Rewriting history

(Lynne's daughter Meriel here, deputizing again while my mum enjoys a couple of weeks States-side.)

I recently read a crime novel set in Victorian England. I'm a big fan of historical crime novels, and this one had been recommended to me by a friend whose judgement is usually sound, so I was expecting great things. I was... disappointed.

The plot would have benefited from some tightening up, and some of the dialogue was a little clunky. But the thing that proved a persistent annoyance throughout the book - like trying to listen to a radio programme through a constant crackle of static - was that the author (who shall remain nameless to protect the guilty) simply hadn't done his research properly. As far as I could tell, the central events that the story hung on were all accurate (insofar as they were meant to be, anyway: a major part of the plot revolved around telling an alternative version of history), but it rapidly became obvious that the author had no idea how aristocratic titles worked. I could have ignored this if it had only been an issue with one or two minor characters, but the detective himself is titled, as are most of the people he moves amongst. Specifically, he's referred to as both Lord Forename Surname (again, actual names withheld!) and Lord Surname as if these were interchangeable, when in fact they indicate very different statuses.

While this isn't the sort of thing I'd expect the average person in the street to know, I can't help feeling that if you're writing (or for that matter editing) a crime novel with a noble hero, then maybe at some point it's worth going and spending ten minutes looking through the Wikipedia article on forms of address in the United Kingdom? (For anyone who's curious, Lord Surname implies he's a peer, whereas Lord Forename Surname indicates a younger son of a duke or marquis - as with Lord Peter Wimsey, the creation of an author who certainly did do her research. Sometimes it's a bit more complicated than that, as the title may not be the same as the surname - as in Downton Abbey, where the family name is Crawley, but the head of the family is Lord Grantham - but that need not detain us here.)

However, I'm aware that this is the sort of thing that bothers me a lot and other people not at all. Out of curiosity, I went and looked at the Amazon reviews. Pretty much as I'd expected, there was one anguished 'How can he not realize?' review (from a history professor, apparently), and lots of people who hadn't even noticed - some of whom even praised the author's grasp of period detail.

There was another point where I thought I'd caught the author out. A small boy is given a present that he loves, and his response is 'Wow!', which to me just felt totally out of place in Victorian London. Being the sort of pedant I am, I went and looked the word 'wow' up in the Oxford English Dictionary. The first recorded usage of the relevant sense was... in 1892. Which just happens to be the precise year in which the book is set. Yet despite this, it wouldn't surprise me if that one little word jarred with far more people than the repeated mistakes with titles.

This set me wondering: is it more important for a historical crime novel to be accurate, or to feel right? While I'm sure there are plenty of crime buffs who are also history buffs, a lot of us who enjoy historical crime are chiefly interested in the story - the history mostly provides atmosphere, and maybe a social structure or legal system that permits plot devices that wouldn't work in a contemporary novel. Obviously it's preferable for authors to avoid getting things demonstrably wrong, but if push comes to shove, is it better for an author to stick rigorously to the historical facts (including people saying 'Wow!' in the 1890s)? Or are there times when a little bit of creative anachronism can help to oil the wheels of the narrative?

Comments

[Jeff Cohen]

Welcome, Meriel! So nice to see you here again! I have to say that I'm not a huge reader of historicals, but when I do read a piece that takes place in another era, I expect the research to have been done and the details to be right. I'll accept lapses in research in a contemporary piece because I live now and can make my own judgments, but if it's a time with which I'm not as familiar, I'll expect the author is taking me there and teaching me something at the same time. I might not KNOW there's an error, but something blatant will take me out of the story.

[Adele]

"... is it more important for a historical crime novel to be accurate, or to feel right?"

Hmmm. If the novel is not accurate, it will not feel right to anyone who knows the truth. So the market for the inaccurate novel that feels right would be limited to uninformed readers and informed readers who bought the book before they knew how bad it was.

With the very best historical writing, I may be surprised by some detail, but instead of thinking "Hey! That's wrong!" I think "Hmm, I never knew that" because the author has such a command of the era that I have confidence that the detail is right and it was my knowledge that was lacking.

[Pamela Bond-Contractor]

Hello!

I agree with Jeff and Adele and am in sympathy with Meriel. I love historical fiction, particularly mysteries, and want very badly to trust that the author knows more than I do--not only about the era, but about the humans who inhabited it--and, yes, how they actually used language.

As I commented in Jeff Cohen's audiobook piece, it is important for readers/listeners to have faith in the authors and publishers whose work we prize. If I became aware of blatant (or even subtle) errors or obviously bad (or even nonexistent) editing, I would abandon an author's work.

One Victorian mystery writer whose oeuvre I greatly admire is Anne Perry. It at least seems to me that she does copious amounts of research and is consistent from book to book and series to series. I have learned things about 19th-century London that I would never have known otherwise, thanks to her. But if I ever find that she is hoodwinking me with bad information, I will be crestfallen and loath to pick up another William Monk or Thomas Pitt book--captivating and engaging or not. And, by the way, her dialogue is extraordinary as well and certainly "feels right." I hope it is.

One last thing: Thanks for the insightful review, but do you really need to hide the identity of the book and author? Books and authors are certainly subjected to criticism all the time, good, bad, and mixed. I'd like to know which book you read and who the author was as words to the wise.

Best wishes,
Pam

[Meriel Patrick]

Thanks, Jeff!

I think being taken out of the story is a key thing here. With this particular book, that happened for me both with the mistakes, and with something (the use of 'Wow!') that turned out to be correct. I think the author could have handled the latter in a way that wouldn't have been problematic (say if the boy's mother had commented on his use of new-fangled slang), but that wasn't the case here.

So to avoid distracting readers, perhaps authors sometimes also need to avoid things that aren't actually wrong, but which might be perceived as being so!

[Meriel Patrick]

Hi Adele,

That's a very good point - I've certainly had the experience of feeling I've learnt something new and surprising while reading historical fiction. Though as you probably gathered, this author unfortunately didn't inspire that sort of confidence in me.

There's a section in HRF Keating's 'Writing Crime Fiction' where he says that a sense of a historical setting is often best given by use of small unexpected details - if I remember rightly, the example he gives is a reference to roast mutton being served as part of breakfast. That sort of thing works well: it's subtle enough not to be distracting, but still unusual enough to provoke the 'Hmm, I never knew that' reaction.

[Meriel Patrick]

Hi Pam,

I think I might have to look out for books by Anne Perry - I recognize the name, but don't think I've actually read anything of hers. Thanks for the recommendation!

I concealed the name of the author because I was being so unremittingly negative about the book - focusing entirely on the things that annoyed me, rather than attempting to give a balanced review. But as you're curious, I've sent you a message via your FB profile!

[Pamela Bond-Contractor]

Belated thanks, Meriel! Just saw this message today and found your note in my FB account. Sent one in return.

Do give Anne a try--I don't think you'll regret it.

Thanks again,
Pam