#histfic reviews | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

heartofstanding · 2 years

Text

Defaming the dead and other historical fiction problems...

(cw: discussions of misogyny, homophobia, rape, ableism, slut-shaming, xenophobia, incest, abuse, child sex abuse and grooming. If a shitty histfic novel has invoked it, I'll probably mention it. also some hyperbole.)

The "Don't Defame The Dead" movement/campaign was pretty strong in the early 2010s and came as a response to some... pretty horrendous historical fiction, probably best typified by Philippa Gregory and her imitators. You know, the protagonist is a saint and anyone who opposes them is horrifically evil and the (typically female) protagonist is subjected to torture porn and forced into a Madonna/Whore, Good Girl/Bad Girl dichotomy with another woman?

Mostly, "Don't Defame The Dead" was invoked in reviews and discussions but there were also a handful of blog posts that featured memes in which the "defamed" historical figure answered back to these "accusations" via the means of an memed ecard, like so:

For a time, I was fully on board with it. I had the same frustrations with bad historical fiction. A novel would take a historical figure I was interested in and make them into the irredeemably evil baddie and I hated it. Here was a way to answer back that was used by some of the people I respected most in the histfic circles I was lurking in. And the edits framed the movement in easy terms. It was a matter of historical accuracy. It was all lies. It was also a matter of morality. The dead can't answer back and how would we feel if we were depicted like that?

But then I got off the Don't Defame The Dead train and started thinking it through and I didn't like it.

So, couple of things:

I'm probably exaggerating the size and strength of the "Don't Defame the Dead" campaign. It did have a big impact on me, though.

I certainly understand the logic and motivation behind it. I'm not by any means defending the shitty novels that inspired it or saying that they're OK and the anger/disgust/upset caused by them isn't real.

Because this is tumblr, yeah, legally speaking, you can't defame the dead. No one ever claimed it was a legal argument. It was probably the best snappy one-liner around.

Don't Defame My Favourite Dead Guy

We’ve all got historical figures we’re attached to enough that a "bad" or offensive depiction is upsetting. It's natural that there are some figures we're going to be far more sensitive about and figures that we don't like and don't care if they're beaten with the villain stick within an inch of their lives. And obviously, how well someone picks up on whether a figure is "defamed" is going to be dependent on how well they know that time period and how much they care. Someone who is in the weeds of the reign of Henry VIII is going to have a lot more opinions about what counts as "defamation" in a novel about Anne Boleyn than they would in a novel about the Roman Emperor Nero. And, depending on who their favourite wife is, what they think happened and how much they buy into the six wives stan wars, they're going to have a different idea of who is defamed, how badly they're defamed and how they're being defamed. I'm not above the feeling either: you can beat Cardinal Henry Beaufort to a second death with the villain stick and I won't even blink. But so much as raise the villain stick vaguely in the direction of Mary de Bohun and my hackles will start to rise. The point is, it's all understandable and natural to have these kind of reactions.

But it's hard to take "don't defame the dead" seriously when you see this kind of reaction in the very people promoting it. If "defaming" the dead is as immoral as they say, they should be up in arms about all "defamation", not just when it's their fave or reflects badly on their fave. And yet you could see the same bloggers basically renacting the "I can excuse (blank) but I draw the line at (blank)" meme. I can excuse misogynist vitriol against Margaret of Anjou but I draw the line at depicting Richard III being anything but a smol bean. I can excuse slut-shaming Katherine Howard but draw the line at slut-shaming Anne Boleyn. I can excuse Hugh Despenser being depicted as a rapist but I draw the line at Edward II being complicit in it.

(yes, this is a real Don't Defame The Dead card, I didn't make it.)

How does one "defame the dead"?

If it's not already clear, I'm not exactly comfortable with labelling bad depictions as "defamation". It's a term meant to induce an emotional response, a sense of this is serious but I don't think it always is serious. I'm sticking with the terminology though because that's what the campaign used and I can't think of a snappier replacement.

