13
Jul 06

“The Victorians Were A Bit Rubbish Really But Had Grebt Sea Adventures” Genre

FT + The Brown Wedge7 comments • 587 views

I have never really read much historical fiction. Then recently I have stumbled on what seems to be a small but thriving subsection: which you could call “Victorian were a bit rubbish really but had grebt sea adventures” genre. This usualy mixes up historical figures with a bit of Hornblowing sea action, plus long digressions on what was considered the in sciences of the day (geology, craniology, racism). Plus long passages where people declare that they believe in God because he is a Englishman. This genre includes Matthew Kneale’s “English Passengers” and Harry Thompson’s “This Thing Of Darkness” and as a genre seems to require the following:
A)      The battle between science and religion
B)       In particular the these days laughable stabs at using science to prove bits of the Bible, (ie the whereabouts of the Garden Of Eden, the Flood)
C)       Appalling treatment of foreigners, in particular indigenous people and tribes being killed for sport
D)      The education and downfall of a noble savage
E)       The slightly smug sensation that this presentation is rewriting history and displaying it as a rightly barbarous and stupid time where the belief of English racial superiority echoed the worse excesses of the Nazi regime
F)       Rollicking sea adventures to distract you from A – E.

It is a readable genre, though often more due to F than A-E, but in the novels stab for authenticity I have qualms. In presenting the rationale for their real characters actions, there is plenty of after-the-fact theorising. I wonder what the ethics of writing fiction about real people are, and much as in the case of bio-pics, are factual alterations acceptable to get the feel of a life. Perhaps, but it is the bystanding characters who get the raw end of this deal. I do feel sorry for the crewmembers of the Beagle who get amalgamated, and the Tasmanian aborigines who are sidelined in favour of a more plot driving fictional counterpart.
And is doing loads of research, and writing about a real character just an excuse not to make up a character from scratch?

Comments

  1. 1
    Pete Baran on 13 Jul 2006 #

    Apologies for this rocking up little. Not sure why. Alang, can you help?

    I wanted to include Mallick’s The New World in this as well, but it does not fit the genre half as good. And its Mallick (inheritor of the mantle of Kubrick as over-rated directors go).

  2. 2
    CarsmileSteve on 13 Jul 2006 #

    there, that’s better.

  3. 3
    Pete Baran on 13 Jul 2006 #

    Thank you. Might shift a few of the bullet points now…

  4. 4
    Alan on 13 Jul 2006 #

    @pete: whatever you are using to write your posts is putting in loads of un-necessary HTML markup. specifically <font tags.

  5. 5
    p^nk s on 13 Jul 2006 #

    ick factor alert!

    mallick = NO GOOD
    kubrick = NO GOOD
    mackendrick = LET’S NOT SPOIL THE JOKE NOW IT’S BEGUN

  6. 6
    Alan on 13 Jul 2006 #
    1. You can do letter-based
    2. ordered lists
    3. using STYLE=A
    4. inside the initial OL tag
    5. I hope

    oh no, maybe not :-( it\’s the more complex STYLE=\”list-style-type: upper-alpha\”. best not bother, eh

  7. 7
    Magnus on 14 Jul 2006 #

    I read Sweet Thames by Matthew Kneale (offspring of Quatermass scribe Nigel Kneale, as everyone already knew) last year. It did little bits of A and E, but none of the rest really. Nonetheless it did revisionist and parallel history simulataniously, although what mattered to the reader was the story and characters. I would hesitate to call it a useful history source, but it was fiction rather than under-the-radar education, and I enjoyed it a lot.

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required

Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page