15
Historical FictionModern themes or politics in Historical Fiction
I used to read quite a bit of historical fiction, but have drifted to other genres in recent years. I was looking for something new to read, so decided to pick up a historical fiction book I had had sitting on my shelf for a while**, just for something different. Unfortunately, it reminded me of why I had stopped reading historical fiction in the first place.
While the main characters and plot were somewhat interesting, one of the secondary characters was very clearly a TIM. Initially I thought he was meant to be a very flamboyant gay man who liked to wear women's clothes, but it became clear when he was described as getting dressed and being disturbed by his "offending organ." It only got worse when he basically threatened to kill himself if he didn't get his requests met, and eventually did do so.
Keep in mind, this story was supposed to be taking place in 1850s Frankfurt, in an asylum, and while I'm sure there have been people uncomfortable with their own bodies in the past, it just felt like an attempt to cram in some modern message about trans people into this genre.
I've seen this done many times before with similar themes, or other social justice or political topics, and it always feels so inaccurate and clearly an attempt to educate or pander to modern-day readers.
For fans of historical fiction, do you ever run into this yourself, and what do you think of it? Or are there any other tropes you see common in this genre that you wish would go away?
** The book is 98 Reasons for Being by Clare Dudman, published in 2004.
Yeeeeeeees. My personal pet peeve is the Strong Role Model Female Adventurer (more of a fantasy thing, not historical) who refuses to wear dresses because she is Strong and Independent, not like other girls. The authors never seem to stop and think about the logistics of peeing in the forest as a girl, or how so many male warriors throughout history somehow managed to kick ass without wearing bifurcated clothing on their legs.
Samesies with our historical Strong Female Role Model who is the VERY FIRST GIRL to realize, "Hey, having an arranged marriage sounds potentially horrible. I would much rather choose for myself, or never get married and support myself through gainful employment!" Then, she lives her dreams with minimal push back, proving that the only thing keeping women in their place is lack of imagination.
Yes! Not only unlikely that the women wouldn't have had any pushback or been treated perfectly fine, but also the obsession with the clothing and logistics. I remember one about a woman pirate/ship captain, but the plot was so flimsy that it just seemed like a unique concept that fell flat.
I often wonder how much influence from editors affects these things, if they think this is what the audience wants, or if the authors are genuinely caught up in the idea of these things.
It makes me especially cranky because ignoring context, doing no research,, and making assumptions from a modern perspective denigrates the actual thoughts, struggles, and experiences of the women of the time.
Absolutely. It feels more like a fantasy crammed into the past, with only minimal awareness of what the past was actually like.
Which reminds me of another trope I hate with a passion ... Books structured to jump between present/modern-day and the past, like with a character in modern day reading letters from the person in the past. Sarah's Key was the one that stood out to me the most, and it seemed like a lot of other books went for the same style. It felt like the author was saying to readers, "we think you might have a hard time understanding the past, so here's a modern-day friend to help bridge the gap." (Or maybe I was reading too much into it :)
OH MY GOODNESS. Yeeeeeees! "Back in Ye Olden Times, Luna Brighid Mary Elizabeth has all the difficulties living in her spooky mansion of Forbidden Secrets. Meanwhile, in Newen Times, plucky journalist with man troubles Androgynousname finds a secret pile of historical primary sources!! And decides to do a story!! But it turns out, their lives have stunningly similar parallels and she learns about herself."
And another thing: someday, look up how many book titles are "The [Profession]'s [Daughter/Wife]".
Hahah yes! Personally, I just want to dig into the historical aspect, to escape the modern-day themes. Why else would I be reading historical fiction?! I've very rarely have enjoyed a book that followed past and present approach, so I generally just avoid them altogether.
And yes, the titles need some better variety. "Oh, a book about an alchemist? No, about his daughter/wife..." I get that it might be unlikely to find a female alchemist or whatever, but at least try to come up with a title that doesn't reference her father or husband.
Also! Just once, I want to read a historical fiction book where our heroine expects to get married at some point, because there are, like, real economic and social difficulties that exist if she doesn't, carefully considers her choices of suitors, then chooses the one who is 1.) nice and 2.) rich, that her family is on board with, and they proceed to have a mutually beneficial relationship based on historically realistic respect.
I guess that wouldn't be terribly interesting to read about unless the author was good at writing, but not everyone can be Jane Austen.
This, absolutely. The number of novels featuring real life medieval and early modern princesses and noble women as characters going, "But Papa! I do not love him! I cannot marry a man I do not love!" Then they go out unaccompanied with their hair uncovered all the time because they are Free Spirited Heroines. It completely erases the real struggles of any woman living in those eras who actually did push back against patriarchal norms. Allied to this is the common trope of "everyone's gay and out and everyone's OK about it".
