Back to Books (As in, not mine. Yay!)
19 Sep
Arrr, me hearties! And that’s all the pirate I have in me today, sorry. Instead I have a long discussion of little literary import, in which I hope you’ll join me. Apologies ahead of time.
I’ve been really lax about mentioning the books I’ve been reading since I started the intense part of writing that book about two months ago. I read a ton, but the only new, pertinent one (as in, at all speculative) was Neal Stephenson’s Baroque Cycle– which stretched out over the better part of a year for me, just because it’s extremely long and convoluted and– oh. Uh, guess the word I want is Baroque actually.
It’s historical fiction, but it gets pretty fantastic at times thanks to the mad alchemy and occasional superhuman feats performed by characters here and there. It’s also hilarious and smart and beautifully written, with a cast of characters to die for, including Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried von Leibniz, and even a crop of entirely fictional types.
I thought Quicksilver, the first one of the trilogy, was the best. It’s a lot shorter than the other two, and that’s sad in a lot of ways. But in another, it meant that it didn’t have several chapters/plot-lines that left me wondering what the hell the point was– which both of the other books did. Natural when you have a book that covers pretty much the entire known world at that strange and lovely period where the 17th century was becoming the 18th. But Stephenson is a man who can make Newton and Leibniz arguing metaphysics with Princess Caroline (of Ansbach, as in future Queen of England) as referee scarily fascinating, so even that isn’t cause for much complaint.
This leads me into an other issue, though. Amanda Pillar had an a thought-provoking post last month wherein she asked whether or not it’s okay to fictionalize real people. The example she gave was the Elizabeth movies. I’m vaguely uncomfortable with that kind of thing, too, when it claims to be authoritative– not for the populace at large, of course, who do not require my approval, but for myself. If it claims to be pure entertainment– like Showtime’s The Tudors– I’m a little more forgiving, at least when it’s a movie. After all, I love Amadeus for some of its frightful inaccuracies, but it’s not pretending to be a history. Was Jan Vermeer the creepy weirdo of The Girl with the Pearl Earring? Er, I wasn’t a Vermeer specialist, but I doubt it. Still, the movie was entertaining for what it was. But both of those are technically from someone else’s point of view.
What I really love, though: exploring historical personalities in an obviously fictional work (as in, could not be taken for history by the most credulous of readers) as incidental, or at least non-PoV characters. Manda gave the example of the Prince Regent popping up in Regency romances, which is one of my favorites. Always good for a laugh, Prinny! I’d also put Newton, Leibniz, et al. from The Baroque Cycle into that category. Susanna Clarke’s magical Victorian awesome, Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, has historical figures like Lord Byron and the Duke of Wellington playing parts– but never slips inside their head.
For me, there’s a line. For one, the immediately above examples are obviously not trying to make bad history of pure fiction, which is what this trend toward psychological history is doing. Yeah, I realize they’re not exactly academic publications– though it’s becoming more common, sadly– but I think it’s about how it’s presented. And for another, these people are long gone, along with their friends and immediate family. No one is going to be hurt by them being made into fiction, and no one is taking it seriously.
Unlike this book about the life of Richey Edwards “as he might have told it”, slated for 2011. I realize I really shouldn’t give this any more word of mouth, but Jesus Christ. If you don’t know who he* is, the only important thing is that he was in a band– my favorite band, the Manics– and he disappeared in 1995 and hasn’t been seen since. He was presumed dead officially last year.
Last year. As in, his family and friends are still very much alive and dealing. I try pretty hard not to be negative on this blog, but I gotta let this fly: I thought the Joe the Plumber book deal was upsetting, but no, it’s not. Maybe I’m just getting old and intolerant, but dude, regardless of what you think of Richey Edwards, that is in. poor. taste.
Arbitrary line in the sand? Newton and Byron in fantasy as the thin end of the wedge? Hey, maybe. But you have to draw a line somewhere, right? Do you?
*Picture of the dude with 4Real carved into his arm on my picspam meme– that was Richey.
