Hilary Mantel and Women in Historical Fiction

[The Judge]

I was thinking of putting this in the Historical Fiction section, but it occurs to me it's very relevant to all of us as writers, particularly those of us writing historically-based fantasy, but it's something also to bear in mind for SF writers regarding both human culture in the present and future, and alien cultures.

Anyhow, Hilary Mantel will be giving the BBC Reith Lectures this year -- I don't know if they're accessible to non-UK listeners, but here's the BBC link BBC - Dame Hilary Mantel to begin recording Reith Lectures for BBC Radio 4 - Media Centre

In her second lecture recorded earlier this week, and due to be aired on 20 June "she warns against two familiar errors: either romanticising the past, or seeing it as a gory horror-show." She also talks about the role of women in historical fiction:

"Many writers of historical fiction... want to give a voice to those who have been silenced. ... But we must be careful... If we write about the victims of history, are we reinforcing their status by detailing it? Or shall we rework history so victims are the winners?

"This is a persistent difficulty for women writers, who want to write about women in the past, but can't resist retrospectively empowering them. Which is false. If you are squeamish -- if you are affronted by difference -- then you should try some other trade."
​

And the bit I think is most pertinent to us, whatever we write:

"A good novelist will have her characters operate within the ethical framework of their day -- even if it shocks her readers."​

I recall Juliet McKenna at a couple of conventions inveighing against some fantasy writers and the kind of female characters who -- in her words -- more or less said "I know, today I'll invent feminism" without any consideration by the author of the social consequences of their actions. So, something to bear in mind, perhaps.

​

 

[Vertigo]

She was mentioned this morning on the Radio 4 in a short report from the Hay literary festival where concern was being expressed about people apparently treating her novels as accurate historical references.

There's a Gruniad report on the same story here: Students take Hilary Mantel's Tudor novels as fact, says historian

Sorry, just thought might be of interest though not to do with the Reith lectures.

 

[The Judge]

Yep, I caught the Guardian story, though I can't say it surprised me. (What would surprise me is if the would-be history students had actually read her books! Apparently a good many of would-be English students don't bother reading classic novels, they just watch the relevant films/TV series and witter on about things the authors never wrote!)

 

[Vertigo]

Surely not!!!

 

[pambaddeley]

Hope they don't think The Tudors was factual!

 

[Stephen Palmer]

"A good novelist will have her characters operate within the ethical framework of their day -- even if it shocks her readers."

- just one of many reasons The Book Of The New Sun is so brilliant.

 

[Gonk the Insane]

just one of many reasons The Book Of The New Sun is so brilliant.

The Gene Wolfe series? Or is there another book with the same name?

 

[Stephen Palmer]

the Gene Wolfe one.

 

[Steve Harrison]

"A good novelist will have her characters operate within the ethical framework of their day -- even if it shocks her readers."

There would be an enormous number of very depressing novels if this was the case.

 

[HareBrain]

"Operate within" doesn't mean "always act in accordance with".

 

[The Bluestocking]

"Operate within" doesn't mean "always act in accordance with".

Bingo! After all, who wrote history? MEN! And whose stories and roles in history and historical events usually got sidelined? Women! I wish I was joking... but I'm not.

There probably were many women and girls quietly rebelling against the patriarchal strictures and norms governing and limiting their lives. And then there were probably other women and girls who rebelled in loud and disruptive way... or were unconventional high achievers but their lives and deeds went unrecorded for posterity because it's a way that historians and leaders (mostly male) erase them and their contributions from existence.

If there weren't, women and girls wouldn't have the civil and human rights we have now (all of which are very hard won).

It just seems to me that Mantel is making public digs at Philippa Gregory and other historical fiction authors who have empowered female characters in their stories without acknowledging that:

• History is subjective and usually written by the winners and the top dogs (most of whom are MEN).
• History is not uniform - there are eras when women are more empowered and eras where the patriarchy has stomped down on it.

 

[Brian G Turner]

who wrote history?

The rich.

 

[TitaniumTi]

"A good novelist will have her characters operate within the ethical framework of their day."

I wonder if it is even possible to identify a single ethical framework for any place and time. I couldn't identify one for my home town, today. I'm no historian, but the most superficial research shows that there have been women, throughout history, who have acted or spoken in ways that seem surprising for their time.

 

[Toby Frost]

I think part of the problem that Hilary Mantel is identifying is that the fact that, although Medieval King X was very sexist, it doesn't really make that much practical difference, because even if he had regarded women and men as equal, he still would have treated about 95% of his citizens as little better than cattle. Feudalism and the class/money systems that followed it meant that the king would barely have considered the peasantry or merchant classes as human, and might well have thought it contrary to God's will (and hence morally wrong) to think of them as his equals. In such circumstances, describing the king's main vice as sexism (unless directed to other royals) seems rather anachronistic. The concept of all human life having intrinsic value is a very recent one.