But if we're worried about the defaming the dead, how do we define defamation and who decides what is or is not defamation?

Period-attitudes? Because while we might not have an individual's own feelings and thoughts on the matter, we can use the general attitudes of the period to assume how they would have reacted? Um, no. It's a stupid-ass approach. Firstly, we rarely know how closely an individual hewed to societal conventions and beliefs. Secondly, period-typical attitudes usually contain masses of racism, xenophobia, misogyny, classism, homophobia and other biases. That way lies "well medieval anti-sodomy rhetoric means saying Richard II was queer is a smear!" and worse.

What about historical accuracy and most likely scenarios? Is that a good guideline? Well, yes and no (I talk about the evidence problem a lot more below). What about the author's intention, does that matter? Or is the reader the arbitrator? If so, how do we get past the problem that everyone will have a different idea of is "historically accurate" and what counts as defamatory? What if what is called "defamation" is just a way of the reader expressing their own bigotry and/or bias?

This one of the cards made by Edward II historian Kathryn Warner, referring to the trope first popularised by Braveheart in which Edward III is a ~secret bastard~ of an affair Isabella of France had, though who the "real father" is varies. It's a stupid trope, based in homophobia (because a gay king couldn't possibly father a warrior king) and sometimes misogyny (Isabella is reduced to the vehicle through which Wallace avenges himself on England in Braveheart or depicted as a slut). But most often, it seems to be intended to show Isabella acting with agency, forging her own path in attempt to find happiness despite an unloving husband and, in some measure, triumphing over the Patriarchy™ because her son by choice ends up as the next king. If intention matters, then it's not meant to be "defamatory" to Isabella. It's still grossly homophobic, dumb and defamatory to Edward II. But Isabella? No.

The same logic that Warner argues makes it defamatory to Isabella could also be applied to some of Warner’s own arguments to other women. She speculates that Edward II had an incestuous affair with his own niece but doesn't seem to be upset about the possibility of Eleanor de Clare's adultery (it's also interesting to compare her neutrality on uncle-niece incest with her her older posts where she declares how disgusting Philippa Gregory's depiction of Anne Boleyn committing incest with her brother is). Elsewhere, Warner argues that Joan of Kent did not marry Thomas Holland before she married William Montagu but fell in "love or lust" with Holland during her Montagu marriage, had an affair with him and together cooked up an plan where they would both untruthfully claim to have married earlier so her marriage to Montagu would be annulled and she could safely hook up with Holland. Therefore, the annulment was never legitimate, she was never legally married to Holland or to the Black Prince and her children with both these men were all bastards, including Richard II.

Therefore Warner’s Joan is an lying adulteress who foists a bastard onto the throne. The evidence for such a claim is lacking and seems largely based on the confused anecdote that Holland may or may not have served Montagu as a steward at a time Joan may or may not have been living with Montagu and that it’s “odd” that neither Joan or Holland spoke up about their marriage before her Montagu marriage. Warner’s intention with this is ostensibly to show Joan as a strong woman acting with agency to get what she wants – the same intention that seems to be at the core of depicting Isabella as an adulteress. Why is one defamatory and one not? Yes, the traditional view of Joan is disturbing for its depiction of a love story between a 13 year old girl and a 26 year old man but it’s a bizarre choice to “correct” this fucked up over-romanticism by arguing instead that the woman who would otherwise be the victim of CSA just lied about her experiences and was actually an adulteress who foisted a bastard on the throne. Because it's "odd" she didn't speak up by her Holland marriage earlier or that Holland not speaking up is out of character from a man who was the "furtherest thing" from a coward. All of this could be explained by the fairly well-known dynamics of child-grooming and abuse but apparently it makes more "sense" for Joan to be an lying adulteress.

And that's not defamatory to Joan at all. Right? But making Isabella an adulteress is defamatory. Right?

Right?

R-E-S-P-E-CT.