A friend said that that the fictional "papa, I don't love him" response to an arranged marriage in 1420 France would be like a novelist in 2500 writing, for example, an Anglo-Australian character living in 2010 who says to another character, "Hang on, are you seriously suggesting I can marry my partner, just because I love her? Dude, that's just bonkers!"
Also also, uncovered hair signals that you are either a prostitute, insane, or an insane prostitute.
Re: gay characters- cue every single solitary person who isn't the eeeeeeeevil going "Oh, ok.* No, why would I care? I had an uncle who was that way. I don't have any reason whatsoever why I would ever have concerns about this."
*bonus points if they actually say "ok"
Alas, I have mostly given up on historical fiction, it has imploded because so many people writing it treat the past as a costume to put on their characters. The most recent solid offering I have read personally is Margaret Atwood's Alias Grace, and that was originally published in the late 1990s. More often than not nowadays I read in adjacent genres, like steampunk, mostly from the late 1990s to early 2000s, before wokeism hit, and more recently some really interesting scifi/fantasy work from Indigenous authors and the small press Candlemark and Gleam. Ironically, they are often more accurate in the bits where they connect with real life history than actual historical fiction, and where it differs the difference reflects a decision, not a massive failure to research or respect the conditions people had to deal with in the past.
What :D
Sounds like the modern literature is a minefield, so an obvious solution is to only read old books from the previous millenia :)
I've only read a few historical fiction books, haven't encountered this.
Modern literature isn't all this bad, but I agree about reading older books.
And so I have to write one more comment.
I've read a historical fiction book, where a sex-obsessed nobleman is imprisoned for his crimes. Being so sex-obsessed as he is, he seduces a young prison guard. When confronted about this, the nobleman exclaims:
"Oh, but that was a woman born in a man's body! God Almighty has made a mistake! You could see it by the guards long black eyelashes, his mannerisms, by the way he talked and moved!"
Which mayyybe is how people saw homosexuality back then, but God Almighty how it just further feeds into the stereotypes and the false notion about how someone can be born in the wrong body, and that being trans is just being extra gay. It doesn't help a bit that the narrator is quite fond of this nobleman and his "free love" philosophy.
There did used to be a notion of "sexual inversion" applied to anyone homosexual starting in the 19th century, based on the belief that they were physically one sex and internally another. They would call them "inverts," but it was based on the idea of sex and gender being one and the same, and very much leaning into stereotypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_inversion_(sexology)
That said, I highly doubt this was something that was believed in the same way earlier, like in a time where you'd have noblemen.
This feels like an attempt to rewrite history - saying: look, there were trans people even in 1850! So trans people today - and their threat of suicide - must be valid!
The trope i hate most - but might be a bit off topic and maybe more along the lines of historical romances (though I went off those HARD), is the women are pitted against one another: the severe spinster vs the innocent freethinking hero - who is still a virgin. The freethinking "sl*t" vs the demure virgin. The independent lush vs the smart herbalist virgin. The bloodletting conservative vs the progressive virgin who knows about some magical healing herbs.
Yes! And I don't understand how this character was supposed to be someone the reader could be sympathetic to. The tone he had when talking to other characters, especially women, was so condescending and obnoxious. The suicide threat (over not being allowed to have a man he was attracted to be his private assistant) was really surprising, but the author played off as him wanting to "fly" ... off the roof, of course. (He later hanged himself in a tree.)
I don't think I've run into the woman vs woman trope you mentioned, but it feels very much like something out of a fairy tale story. The nice young women or princess vs the evil witch. So boring.
I'm guessing the mental facility was also nice and... Well, nice? Nevermind in the 1800'ss people were basically cept in cages, hozed down once a week and that's about it.
It wasn't nice for most of the patients, but he was one of the wealthy ones who got to mostly do as he pleased (or so we were told). The poor patients had to work all day making items by hand to be used in the asylum or sold off to raise funds.
It definitely had some interesting elements and potential, especially talking about the backwards "medicine" used in those days, but the author just didn't do well with it. Way too many characters to follow, including the asylum assistants falling in love with each other and the TIM, of course.
There was also a weird bit where the doctor decided to put leeches on the main character's labia, after finding out that she'd been pregnant before coming to the asylum. I don't know if there's any medical backing for that, but sometimes historical fiction books seem to throw in some bizarre or vaguely sexual element like that, and it just seems like it's done to titillate.
Sounds like a book I'm happy you read, so I now know to avoid it.
Glad to be of service! :)
I have another book by her, about a guy who explored part of the Arctic, but I'm not sure if I want to touch that now.
We won't judge if you don't.