T
Historical norms are irrelevant. It's fiction. Readers only complain about historical norms when they go against what they want in fiction, and only cite historical norms when they want to see something in fiction.
Same with historical norms above. 'Realism' is problematic. Readers of fiction don't want realism, they want realism that caters to their whims. Every piece of fiction is unrealistic on far more levels than any piece of fiction has ever been realistic. Simply having a coherent plot is largely unrealistic, yet it's not complained about because that makes the fiction more readable. People will come up with any and every excuse they can to support the things they personally enjoy or attack the things they don't personally enjoy in fiction. Realism is a hollow argument. Andy Warhol's
Four Stars was realistic, but that doesn't make it interesting or watchable or particularly good fiction. And even that was only a tiny slice or realism.
I disagree strongly. As a reader, I bring my knowledge of human history and behaviour to the table every time I open a book. I read as much history as fiction, and at least half of the fiction I read is the more authentic kind of historical fiction. I cannot block out what I know about human societies and behaviour simply because I'm engaged in a fictional story. Behaviour flows from environment. And my most common reason for setting a book aside in disappointment is the characters do not behave plausibly given their environment. Fantasy novels where the characters live in radically different worlds from ours, and yet have the sensibilities of modern middle-class Westerners, drive me nuts. It's as toxic to my immersion as if the king's guard pulls out a cellphone from his tunic to ask his wife to pick up some Thai takeout for dinner.
Granted, I am abnormally fussy in this way. And it's probably the reason why I dislike most fiction I come across. I can't shut off enough of the analytic part of my brain to believe in the world and the story. You have to make me believe before I can feel.
However, when an author does go to great pains to model behaviour from environment, to understand and then portray how the material conditions of a society or an upbringing will shape the values and social norms of the characters in that environment, then you have finespun gold. I find myself slipping into the fictional world effortlessly.
That's as a reader. As an author, I'm also inspired mostly by history. I prepared over 100 pages of historical notes, single-spaced and in point form, as research for the historical fantasy novel I'm working on now. Social hierarchies, aristocratic values, traditions, religious ceremonies, domestic life, titles, military organization, civic festivals, agricultural practices, marriage rites, folklore, etc. I couldn't begin to breathe life into my characters unless I understood their world and their values. And since I'm writing about a place radically different from North America circa 2015, those characters and their values are going to be different from those of people who live in North America circa 2015.
Is that an excuse to pepper fiction set in a violent world with gratuitous scenes of rape? No. Just because something happens in a setting doesn't means it's necessary to depict it. And I think sometimes "it's historical"
is just an excuse to indulge in gratuitous sex and gore. But that doesn't mean we should dismiss all fiction that depicts plausibly awful behaviour as gratuitous.