"Don't Defame The Dead" frames “defamation” as first and foremost disrespectful to the dead people involved and that alone makes the depiction irredeemably offensive and immoral. But to me the real issue with bad depictions is not whether they're "disrespectful" to the person or that it treats them "offensively" but the way they often perpetuate narratives of misogyny, racism, classism, xenophobia, antisemitism, fatphobia, transphobia, body shaming, ableism, slut-shaming and so on. Or that they use rape and abuse as a cheap plot device and/or titillation, or that they use past tragedies and oppression as a cheap points-scoring device.

And of course all these things can intersect: Depictions of Margaret of Anjou usually heavily emphasise her identity as a Frenchwoman (xenophobia), the way she is a subversive woman who doesn't know her place (misogyny), and her dangerous sexuality (slut-shaming). Depictions of Eleanor Cobham keep the misogyny and slut-shaming but swap out the xenophobia for classism (she's a gold-digging slut who won't stay in her rightful place, which is typically defined as Catherine de Valois's vast social inferior).

The most offensive and harmful thing about the idea that Edward II ‘let’ Hugh Despenser rape Isabella of France is not that it’s disrespectful to any of the parties involved but the homophobia in depicting a queer man as a sexually depraved rapist and the salacious, cheap use of rape. By a similar token, what is most offensive and harmful today about the idea that Margaret of Anjou’s alleged adultery and Edward of Lancaster’s alleged bastardy is not what it says about Margaret, Edward or Henry VI but the misogyny involved in depicting Margaret as a sex-hungry and power-hungry slut and hypocrite and the ableism involved in presenting Henry VI as being incapable of fathering a child and lacking in awareness to realise what Margaret has done (it is possible to write this scenario in a "good" way (i.e. a choice made by Margaret and Henry together) but afaik no one has ever written it). Edward II, Despenser, Isabella, Margaret, Henry and Edward of Lancaster are all long dead. But issues like ableism, misogyny, homophobia and the salacious use of rape still cause massive harm today to living people and these depictions reinforce these ideas.

The “don’t defame the dead” campaign also frequently framed the defamations as bad by asking how “you” would feel if these things were said about you. Well, yeah, it would be incredibly hurtful for myself and my loved ones to be the subject of these defamations. But the comparison is inherently a false equivalency. The campaign was primarily about individuals in the medieval and early modern periods. Everyone is long dead. Everyone who ever knew them to care about their feelings have been dead for centuries. What does it matter how they would feel about how they're depicted or what's said about them and the people they knew? They're beyond knowing or caring.

To frame bad depictions as a matter of respect requires a question: why should we respect the dead? I’m not saying that there are not historical figures worthy of respect because there absolutely are but instead querying the basic idea that being dead makes you automatically worthy of respect. The campaign argues that the dead should not be disrespected or “defamed” because that every single one of them was human, that we should think about how we would feel if that was us and that they’re dead and unable to answer back.

Sure, we should remember when we’re writing historical fiction that everyone was human, not cartoon caricatures and cardboard cut-outs, but the idea that being human or dead makes someone deserving of respect is... nope. There are people who deserve exactly zero respect, whether living or dead, and I'm fucked if I'm going to give it to them.

Don't Do That.

I realise by framing this as "it doesn't matter what's said about the dead, what matters is the harmful ideas behind it", I am inviting a never-ending piss-contest about which "defamation" actually perpetuates the most harm. Don't do that. That's fucking stupid. It only makes the Ricardians vs Tudorite wars worse to make it about ableism vs xenophobia. I don't even belong to the Tudor fandom but I've seen it descend into this shitfuckery.

It's entirely possible to recognise the harmful rhetoric at play in "bad depictions" without making it a pissing competition about which historical figure has it worse and which prejudice is worse and that prejudice is worst than the other which means the other doesn't really matter. It is possible to hate both the xenophobia underlying depictions of Margaret of Anjou and the classism in bad depictions of the Woodvilles without wanking over which one is worse.

And for love of god, we need to stop conflating "I don't like/agree with this thing" as "and therefore it is morally wrong" or "and therefore it is more morally wrong than the things I do like/agree with".

