MOVED from MAIN - "sequels" to the classics

[Carol]

--- In HPFGU-OTChatter at yahoogroups.com, "Goddlefrood" <gav_fiji at ...>
wrote:
>
> > > Carol, now wondering whether historical novels featuring real
historical figures (e.g., Richard III or Anne Boleyn or Lady Jane
Grey) constitute fanfic of a sort even though the authors whose
"characters" are being borrowed are historians rather than novelists
> 
> Goddlefrood:
> 
> What? Borrowed from historians? These were real people, or do 
> you doubt they ever actually lived?
> 

Carol:
Of course, I don't doubt that they actually lived, but the
fictionalized versions of some of the characters in a historical novel
 (or a "history play" by shakespeare) bear as much resemblance to the
historical figures as some fanfic characters do to the characters in
the original novels.

Not to mention that all historical accounts (even documents like the
Declaration of Independence) have some sort of bias. For example, a
French account of England under a Yorkist or Lancastrian king will
differ from an English account of the same events and people, and the
Yorkist and Lancastrian accounts will differ from each other. A Saxon
chronicler will have different biases from a Celtic chronicler of the
same period. Northerners saw matters differently from Londoners.
Objectivity was not valued in medieval times; pleasing the reigning
monarch or local lord was. Some accounts were even changed (for
example, favorable accounts of Richard III altered to suit Henry VII,
who also ordered all copies of the Parliamentary document asking
Richard III to take the throne to be burned unread. Fortunately, one
copy survived.) Or take the American Revolution. I have a feeling that
even today, Americans and Englishmen see George III rather
differently. Or should I cite Democrats and Republicans in the United
States? Even in an era that (ostensibly) values objectivity in
historical accounts, it's difficult if not impossible to find. Every
historian interprets the events differently, even working from the
same documents and taking into account the biases of the writer. Just
read the available histories and biographies relating to the Wars of
the Roses, especially Richard III, to see what I mean. Historical
novelists, having no claim to objectivity, further distort the
historical evidence, romanticizing or demonizing historical persons as
they see fit and inventing dialogue just as Shakespeare did. (Would
the real Cleopatra recognize his Cleopatra or the real King John his
John? As for Richard III, he would wonder whose imagination could
conjure such a monster and mistake it for him.

Goddlefrood:

> As to the genre of historical fiction I wouldn't put it down as 
fanfiction. Quite often a character is inserted in a relatively close
approximation to actual historical events, while the main characters
themselves are fictional. Examples of this would be Waverley by a
certain W. Scott, the Flashman books by the recently deceased George
M. Fraser the Sharpe novels of Bernard Cornwell. <snip>

Carol:
I'm by no means putting down the genre of historical fiction, which is
my favorite genre when it's done right. I have the seeds of a plan for
a historical novel of my own, but neither the time nor the money to do
the research (not to mention that I need a new eyeglass prescription
to read any original documents related to the subject--I'd probably
need a sharp-eyed amanuensis to transcribe the photocopies, not to
mention permission to use them). I enjoy really good historical
fiction, for example Sharon Kay Penman's thoroughly researched "The
Sunne in Splendour." 
>
> 
> > montims:
> > But as far as historical novels goes, I vehemently recommend 
> > anything by Philippa Gregory, particularly the ones that deal 
> > with Henry VIII.  "The other Boleyn Girl" is fantastic...
> 
Carol:
I almost used "The Other Boleyn Girl" as an example in my post, but
since I hadn't read it, I edited it out. I'm assuming that, like most
good historical novels, it takes what's known about a historical
figure (in the case of Anne Boleyn's sister or the "Girl with a Pearl
Earring", not much) in combination with accurate details about the
politics, religion, clothing, and customs of the times, and weaves
them into a compelling story of what might have happened in these
people's lives. Historical figures, important and otherwise, become
characters in a novel. It's not that different, as far as I can see,
from good fan fiction written from a thorough knowledge of an author's
works, except that, in the case of, say, Harry Potter fanfic, you're
working with the creations of a living author rather than with records
written by long-dead (and not necessarily accurate) historians, some
of them anonymous.

Carol, who still has grave reservations about fanfic and none
whatsoever about *good* historical novels