|
I've always have trouble with the concept of accuracy in fiction because, by definition, fiction is ... well ... fiction. To me, a better way of describing what I think makes for good historical fiction is "believability." Of course, depending upon the worldview of the reader, even that is open for debate.
However, I frequently see criticism of historical fiction that runs along these lines: "Women didn't..." "Women were..." The conclusion often seems to be that an author introduced a modern (and often feminist) worldview into an earlier time period. That can indeed be a problem, but an equally vexing (to me) problem is that those who make these criticisms often have a limited understanding themselves; one that's based on common stereotypes. Take, for example, the stereotypical "rebellious heroine" -- a type of character that frequently leads to criticism for introducing a modern viewpoint into an historical novel. I'm not particularly fond of these characters myself, but using them does not instantly introduce inaccuracy. Why not? Well, consider the quote below, which appeared in the December 19, 1760 edition of the New-Hampshire Gazette: "RULES and MAXIMS for promoting MATRIMONIAL HAPPINESS Addressed to all the Widows, Wives, and Spinsters, in Old and New England. THE likeliest way, either to obtain a good husband, or keep one so, is to be good yourself. Never use a lover ill whom you design to make your husband, lest he should either upbraid you with it, or return it, afterwards ; and, if you find at anytime an inclination to play the tyrant, remember these two lines of truth and justice: Gently shall these be rul'd who gently sway'd; Abject shall these obey who haughty were obey'd. Battle of the Sexes. Avoid, both before and after marriage, all thoughts of managing your husband. Never endeavour to deceive or impose on his understanding ; nor give him uneasiness, (as some do very foolishly) to try his temper ; but treat him always, beforehand, with sincerity, and afterwards, with affection and respect."
These types of things were printed endlessly and repeatedly. Now why do you suppose anyone would waste paper and ink on that if women were so docile? Perhaps because there is a difference between "shoulds" and "dos" -- merely because a law existed, or because the church, the newspapers, or someone's mother said they should behave in a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean they did. It's also important to consider that fiction is often written about "extraordinary" people, or average people who did extraordinary things. If everyone did the same things in the same way, then why would anyone wish to read stories about them? For example, this item from Edinburgh, which appeared in the August 17-24, 1738 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette: "Early last Tuesday Morning, two married Women, of this City, stept out to Burntsfield Links, to a concerted Match at Golf, followed by their Husbands carrying the Clubs. Curiosity led thither a great Crowd, who were charmed with seeing the half-naked Virago's tilt the Balls so manfully, and their Dexterity in holeing. Considerable Wages were laid; but Charming Sally carried the Prize."
I somehow don't think it was terribly common for women to play golf in those days (although I could be wrong), but I'll bet they'd make for an interesting story, no? I've also noticed some assumptions about southern women being stereotypical "doormats." But here, for example, is something from the July 1, 1847 edition of the New-Hampshire Sentinel about a woman from New Orleans who was clearly not a doormat! "WOMAN'S SPUNK. – The following specimen of female spirit was displayed in Louisiana a few weeks since. A young man, who was dissipated, succeeded in gaining the affections of a lady, and the promise of her hand if he would reform. He promised to do so, and behaved so well that the lady married him. After the ceremony his friends made him drunk, when the bride refused to have anything further to do with him, and retired to single blessedness again, and to this hour remains firm in her determination to neither see or live with her husband."
It's a bit extreme, but neither was this one [1882-10-03; Macon (Georgia) Weekly]: "At the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. George Harris at Mount Meridian, VA., the bride refused to say "Yes" to the question whether she would obey her husband. She said that she saw no reason in such a promise, and he concluded that no harm would be done by omitting it, since he intended to "make her mind anyhow." Two years elapsed, and a few days ago the unsettled question arose again. George ordered his wife to fry a chicken for dinner, and she insisted on roasting it. He brought in a horsewhip, and declared that he would flog her until she obeyed. She shot and killed him."
Nor was this Kentucky lady [1853-10-06; The San Antonio Ledger]. "Shooting in South Carrollton, KY – A Lady Vindicator. – We learn that rather a singular rencontre came off in South Carrollton, Muhlenburg Co., one day last week, in which a young lady vindicated her high name and fame, armed with a revolver, and shot the calumniator, the ball taking effect in his throat, inflicting a terrible and perhaps fatal wound. The young lady is a daughter of Col. Wilson, and is of the highest respectability and character, and hearing that the young man in question had been slandering her, she, in company with her father, went in search of him. Upon being questioned, he could not, or did not deny his allegations, and the young lady shot him on the spot."
Now, I'm not suggesting any of this was common behavior (nor advocating it!), I'm just saying that a rebel in a red dress isn't instantly inaccurate. It may be, but it isn't automatically so. |
