 "Oh
what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." |
||
|
|
|
| W M M New Issue | W M M Archives |
| Sharan Newman is a medieval historian and writer who has published eight medieval mysteries: Death Comes as Epiphany, which was nominated for Agatha and Anthony awards and won the Macavity for best first mystery of 1993; The Devil's Door; The Wandering Arm, nominated for the Agatha; and Strong as Death, also an Agatha Nominee. The fifth book in the series, Cursed in the Blood, won the Herodatus award for best historical mystery of 1998. She has also co-edited three anthologies of history/mystery short stories, Crime Through Time I, & II, & III. |  |
| Ms. Newman holds degrees in literature and has completed
the requirements for a Ph.D. in History at the University of California
at Santa Barbara. A longtime member of the Medieval Academy, she has served
on the advisory board for the Medieval Association of the Pacific. Ms.
Newman has delivered a number of academic papers, taught at Temple University
and UC Santa Barbara, and continues to lecture widely on medieval topics.
Visit Ms. Newman's website; direct email to Sharan Newman or to editor@lifeloom.com. |
|
Respecting the Past
The topic is one I've been thinking about a great deal lately, especially in the context of The Da Vinci Code, a book that historians will be having to unteach for some time, I fear.
There is no one who is an expert in all of history. As lay readers, we have to trust the authors of historical books, both fiction and non, to know what they’re talking about. But we can’t trust blindly. There are some ways to judge what kind of historian wrote the book. It’s not by looking for credentials on the dust jacket; many dedicated and competent scholars never went to a university. Nor is it by noting the minutiae of detail in armor, dress, and furniture or by names of historical people used. One can find that information in an encyclopedia and strew it throughout any story.
My touchstone for belief in authors of any historical works is how much they respect the time and the people they’re writing about. This is something that needs no background knowledge to detect.
The medieval period is one which I’ve spent most of my adult life studying and I still feel I’ve only begun to learn about it. The thoughts and actions of people then continually amaze and enchant me. The diversity in beliefs and behavior is every bit as complex as in our contemporary society.
However the popular stereotype is that the medieval period was a dark and superstitious time when all people believed anything told them by an all powerful “church” that kept them from finding out the truth. This “truth” apparently includes science, religion, social tolerance, and personal hygiene. No one explains how this mythical church came to possess the information it guards but it is the basis of any number of works of popular fiction and creative non-fiction. This is my area of expertise, and I know that this is nonsense. But how can one judge a book set in a time one hasn’t studied?
My first touchstone is not the data given, but the people the author creates. Therefore, I’ve made some very subjective guidelines for judging books set in periods I know little about, that is, everything before 750 and after 1215. The first is the attitude of the main character. Is she contemptuous or patronizing to those around her (assuming that this isn’t her main trait)? Does she see the world in the same way as her contemporaries? If so, then how do the rest of the people behave? Are all the aristocrats and authorities either arrogant or gracious with nothing in between? Are poor or country people all noble and downtrodden? These stereotypes are a sure sign that the author believes that the people of the past weren’t real human beings. Does the protagonist share the prevailing attitudes of the time and place, even if they are anathema today? If slavery is the norm as in ancient Greece and Rome, is she firmly against it? Does the valiant hero think that the enemy is probably a good guy who has as much right to his religion as anyone? Do the main characters look down on their society? These set off alarms in my mind as I read. They tell me that the author hasn’t bothered to make an attempt to understand the period.
For several generations now, the attitude of Western culture toward the past has been one of contempt. We no longer view our accomplishments as a result of the work of those that came before us. Bernard of Chartres’ statement, “If I see farther than other men, it’s because I am a dwarf standing on the shoulders of giants,” is out of favor. Anything we achieve is in spite of others, from our parents on back. We aren’t like them at all. We’ve cut loose the shackles of the past and all its evils. Our ancestors were greedy, superstitious, cruel, gullible, and unwashed. But that’s all changed. And any unenlightened acts are done by lunatics or recidivists who haven’t joined the twenty-first century.
Perhaps some authors know they are being ahistorical. They may be writing to reassure themselves and their readers that humanity is evolving ever upward. By reading their work, people can comfort themselves. Personally, I would prefer they read Winnie the Pooh.
Sadly, I find the level of credulity doesn’t seem to have changed in all of human history. How many people today believe in ghosts, call the tarot hotline, think Muldar is right about UFOs? I listen to the voices of the Middle Ages and I hear nothing in them I can’t understand. I also know that there were decent and compassionate people then who tried to make life better for all. That same church that supposedly controlled everyone’s mind struggled in vain for years to establish a “Truce of God” or a “Peace of God” that would stop warfare or at least protect noncombatants. The downtrodden peasants were smart enough to use times of prosperity to negotiate better terms with their landlords and many made deals to clear and establish new towns in return for a number of concessions, both economic and political. There was injustice; there was also fairness and generosity. Dickens had it right; every era can be the best and worst of times.
When I read history, it’s to find out about how things were then, what people thought and did and how they coped with the world around them. When I read historical fiction, I expect the author to make an honest effort to convey this. Otherwise, why bother?
Copyright 2003 by Sharan Newman
| "Oh what a tangled
web we weave, when first we practice to deceive." |
||
|
|
|
| W M M New Issue | W M M Archives |
Writers are invited to send letters and inquiries to editor@lifeloom.com.
Copyright 2003, lifeloom.com