begin their own exploration of the facts contained within the book.

 

[novella]

As with any knowledge resource, you have to question the expertise and accuracy of the author. Whilst I would not read The Da Vinci Code for historical information, the book London by Rutherford has a well-earned reputation for good historical research and context. But it is still fiction, and you have no way of knowing where the author drew the line between creation and history.

Also, the bulk of historical fiction is full of anachronisms, inaccuracies, and major fictionalized events and settings. Sometimes books like that get great reviews (Caleb Carr's The Alienist comes to mind.) But it would be a mistake to take a good book review as proof of historical validity.

Why not read well-written history? Churchill's books are great. The Power Broker, Escape Through the Pyrennees, The Gulag Archepelago, Two Years Before the Mast, The Codebreakers, or the new Leonardo di Vinci: Flights of the Mind are all great nonfiction books with historical cojones.

It seems to me to be a mistake to invest what is definitely fiction with that much trust. You don't want to be one of those people running around the south of France looking for something Dan Brown made up.

 

[kelliebelle]

Whilst I would not read The Da Vinci Code for historical information, the book London by Rutherford has a well-earned reputation for good historical research and context.

I agree with this point 100%. I have read both of these books, and I enjoyed both. However, I must admit that I took The Da Vinci Code with a bigger grain of salt than I did with London. I realize fiction authors use a certain amount of leniency when creating their stories, and I think that is perfectly acceptable. Books are entertainment for me for the most part, and I keep that in mind while reading anything.

I do enjoy learning from my reading. I usually keep a pen and a piece of paper with whichever book I'm reading, and if I notice a word I don't know or a subject I want to know more about, I'll jot it down and look it up later on the Internet. I think I've increased my vocabulary that way. And perhaps that makes me sound smarter than I look.

 

[Ell]

Also, the bulk of historical fiction is full of anachronisms, inaccuracies, and major fictionalized events and settings. Sometimes books like that get great reviews (Caleb Carr's The Alienist comes to mind.) But it would be a mistake to take a good book review as proof of historical validity.

There was a time, mostly in my teens, that I read a lot of historical fiction books. It was a way to immerse myself in a place and time completely foreign and to escape from the humdrum. Later, as I became a more picky reader, I didn't find them as satisfying. I'd find those anachronisms and inaccuracies mentioned by novella and get terribly annoyed - to the point I'd get stuck obsessing about the errors. Not a good way to enjoy a book!

I eventually realized that I can still enjoy historical fiction - but as both novella and kelliebelle alluded to - with the knowledge that not all historical fiction books are created equal. I read them mostly for the entertainment factor, but sometimes a plot point will pique my interest and I just 'have to' do more research on my own or read a non-fiction history book on the same subject.

Do you, experienced reader, find reading historical fiction an accurate, at least contextually, method for obtaining knowledge?

No, but it can give you a starting-off point to further your knowledge. It would actually make more sense to read a non-fiction history book about the period, then read the fiction.

 

[Ashlea]

It's funny, historical fiction can really shape how you feel about characters. I've done a bit of reading in Roman history, but when I read Alice Borchardt's werewolf books, Caesar came alive as a character in ways I never felt from the straight history, even reading his own works. I know that how I feel about him as an historical personage is shaped by how I feel about him as a fictional character.

 

[phil_t]

It can be a very good or very bad way to get a feel for a certain period, it depends how deeply an author has researched into the time and the cultures they are representing. I would Bernard Cornwall's books as a good example of how to do it right, whether it be Sharpe, the American Civil War series, or the excellent Warlord chronicles featuring Celtic and Saxon Britain.

Of course it can be done wrong, I'm sure Stewie would be glad to talk all day about how wrong Dan Brown frequently gets it, but even famous authors can get it wrong (I was never particularly impressed by Michael Crichton's Medieval France in Timeline, even though the book was an excellent read).

Phil

 

[Safia]

I think the Jamie and Claire series is a very good set of books to gain knowledge from -not so much from history I think, as although it follows some key points in history it is not enough to learn anything you might already know anyway. I think you can learn a lot more about the social life and the way things were back then.

 

[Ell]

It can be a very good or very bad way to get a feel for a certain period, it depends how deeply an author has researched into the time and the cultures they are representing.

There's the rub! How does the average reader determine how accurate something is, if he has no prior knowledge of the actual history? That's why I take most historical fiction with a grain of salt and enjoy it for what it is - fiction.

I think you can learn a lot more about the social life and the way things were back then.

True to a certain extent. However, I find the best way to get a feel for the society of a certain time is to read books written by authors of that particular period. For example, Edith Wharton does an excellent job of writing about turn of the 19th century society.

 

[novella]

There's the rub! How does the average reader determine how accurate something is, if he has no prior knowledge of the actual history? That's why I take most historical fiction with a grain of salt and enjoy it for what it is - fiction.

True to a certain extent. However, I find the best way to get a feel for the society of a certain time is to read books written by authors of that particular period. For example, Edith Wharton does an excellent job of writing about turn of the 19th century society.

You're smart, mum. I agree with all this. I find that dialogue, in particular, is full of anachronisms in historical fiction. The level of formality, the usage, the way people act toward eachother is typically so modern and classless and easy. Even 50 years ago, a real conversation between a middle-class lady and her maid would be stilted and full of the subtle tics of a class-conscious society.