The Get Out Of Defamation Jail Free Card

Do you have evidence for your depiction of that person? No? Go to Defamation Jail. Go directly to Defamation Jail, do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Now think about how you would feel if that had been you depicted like that.

Oh, you do have evidence? Well, let's see, I care about the person you defamed so I'm going to go over it with a fine-toothed comb. I'll hit the archives if I must.

Actually, I don't care and I don't know much about the person, I just need to see a citation and you're good to go.

So, if evidence gets you out of Defamation Jail, what counts as evidence and who decides if it counts as evidence or not?

Is it enough to have the work of a historian as the basis behind your depiction? That can be evidence. But what if the work is outdated or not widely accepted or written by a crank? Does someone writing a novel about Elizabeth Woodville based on John Ashdown-Hill's biography of her, dripping in virulent misogyny and bizarre and unevidenced claims as it is, get a pass for defaming the dead? After all, a historian wrote the book they're working from. The answer, btw, is "oh my god, no". But that supposes I know enough to know how vile the biography is. Suppose I don't and I assume he's a reliable, non-biased historian? I'd probably go "ok, well, I guess that's what she was really like".

And what if the evidence that a historian's work can provide is in an entirely different context? If someone is consistently described as violent and vindictive in his role as a landowner but there's no evidence of his relationship with his family, is it defamatory to depict him as abusive to his wife and children? I don't have evidence that he was... but I also don't have evidence that he wasn't... and do we really expect to have evidence of this? ...the evidence does suggests he was a quite a nasty man... but I can't defame the dead...

Well, what about historical records? Is that enough to clear an author of a charge of defamation? Again, it really depends on whether the reviewer has enough knowledge to judge whether the record has issues or not: is it a sceptical report that's treated as 10000% legitimate? Hagiography? Propaganda or counter-propaganda? Do we contend with the fact that a lot of historical records were written by educated, religious white men, that women's own writings were a comparative rarity and (until relatively recently) often filtered through a man (i.e. a transcriber, a publisher, an editor), that marginalised identities are often treated as a curiosity or moral lesson?

And is OK to depict women like Alice Perrers, Eleanor Cobham and Margaret of Anjou as evil bitches because chroniclers universally dunked on them, never mind the misogynist, classist, xenophobic and/or factional bias in the records, and only a few historians - often in academic circles - have been interested in trying to challenge these interpretations while many, many more have uncritically regurgitated them up and ladled on more misogyny, classism and xenophobia?

What about the reviewer/blogger's own biases? The Don't Defame The Dead crowd were big on historical accuracy. Things had to be "accurate" or, failing that, the most likely scenario, which typically meant Occam's Razor and statistical likelihoods were to be used. But the thing is, while useful tools, history and individuals are never just what statistics and Occam's Razor would tell us they were. It also means marginalised lives or marginalised parts of life tend to stay in the margins because we lack "proof" that they existed. Statistics are also not as infallible as they might seem. Are we applying them or an individualistic or population basis? And modern population statistics are based on modern ways of categorising and identifying people. To project it back at the past means we assume that the past had the same categories and identities that we do and that's not always the case.

New discoveries and research can undercover things that utterly destroy what is considered the "most likely scenario". The histography of Tutankhamun is full of this but perhaps the most dramatic is this: until his tomb and mummy were discovered in the 1920s, it was believed he was an older politician who came to the throne after the main dynasty had gone extinct. It was not considered likely he was the son of one of the preceding pharaohs. A novel written about him pre-1922 according to what was "most likely" would now be considered laughably inaccurate. A novel written today based on what's viewed as "most likely" would be considered laughably inaccurate back then.

Murder at the Defamation Court

Let's say I want to write a novel about the murder in the Princes of the Tower. I already hear some Ricardians hissing because I said they were murdered, not they escaped or were spirited away somewhere safe and that's defamation enough. But I need to decide who murdered them. Even I don't end up revealing whodunnit in the novel, I should probably know for the sake of writing a good mystery novel.