—————-
Now playing: Camille Saint-Saëns – Piano Concerto No. 2 in G Minor, Op. 22: I. Andante sostenuto
via FoxyTunes
I think that you’re bang on with your assesment that there is a line that you have to watch for when writing in historical characters.
A couple that really worked for me was Caleb Carrs ‘The Alienist’ with Teddy Roosevelt as the police commisioner in NYC (and the books 1886 setting matches his term of office).
Also, we saw Steve Martin’s play ‘Picasso at the Lapin Agile’ a number of years ago, where Picasso and Einstein and have a debate in a Paris bar just prior to each achieving greatness.
Both really worked for me without crossing any lines. As you noted, though, about Richey Ewdards (or Curt Cobain, or anyone else who have a certain notoriety or unresolved story) folks do cross the line sometimes. They only leave themselves open for lawsuits, in my humble opinion.
This is why I live in a fantasy world. No “truth” to trod upon.
(you had me at “arrr” by the way…shiver me timbers)
I’m with you. I read the article, and was creeped out.
I’m with you on the arbitrary line. I get a kick out of characters in books/movies having brushes with well-known figures (Doctor Who is good at this). Heck, I can even enjoy a good POV in the 1st if, like you say, the person is dead – and especially if it’s tremendously fictitious (Shakespeare in Love for example, which probably gets me ten demerits since I got my BA in English lit).
But being so presumptuous as to do an “as he might’ve told it” on someone recent who isn’t around to stick up for themselves? Um… no. That’s big swingin’ brass ones thought ought to be fucking AMPUTATED, man.
Alan, thanks a lot for the thoughtful comment– I was hoping someone would weigh in! First of all, I think I need to find The Alienist. My brother is really into Teddy Roosevelt, historically speaking (he dragged me to the ass end of Arlington National Cemetery a month ago to see the Rough Riders monument… weird kid, definitely my brother!). And you know– good historical figures in books. I am also a huge, huge Picasso fan (first art love– he’s why I took Spanish in high school, I kid you not), and who doesn’t love Einstein? Two awesome examples!
Too right about the lawsuits– my husband was just talking about that in the car. And yeah, Cobain got smacked right off :/ I guess all that kept Richey from it this long (well, on this scale!) is his status as a relative unknown.
Seriously, what is wrong with people?
Aaron, only too true! If only I could stick to that– which I do for the most part I guess, but argh! (Or arrrr! anyhow.)
Nat, glad to know it’s not just me. I mean… ew.
Megh, yeah, my thoughts pretty much exactly. Presumptuous was the word I used on twitter when I first saw the announcement via an unofficial Manics source there. I mean wow. Call in the doctor, and sharpen up that scalpel!
Also, no demerits– I mean, I liked the Goya movie, right? Goya!!
For me, if a historical figure is painted as an obvious fantasised caricature of the actual person then that’s fine. But when the line blurs and a piece is being sold as ‘as it was’ then I worry that the majority of the population (including myself in that statement) will carry the film/book with them as historical fact. I do love it though when a film/book drives me to learn more about a historical character/event.
I should mention that Teddy Roosevelt’s part in the Alientist is quite small. It’s about a pshychologist, who teams up with a couple of cops (twins) and a woman (gasp!) to hunt down a serial killer using techniques new to the times.
Cate, yeah, I mean, I’m definitely not trying to be the History Police– the world at large has not requested my services– but it just stings to see it happen! Like, I’m sure most everyone who sees Amadeus walks away thinking Antonio Salieri really hated him and did all that shit… which he did not. (Although anyone involved in the play or movie will tell you it’s just fiction, well, people swallow things whole.) But like you say, maybe someone else picks up a book on Mozart and figures shit out, and realizes how awesome he was and– yeah.
The possibility for inspiration is so huge. And lovely.
Alan, that’s just how I like it– a small (or at least non-pov) part to just kind of move things along or whatever. The book sounds cooler and cooler, now that you’ve described the plot. Thanks!