 

[Halcyon]

There's the rub! How does the average reader determine how accurate something is, if he has no prior knowledge of the actual history? That's why I take most historical fiction with a grain of salt and enjoy it for what it is - fiction.

I agree with your points, but I think phil_t was trying to say that ultimately the knowledge could be sound or spurious and you're sort of putting your trust blindly in the hands of the author. If the author did a good job you’re golden, if not, you've got more misconceptions than the Unabomber.

 

[phil_t]

I think it depends very much on how much you trust the author to have done in-depth research into a subject. Bernard Cornwall, for example, has a section at the end of every book that explains the hitorical setting of his books and how he went about fitting his stories into those periods, which in places is almost as interesting as the stories themselves.

I have to say that in most cases authors can be as unreliable as they like, as long as they tell a good story. Also, it oftens seems that as most 'historians' cant decide on how things were between them that certain inaccuracies are guaranteed in every story, no matter how detailed the research undertaken.

Phil

 

[novella]

Also, it oftens seems that as most 'historians' cant decide on how things were between them that certain inaccuracies are guaranteed in every story, no matter how detailed the research undertaken.

Phil

But at least they are making a stab at accuracy.

This discussion brings to mind a TV movie called Pearl, sort of about the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

We have Bruce Dern as station commander. He's in a silk robe for most of the movie, in a bedroom with a debauched Angie Dickinson.

My son, a WWII aficionado who's read everything from Maus to the history of the Navy, saw this movie at about age 9, and says, "Mom! Why is the commander in his dressing gown all day when the base is being attacked?? He should get dressed!"

 

[hatter]

I think everyone has raised some really interesting points in this thread. I studied history at Uni and I work in Museums, so I'm fascinated.

I have to say that in most cases authors can be as unreliable as they like, as long as they tell a good story. Also, it oftens seems that as most 'historians' cant decide on how things were between them that certain inaccuracies are guaranteed in every story, no matter how detailed the research undertaken.

This is what I think is the key. Are you reading purely for enjoyment? In this case 'a good story' is all that's required. Bugger the facts.

Do you, experienced reader, find reading historical fiction an accurate, at least contextually, method for obtaining knowledge?

Or are you reading to find out information? In which case fiction is a perfectly legitimate place to start, and it's an enjoyable way to go about it, but I don't think anyone who's contributed to this discussion would take it as gospel and stop there. You'd always want to refer to a non-fiction text if you really wanted to know whether what you'd read about in fiction was 'true'.

I think it depends very much on how much you trust the author to have done in-depth research into a subject.

First rule for historians (or anyone really) never completely trust an author. Always question their sources, their bias, and their purpose. And this goes for non-fiction authors as much as it does for fiction authors. They are people too, they get things wrong, they have political agendas, and they see things from their own point of view and interpret 'the facts' accordingly.

An historian (whose name I can't remember right now, see how unreliable we historians are) once said something along the lines of 'History is a whole heap of things that never happened written down by people who were never there'. An extreme view, but it makes a valuable point.

I like to think about history as one big argument. Most of the time it's a friendly argument and we're all enjoying it immensely, but it's still an argument. There are very few things that we can take as 'fact' when it comes to the crunch.

 

[Cathy C]

Something else to consider is to read older books which weren't "historical" at the time, but contemporary. For example, "Huckleberry Finn" or "An Old Fashioned Girl" are splendid examples of what is now considered historical fiction because they delved into the world as it existed at the time, so the accuracy is excellent.

 

[WoundedThorns]

i've definatly have. it was pretty much the main purpose behind the books we read in 10th grade. i really loved that class, it made me see other reasons to read lots and lots of books.

 

[abecedarian]

I love historical fiction and find the novel to be a great jumping off place to start my own personal unit study into whatever time period or topic of interest. Its fun to see which details are historically accurate, and which are pure imagination.

 

[ions]

I think you can learn a lot from Historical Fiction as others have said. But, if you're concerned with the validity of something, for research or whatever, confirm it elsewhere. Find reliable academic sources that repeat what was in the fiction. I wouldn't use fiction in a research paper for anything more than anecdotes.

 

[muggle]

Reading a book by an author of that period does not gurantee its accuracy. How many of you would believe what you read by many of today's politicians. I believe that historical fiction is a good way to learn about the past and is enjoyable at the same time. Probably most authors take a little leeway with the facts but it is still a learning experience for most readers.

The Princes of Ireland (The Dublin Saga) by Edward Rutherfurd is an example of historical fiction that I learned much from and thoroughly enjoyed the story. I am anxious for the 2nd volume to be published.

 

[geneviv]

When I was in highschool my European history teacher told us the one about Catherine the Great and the horse in order to make her more interesting to us (I hope ). He insisted it was definately true. When I sugested it might be a slanderous rumor I was shouted down. According to snopes I was right.

I think historical novels are great fun but definately agree with you guys about being wary of the conclusions being drawn. If you are interested in Richard III I recomend by The Daughter of Time by Josephine Tey. It examines the disapearance Prince Edward and Richard.