I first circle over to Richard III as the culprit. I've got a few historians who say he did it, a few more that say he is the most probable murderer and a few more that say he must have been complicit in the murders, whether or not he did it or not. I've got some contemporary-ish writers who report that it was widely believed that Richard was behind it. Ricardians would say, despite it all, I've bought into Tudor Propaganda™ and I'm defaming Richard III. It might make a good story (just ask Shakespeare) but the defamation makes it a no-go (just ask the Shakespeare professionals getting hate mail from Ricardians).

I discard him as a culprit and start examining the other suspects, put forward by Ricardians (some of them good historians, some of them cranks, but, whatever, a citation is a citation). I examine Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII, the Duke of Buckingham, Jane Shore and a bunch more. But the historical evidence just isn't there. All the theories are just based on evidence that basically requires you to build a castle in the air out of speculation. One of the alternatives might make a good story but there's no evidence for it.

In short, there's not enough evidence to convict Richard III, Margaret Beaufort, Henry VII or Buckingham etc. etc. for murder but there is enough to convict me of defaming the dead.

In desperation, I ponder whether it's possible to write this novel without accusing anyone of murder. I hit upon the solution. What if the Princes aren't murdered after all? Maybe rocks fall and they die. Or what if I create an entirely fictional character to commit the murders though? The dead won't be defamed and with a fictional character, I can make up whatever motivation I want.

But isn't that kind of a bad story telling choice? If you read a good novel about a historical murder mystery and you believed the solution, wouldn't you feel absolutely cheated if you came to the author's note and found out a large part of the book - a vital part, some would say - were entirely fictional because the author couldn't dare to defame the dead?

What we require evidence of.

A decent amount of the cards focused on depictions of historical figures as rapists and abusers. To be perfectly clear, I’m not defending those depictions, I haven't read them all but I suspect most of them have as much sensitivity as a sledgehammer. I've talked about the depiction of rape in historical fiction in-depth before here so I'm not going to make this post even longer by summarising that post. The point is: historical fiction has a massive problem with depicting rape. And of course no one wants to see their favourite dead person depicted as unforgivable rapist or abuser.

But I don't think the right solution to this problem is to demand that an author either has evidence (and clear, definitive evidence - if it's speculative, we must give the dead "the benefit of the doubt") or else never depict rape or abuse in their historical fiction novels.

Look, we know the issues about "proving" rape and abuse in our own modern society with all the benefits of progressive social movements and modern medicine. We know that the stricter gender and/or class roles, the commonality of violence and concepts like "the marital debt" in historical times would have further stifled discussion of rape and abuse. We also know that very few in society had the means or ability to record their story. So we shouldn't necessarily expect to have evidence of rape, much less clear and definitive evidence.

And we need only look to to the appalling ways some Chaucer scholars have talked about Cecily Chaumpaigne or Warner's treatment of Joan of Kent or the Gille de Rais apologists to see the ways in which evidence of rape and abuse is challenged and dismissed, even by historians presenting themselves as progressive (the Chaucer-Chaumpaigne case turned out not to have been about rape at all but is a very, very recent discovery).

There is also important work being done by scholars on rape and abuse in history (for the medieval period, see Carissa M. Harris, Caroline Dunn and Dyan Elliott) and no doubt what they uncover is just the tip of the iceberg. Some recent work on medieval mistresses takes the time and care to point out the massive power differentials between a mistress and her noble lover and how, while we can sometimes have a good idea at how her lover felt about her, we have no idea at all how she felt about him or her situation.

It's absolutely important to talk about the way histfic uses rape and abuse in cheap, ugly ways and it's absolutely justified to be upset by it. But I don't think the answer is to demand an author either has perfect evidence or never write about rape or abuse. There are plenty of novels that do depict rape and abuse sensitively and I don't think we should throw out the baby with the bathwater. If someone wants to write a sensitive, thoughtful depiction of what it would be like for a person - even a real medieval monarch or noble - to be the victim of abuse or rape, I don't think we should demand they bring "proof" of their depiction or not write it all. And I say that meaning: yes, even if it makes one of my faves a rapist or abuser. I don't have to read that book. I might be mad about it but I don't have to read it.