 

[The Judge]

"A good novelist will have her characters operate within the ethical framework of their day."

I wonder if it is even possible to identify a single ethical framework for any place and time. I couldn't identify one for my home town, today.

In the UK and probably the West generally it's safe to assume the vast majority of the population will at least pay lip service to the concepts of democracy, universal suffrage, education for all and female equality (even if they might might not all agree as to what any of those should actually entail), that they believe in freedom of expression and belief (same caveat), freedom for adult non-heterosexuals to have relationships without risking imprisonment, freedom to combine in trade unions, that they believe slavery is wrong, that physically abusing animals especially for pleasure (ie bear-baiting, dog-fighting) is wrong, that adults having sexual relationships with children is wrong. You would never have 100% of a population agreeing on anything, but go back a century or two and the number of people who agreed with all those issues would be far, far fewer than today, and the further you go back the fewer would be accepted by anybody. Think of an issue like smacking children or animal rights, let alone something hugely contentious like abortion -- those are divisive to a greater or lesser extent now, but weren't 100 years ago, and might well not be in 100 years' time.

So, yes, I think it's safe to say there is usually a consensus of what is "right" on a good many important issues at any given time, in general terms if not in specifics, but there will always be outliers on both sides of that consensus, eg those who are pushing for more rights for women while simultaneously others are trying to remove what rights they already possess. In any event, it's perhaps unhelpful to use social conditions today as any kind of exemplar for the UK at least, since the country now is far less homogeneous that it was in even 1850, let alone the centuries before that, and the spread of new ideas was far slower in the past. If you're living in a small market town which hasn't altered in racial or religious composition in a few hundred years, and you've no ready access to news, or even education, you're very likely to hold the same opinion as everyone around you. Most people, most women, accept society's norms and life as it is, and I'm willing to bet the more religious the population (which was the case in centuries gone by), the less likely they are to think of rebelling let alone actively take steps to do so.

I'm no historian, but the most superficial research shows that there have been women, throughout history, who have acted or spoken in ways that seem surprising for their time.

The point Mantel is making is surely not that there weren't such women, but that they undoubtedly paid a price for acting and speaking as they did, and to pretend that someone can flout convention and risk nothing shows a lack of historical integrity. There have always been people -- men and women -- who have pushed the boundaries of what is then acceptable viz-a-viz women's rights, but they have had to struggle to be heard, and they have been denigrated, abused, imprisoned. It is thanks to them that women have equal rights (in theory, if not always in practice) -- and similarly that gay men aren't arrested, trade unionists aren't transported, the unorthodox religious aren't burned at the stake -- but it is misleading to imagine they walked a primrose path and immediately converted everyone bar the bigots. They had to live in the society into which they were born, and they had to operate within its structures, even if they wanted to destroy some of those structures. Actions always have consequences and those consequences can be unpleasant.

Something else we should never forget as writers or historians is that even those pushing for change in one area might not welcome it in another. A woman fighting to be allowed to keep her children after divorce in the 1800s might still be appalled at the idea of a woman being a surgeon, or -- heaven forfend -- a bishop! And a woman who is herself empowered -- whether through her own efforts or because of her rank/wealth/family connections -- might not welcome all (or any) women having anything like similar power.

 

[Steve Harrison]

I think Mantel is falling into the trap of believing her preference for the writing of historical fiction is the right one and everyone else should follow it or get out of the business. But writing is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

There are no absolutes in fiction writing and certainly no obligation to be historically accurate. Your readers will decide what to accept, from gritty reality to fantasy versions of the past. When writing for modern audiences, many readers want to relate to the characters and, to take it to extremes, an empowered, confident woman kicking butt in the 16th century is far more appealing to many readers than a downtrodden woman with fifteen kids and no rights who is beaten unconscious every night by a drunken husband.

I'm sure there's a market for the latter, but if you prefer to write and/or read the former, go for it. That's why it's called fiction.

 

[Toby Frost]

There's a lot of truth in that. The rules for what you can get away with do vary with the style and genre. A swashbuckling adventure isn't going to adhere to the same rules as a heavy character study - what trained soldiers can do in a swordfight would vary greatly depending on which style you were using. For a while, I've suspected that one of the main differences between "literary" and normal fiction isn't quality or depth: it's that literary stuff is more "realistic", by which I mean "downbeat". Maybe it is more literary to talk about one of the thousands who couldn't rebel than the one who could, and did.

On the other hand, there are people in history, the Nancy Wakes and Ursula Graham-Bowers, whose lives were so extreme that they would look like pulp fiction if written down. I think the obligation, if there is one, is not to be blatantly untruthful to your readers, but that's a pretty broad one and open to a lot of interpretation.

