The Physician
question
Historical Accuracy
Lucie
Sep 08, 2014 06:05AM
upfront: I'm not a historian or even a history geek. but I like historical fiction and books about history.
What baffles me is, that apparently there are so many flaws as to the accuracy of historical facts in there, that even though the story is ok, it gets ruined by that. I only knew about one mistake in there and deliberately didn't read any reviews with that topic upfront. But even so it was hard believing anything in this book if you know that one thing hasn't been researched properly enough.
First: Can somebody confirm or deny the statement about the historical flaws?
Second: Do you think a historical book should be based solely on facts or can it be also partly fictional?
What baffles me is, that apparently there are so many flaws as to the accuracy of historical facts in there, that even though the story is ok, it gets ruined by that. I only knew about one mistake in there and deliberately didn't read any reviews with that topic upfront. But even so it was hard believing anything in this book if you know that one thing hasn't been researched properly enough.
First: Can somebody confirm or deny the statement about the historical flaws?
Second: Do you think a historical book should be based solely on facts or can it be also partly fictional?
Gordon states (I think in a foreword or afterword to the book) that, if he didn't have historical background for a detail, he made up what he felt was needed.
I admit that I was briefly bothered by the notion that someone might take notice of New Year's day on 1 January at the time the story takes place. TTBOMK, the year was reckoned to begin in March in that era. It's not a big deal, but it seemed to me if Gordon was unaware of that, there would be other known historical points that he either didn't care about or couldn't be bothered to research.
I enjoyed the tale anyway. Most authors of historical fiction take liberties when it suits their story. You might want to call it "more-or-less historical but mainly fiction" if that helps.
And, I daresay, less inaccurate than the movie.
I admit that I was briefly bothered by the notion that someone might take notice of New Year's day on 1 January at the time the story takes place. TTBOMK, the year was reckoned to begin in March in that era. It's not a big deal, but it seemed to me if Gordon was unaware of that, there would be other known historical points that he either didn't care about or couldn't be bothered to research.
I enjoyed the tale anyway. Most authors of historical fiction take liberties when it suits their story. You might want to call it "more-or-less historical but mainly fiction" if that helps.
And, I daresay, less inaccurate than the movie.
Well, as long as the book hasn't been listed as a biography or a documentary, it is merely fiction, regardless if historical or not, especially in a book that also has fantasy elements.
I read this book several years ago and some things are fading, but I remember being quite excited to see details that I had studied in History of Medicine, which doesn't mean that I can spot if every single detail there was historically accurate.
I have no clue exactly which "mistake" you're referring to, but there's nothing to "believe" in a fictional book. Naturally, when the author didn't properly research the historical atmosphere that he/she's using as background, readers with deep historical knowledge may feel disappointed. I tend to keep in mind that it's not supposed to be a history book, but a novel.
I read this book several years ago and some things are fading, but I remember being quite excited to see details that I had studied in History of Medicine, which doesn't mean that I can spot if every single detail there was historically accurate.
I have no clue exactly which "mistake" you're referring to, but there's nothing to "believe" in a fictional book. Naturally, when the author didn't properly research the historical atmosphere that he/she's using as background, readers with deep historical knowledge may feel disappointed. I tend to keep in mind that it's not supposed to be a history book, but a novel.
A bit of a spoiler, but not a major one. It could be in a trailer or detailed synopsis.
Ibn Sina/Avicenna learns of a plague that is spreading. He is determined to stop it from coming to his town. He knows he must stay in case he’s needed.
He decides to send one physician, 4 good students and 4 bad students. The bad students are sent so they may have a chance to redeem themselves. He gives them instructions for how to keep themselves clean. He also reminds them to wash their hands because in the Koran, it says the Devil hides under the finger nails. He tells them to stay a month in quarantine before returning. Most astonishing of all, he says “You must keep careful notes, for those who will fight the next plague. And you must leave them where they will be found if something should happen to you.” Page 424-425
How much of this can be true? It would be amazing if he knew all of these things beforehand. How did he learn these things? How much of this did he really know? Did he have the foresight to warn them of these things before?
Ibn Sina/Avicenna learns of a plague that is spreading. He is determined to stop it from coming to his town. He knows he must stay in case he’s needed.
He decides to send one physician, 4 good students and 4 bad students. The bad students are sent so they may have a chance to redeem themselves. He gives them instructions for how to keep themselves clean. He also reminds them to wash their hands because in the Koran, it says the Devil hides under the finger nails. He tells them to stay a month in quarantine before returning. Most astonishing of all, he says “You must keep careful notes, for those who will fight the next plague. And you must leave them where they will be found if something should happen to you.” Page 424-425
How much of this can be true? It would be amazing if he knew all of these things beforehand. How did he learn these things? How much of this did he really know? Did he have the foresight to warn them of these things before?
Lucie wrote: "What baffles me is, that apparently there are so many flaws as to the accuracy of histo..."
The kind of demand for accuracy you're talking about is fine to apply to any situation where the storytelling isn't great or the tale isn't so rare.
If there were hundreds of books focusing on the medieval middle-east --the way Regency-era England is covered--that'd be different.
This is a case where not even adamant history nerds have ever spoken out against a book because it is that well-realized.
The author 'gets a free pass' because he took on a timeperiod and attempted a plot that hardly anyone ever tries.
And he wrote this before the internet was available.
The kind of demand for accuracy you're talking about is fine to apply to any situation where the storytelling isn't great or the tale isn't so rare.
If there were hundreds of books focusing on the medieval middle-east --the way Regency-era England is covered--that'd be different.
This is a case where not even adamant history nerds have ever spoken out against a book because it is that well-realized.
The author 'gets a free pass' because he took on a timeperiod and attempted a plot that hardly anyone ever tries.
And he wrote this before the internet was available.
I don't like historical mistakes that are easily avoided, like drinking apple brandy before distillation was used for drinks or cooking a Jewish dish with capsicum powder before that ingredient was brought from America.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
Mar 26, 2020 10:44AM · flag