Writing While Not Defaming The Dead

The whole “don’t defame the dead” campaign is understandable and was an attempt to address an issue with bad historical fiction. But it doesn't really work. I don't know if I respect any medieval king - I can feel sympathy for them, I can get annoyed by bad depictions of them, I can be fascinated by them. But I don't know if I respect them and I don't know if "respect" is a good thing for an author or historian to have if it means they hold their subject in awe and try to find a sympathetic explanation for everything they do, especially if it negatively affects how they see their subject's contemporaries.

It gives a seemingly rigid rule for storytelling when things are much more shakier than it seems. What counts as defamation? What counts as evidence? What sort of evidence is enough? Who gets to decide what is accurate and what is defamation? And the thing is: sometimes the stories we want to tell are bigger than what the historical record gives us evidence for. Sometimes the stories we want to tell are more important than the reputation of a dead person.

And using it as a guide for writing, some of it is good advice (a reminder that they were all human and real - fairly basic but then historical fiction fails this one fairly often) and some is not necessarily good advice.

No, I don't know what Edward II and Isabella of France's sex life was like. No one does. I know this is referring to various homophobic, misogynist and grotesque depictions of their sex life and it's fair to be upset about that. But it's weird to see a post primarily about historical fiction frame it "don't pretend you know" about their sex life. I'm a fiction writer, my job is pretending to know.

Sure, authors shouldn't publish a sex scene they've written with their hand down their pants* and they should be careful about how they approach depicting sex. Sure some sex scenes can be "disrespectful" (i.e. written with hands down pants) or bad but they're not all horrific. And no, I don't count rape scenes as sex scenes. But it's kinda their job as an author of fiction to work out their characters' sex lives (if their characters are having sex), even if they're based on real historical people. It's their job to work out the bits of their characters for which there is no evidence to tell. Sex is a normal, everyday part of life for a lot of people, past and present. It shouldn't be scrubbed out of historical fiction because it might lack "evidence" and we can't "know" what happened or it be construed as "disrespectful" to dead.

But despite all the words I've written criticising the concept of Don't Defame the Dead, I can't quite let go of it. There are times where I've read a shitty histfic novel and wanted to stamp the words all over the book. I don't want to be an author that causes a reader to have that reaction. I also know it's inevitable I will.

As a writer myself, I think about things. I find myself going in directions that would be considered "defamatory". Wouldn't it be cathartic if I wrote a novel about Eleanor Cobham as a good, perfect, sweet woman who is mercilessly menaced by Catherine de Valois in revenge for so many Catherine novels that demonised Eleanor? What if I depict a character's father as abusive when I don't have evidence he was? What if I decide to explore the issues around consent that a mistress might face even though we have no idea whether she consented freely or not? And apart from the first one (it's kinda baked into the concept - "write a shitty histfic novel in revenge for other shitty histfic novels" and anyway I've abandoned that impulse), I know I would handle these subjects sensitively, that I wouldn't make it a case of bogeymans and perfect victims. But in the back of my head, I hear DON'T DEFAME THE DEAD. And I wonder if I should and ultimately suppress the urge.

*unless it's on AO3.

Postscript.

Where we encounter historical fiction also primes us for how we react to it. I react very differently to someone writing whump or smut fic and posting it on AO3 or tumblr than I do encountering something that is basically whump fic or smut in a historical novel. So I feel like it needs to be said that it's absolutely okay to write whump and/or smut. They can be fun and cathartic or just plain hot. It's absolutely OK to share it on tumblr or AO3. But it's another thing to publish them in a "serious" historical fiction novel and go around talking about how the novel is based on serious research and absolutely what happened and also they're empowering feminist stories that are oh so important.

#tw rape #tw csa mention #tw abuse #tw child grooming #text posts #historical fiction venting #historical fiction

18 notes · View notes