 

[Montero]

I think Mantel is falling into the trap of believing her preference for the writing of historical fiction is the right one and everyone else should follow it or get out of the business. But writing is not a one-size-fits-all proposition.

There are no absolutes in fiction writing and certainly no obligation to be historically accurate. Your readers will decide what to accept, from gritty reality to fantasy versions of the past. When writing for modern audiences, many readers want to relate to the characters and, to take it to extremes, an empowered, confident woman kicking butt in the 16th century is far more appealing to many readers than a downtrodden woman with fifteen kids and no rights who is beaten unconscious every night by a drunken husband.

I'm sure there's a market for the latter, but if you prefer to write and/or read the former, go for it. That's why it's called fiction.

First off, I politely disagree - I think that if someone is writing historical fiction that is not a bodice ripper, then they do have an obligation to do research and be accurate. They might be working in a minority scenario but I still think it needs to be realistic. One example - Georgette Heyer was someone who really did the research - when she mentions a fashion or a popular book or play - then that is what was available in the year in which she is writing. She had vast collections of magazines of the period. Her heroines sometimes finish up in extreme circumstances - but they way they are resolved are period plausible. Considerable effort is spent on maintaining at least the appearance of having upheld the conventions.

Secondly I think your alternatives are poor. The options available to women were far more extensive than either being a butt kicking modern woman or downtrodden. It is a modern fallacy that 16th century women were in such a state. I recommend to you "The Working Lives of Women in 17th Century" by Alice Clark. In brief, both Guild information and aristocratic letters, show that in the trade classes women had an important economic role in the family business, whether working in the same trade as their husband, in a complementary one or a completely different one and aristocratic wives were expected to run the estates while husband was doing politics at court. It was the coming of the industrial revolution, and separating home and work place that reduced women's economic importance - in terms of crafts, when the workplace was also the home, both husband and wife could work and child mind at the same time. It is entirely possible to write a story that is period accurate on a woman's life and for it to be relatable to modern readers. Ellis Peters - Cadfael books. The main character is the monk, Cadfael, but there are plenty of examples of women's working lives that appear as part of the story in the series.

The idea that history has been a steady uphill climb in terms of women's rights and treatment of women is false.

 

[Steve Harrison]

First off, I politely disagree - I think that if someone is writing historical fiction that is not a bodice ripper, then they do have an obligation to do research and be accurate. They might be working in a minority scenario but I still think it needs to be realistic. One example - Georgette Heyer was someone who really did the research - when she mentions a fashion or a popular book or play - then that is what was available in the year in which she is writing. She had vast collections of magazines of the period. Her heroines sometimes finish up in extreme circumstances - but they way they are resolved are period plausible. Considerable effort is spent on maintaining at least the appearance of having upheld the conventions.

Secondly I think your alternatives are poor. The options available to women were far more extensive than either being a butt kicking modern woman or downtrodden. It is a modern fallacy that 16th century women were in such a state. I recommend to you "The Working Lives of Women in 17th Century" by Alice Clark. In brief, both Guild information and aristocratic letters, show that in the trade classes women had an important economic role in the family business, whether working in the same trade as their husband, in a complementary one or a completely different one and aristocratic wives were expected to run the estates while husband was doing politics at court. It was the coming of the industrial revolution, and separating home and work place that reduced women's economic importance - in terms of crafts, when the workplace was also the home, both husband and wife could work and child mind at the same time. It is entirely possible to write a story that is period accurate on a woman's life and for it to be relatable to modern readers. Ellis Peters - Cadfael books. The main character is the monk, Cadfael, but there are plenty of examples of women's working lives that appear as part of the story in the series.

The idea that history has been a steady uphill climb in terms of women's rights and treatment of women is false.

I did make it clear my alternatives were extremes, but some of your points are fair enough.

From my own writing standpoint, I like to keep history as authentic as my fictional stories allow. And the same applies when I read. I don't mind authors taking liberties as long as they make sense with what I know about the period.

My point is that my personal tastes are my own and I don't inflict them on others or look down on writers who have a different view, as Mantel appears to be doing.

And I disagree that writers have any obligation to do research and be accurate if they can find a readership that does not demand that of them. A preference for a bodice ripper or historically accurate Tudor melodrama is purely one of personal taste and if a writer can tap into an audience for either, good luck to them.

 

[The Big Peat]

I think Steve's right that novelists don't have an obligation to do research. I think they should have said obligation but clearly don't.

But I'd say the majority of historical novels that I am aware of, as someone with a passing interest in the genre who finds out what is popular but does little extra research than that, do come from authors who are known for their research and open about their debts to it. Readers seem to prefer work with verisimilitude; historical detail gives that. I'm sure there's audiences for bonkbusters in period gowns and so on - we know there's a market for medieval pastiches with magic shoved in - but doing the research is generally in their interest, particularly if not doing genre crossover.