What are you reading now?

[smittims]

To be fair to him., Scott was pre-Victorian, already a famous novelist at the time of George IV's famous visit . His agenda was to show that the Union worked , as it did after his death,when Scotland became unprecedently prosperous as a result of English investment, and to bury the hatchet over ancient wrongs. He virtually created the Scots tourist industry as well. Quite a sucessful writer , I think. And by the way, his characters are well worth reading about too,,and his novels continue to satisfy and delight serious readers. I regularly re-read him with pleasure . .

[french frank]

To be fair to him., Scott was pre-Victorian, already a famous novelist at the time of George IV's famous visit .

Yes, I wasn't meaning to criticise him for representing the thought or society of his own time. I don't think Shakespeare intended to convey the Britain of Cunobelinus in his play Cymbeline. His genius was in the way he set about creating drama from the characters and a gripping narrative from, in this psrticular case, the (then) barely known facts of the Roman era. And as I make clear, I hope, my own lack of interest in reading historical fiction, be it Scott or Hilary Mantel, is no criticism of their literary work.

[Barbirollians]

I read Ivanoe many years ago and was unenthusiastic. It is very much medieval history told through a Victorian lens. Having read alot of medieval at that time, Scott's shortcomings are all too obvious. Never tempted by anything else my him

I enjoyed Ivanhoe but am finding Waverley rather more hard work.

[Barbirollians]

Yes, I wasn't meaning to criticise him for representing the thought or society of his own time. I don't think Shakespeare intended to convey the Britain of Cunobelinus in his play Cymbeline. His genius was in the way he set about creating drama from the characters and a gripping narrative from, in this psrticular case, the (then) barely known facts of the Roman era. And as I make clear, I hope, my own lack of interest in reading historical fiction, be it Scott or Hilary Mantel, is no criticism of their literary work.

I assume you mean fiction about history rather than fiction which is set in what is now history . Mantel’s trilogy is outstanding much more for how she humanises these long dead figures than for the accuracy of her history .

[french frank]

I assume you mean fiction about history rather than fiction which is set in what is now history . Mantel’s trilogy is outstanding much more for how she humanises these long dead figures than for the accuracy of her history .

I think I agree with you, at least in part if not in whole. I meant that, whether Scott or Mantel, their work should not be judged on the basis of how accurately they depict the historical record. The setting is what the novelist chooses it to be, the past, the future, their own present, a fantasy world. What's important is what they create from their material. Fiction is made up by definition.

[Ian Thumwood]

You can go down a rabbit hole with this debate albeit very interesting.

I agree with the folklore aspect of the Green Knight but the details about such things as oiling the suit of armour really gave the impression that the author was adding elements if real life which is absent from alot of medieval fiction. I would therefore be inclined to consider this to be in a markedly more rooted in reality than, say , Mallory.

Cymberline was one of the stories that Shakespeare borrowed from Geoffrey of Monmouth. There has been a recent effort to suggest that Monmouth got his information from a long lost source and that he should be given more credit as a reliable source....it was just that he jumbled up everything which the historian Russell believes he has unpicked. I am not convinced by his argument which is hard to follow.

The interesting thing for me about Monmouth is that the Roman elements are clearly based on medieval experiences and totally lack a proper understanding of life in that era. There is the same problem with the illustrations in the 12th century Winchester bible which depicts issue from antiquity with people dressed in contemporary clothing.

I read more history than historical fiction which cwhich quite dire. Loved the Bernie Gunther series which seems like a credible refraction of the Nazis bitand there are other books like The Mulberry Empire which also capture their time. I was too repulsed by Hilary Mantel to read her books but I Mum read loads of fiction about this era which is massively popular. Where authors have got the history right, the novels are not always page turner's or alternatively have employed a chimp with a crayon to write the dialogue

[smittims]

I don't think anyone today is misled by thinking Scott is , or was ever meant ot be, historically accurate. His novels feature fictional characters who find themselves caught up on the fringes of an historical event . What matters is not whether or not the events 'really took place' but the human truths expressed in the story, much as in all literature from Homer to the 20th century . We don't disparage Jane Austen because we cannot prove that Mr D'Arcy really lived, and it would be silly to disparage Shakespeare because we cannot prove that Hamlet really said 'to be or not to be'. .

But some of today's fantasu novels aboiut mediaeval women do, I think, claim to be historically accurate and are taken as such, when in fact they contain misleading anachronisms.