Glorification of any historical era at all?

[Argeus the Paladin]

Know that I am speaking this from the perspective of an aspiring author, not an amateur historian.

We all know that there is a huge bunch of fiction, historical fiction and fantasy fiction out there that deals with eras not our own. You know, the medieval age and the likes. Since it is art, most of those eras in fiction, their people, their lords and nobles, their culture and religion have been romanticized to make it look more appealing to the modern eyes.

Of course, being (aspiring/amateur?) historians we know that this is not the case. European middle age wasn't a very good place to live, what with the oppressive feudalism, dysentery and the Catholic Church in Superpowered Bigot Mode. This leads to a common criticism/taunt in internet debate I have heard once too often: "Don't believe everything Hollywood shows you".

The question for discussion here is this: Is it justificable to romanticize historical eras in fiction? Or should writers attempt to make their works as historically accurate as possible?

[Boer]

Should fiction writers try to make their contemporary works as accurate to real life as possible?

The answer to your question and mine is no. No one wants to read about real life. If they wanted real life they'd just live their own life. People want a fictional world that is over romanticized or has extra drama or magic or something to spice it up and clearly separate it from real life. Because a fiction writer's job is to sell books he must and should cater to the demands of his audience.

[Steve Holt]

Depends how your telling the story, Cornwall uses dark and dirty time frames really well in his saxon stories books and also his warlord chronicles.

[Poach]

Depends how your telling the story, Cornwall uses dark and dirty time frames really well in his saxon stories books and also his warlord chronicles.

This. Those books are made good by revelling in the brutality of those times.

Romanticism has its uses, and so too does accurately portraying the times. All depends on what you want your story to highlight, what message it gives, etc.

[Odovacar]

Of course, being (aspiring/amateur?) historians we know that this is not the case. European middle age wasn't a very good place to live, what with the oppressive feudalism, dysentery and the Catholic Church in Superpowered Bigot Mode. This leads to a common criticism/taunt in internet debate I have heard once too often: "Don't believe everything Hollywood shows you".

Middle ages were nowhere nice. Amateur historians may think it was cool and the east and so on but it's . On a second note: no age was "nice to live in" There are ages and people are born into those ages. They can do something to make their own age better, but eventually they have their boundaries.

Superpowered Bigot Mode is ridiculous to describe medieval catholic church especially as you have nothing to compare it..maybe modern secular governement which came centuries later?

The question for discussion here is this: Is it justificable to romanticize historical eras in fiction? Or should writers attempt to make their works as historically accurate as possible?

Fiction is always fiction. The more glorification happens in fiction the more unrealistic the story becomes. On the other hand vilification of a historical period is just as bad.

[Demetrios of Messene]

Is it justificable to romanticize historical eras in fiction? Or should writers attempt to make their works as historically accurate as possible?

Art and literature should not be subject to censorship (with the exception of extreme cases). The composer of a work of fiction (book, movie, tv series, painting, statue etc.) has every right to portary the world as he shows fit (romanticised, morbid or whatever). It's up to the audience to decide whether they like it or not and that it is a matter of taste.

However, when one falsifies historical facts in purpose in order to deceive the audience into believing that his fictional story is history, then to my eyes this is hypocricy / propaganda to be condemned without second thought.

So, my answer is that fictional stories can go any way their creator wishes, as long as he makes it clear that he is showing fiction. Historical works should be based on facts only in order to be as accurate as possible.

[Sher Khan]

Unless you're writing a What Life Was Like book, an historical fiction novel will center around characters like any other novel.

Tackle the issue from their point of view/by what affects them/is relevant to their situation and circumstance.

[G-Megas-Doux]

I would like to see a series of books set in ancient greece that are not directly lifted from Homer and although incorporating mythology a new set of heros and situations would be rather a breath of fresh air.

With it being fiction it does not need to limit itself to being historical fiction, but can also utilise social mythology as part of the fun of the work. It is your choice, this was just a suggestion.

Edit. I hope you enjoy your choice and feel free to do what you want.

[antaeus]

fiction is fiction, and any attempt to reign in historical fiction writers would inevitably do damage to the industry, and probably to our society in general. it's up to the fiction buying public to decide how authors should write their novels.. and they decide this by either purchasing or not purchasing novels.

if you want a book on history,then buy a non fiction history book. there's plenty of them about.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

We should avoid approaching all history with a categorical "how were life standards like?" approach. In the Middle Ages, many people consciously resigned all the little property they had, so they could live in poverty. One must learn that historical materialism is just another product of history, and like it, has its phases, and the day when no one will believe in it anymore.

Also, for modern sensibilities, the Catholic Church seemed oppressive. Not so for Medieval ones, who thought priesthood and religion as an integral part of life. There are many things which we think or have unconsciously, that people in other historical periods would simply refuse to accept, or find unbearably oppressive, because they are not in touch or feel with it.

Ultimately, each man is born for his own time, and for that alone. Were they born in a different time, they would not be the same.