Historical Info for Historical Fiction Readers discussion

Victorian Background

1. The Victorian era in England is widely considered to have begun with the passing of the Poor Law in 1832, despite the fact that Victoria became Queen in June of 1837.

2. It was a time of great change. The century saw the change from an agricultural lifestyle to city life and industrial work for vast numbers of people.

3. While Victorians are seen as prudish by today's standards, they considered themselves to be progressive. Example: In the Regency era a bit before, waltzing was considered to be immoral, however, Victorians waltzed late into the night. More: http://englishepochs.blogspot.com/201...

4. Early in Victoria's reign, the telegraph and railroads were coming into existence making huge changes in people's lives. Previously, few people had ever traveled more than ten miles from home.

See Gary's post below. Much more on the huge changes of the time.

Thank you for the information! It's just what I need now that my next heroine turned out to be from Victorian England.

More, please :)

This is great, Debs. Thanks for sharing this information. x

Debs I so wish you could visit a place called ‘York Castle Museum’. As the name suggests it is in ‘York’, UK. They have a recreated Victorian street. All the old shops and homes, cobbled streets and even a candle making workshop. You would absolutely love it. I will see if I can find some pictures for you.

Elizabeth wrote: "Debs I so wish you could visit a place called ‘York Castle Museum’ ...

Did you know the word "shambles" comes from the section of York where animals were butchered and sold? The mess and stink created the word - such a perfect-sounding word, no wonder it has stuck!

Barbara Kyle
http://www.barbarakyle.com

:-) Sounds dreadful, lol, but you are right, Barbara, it was a street of butchers.

The hooks still hang from the buildings down the shambles. Have you been into Margaret Clitheroes house? It is in the Shambles - quite an experience. x

Elizabeth wrote: Have you been into Margaret Clitheroes house? It is in..."

Yup! For an author, there's nothing quite like walking in the footsteps of our characters, whether real or fictional, is there?

You are so right, Barbara.
That is absolutely the best part of writing Historical Fiction.

Taking a modern day location back in time and seeing it through what ‘we’ the author perceive it to have been like in another time.
The magic of Historical fiction:-) x

Just reading this discussion I feel as if thrown a few centuries back. Pleasantly so ;)

(I think the "cobbled streets" did it for me :))

I adore cobbled streets. We live in a very old farmhouse in the Scottish Borders and all the courtyards and driveway used to cobbled.

A few still remain.

They are not good for high heels or those not steady on their feet though. x Must have been really tough in winter when they iced over.

lol, that's what I love the most about historical fiction. The reality vs legend. People would watch a movie and think how beautiful and romantic the life back than was. But it wasn't like that and a good historical fiction would show how uncomfortable the cobbled streets were in winter :)

(all this to conceal the fact that I'm green with envy at your farmhouse somewhere near Scotland ;). We live in the city and hate every minute of it)

Funny you should mention the romance of the past, Zoe. My husband and I were just talking last night about some of the old out houses we use for storage. From the outside they look so quaint and idyllic, stone built and tiny little windows. But open the door and go inside and they are as black as pitch, dirt floors and crawling with spiders and mice. Can’t have been an easy life trying to live in them and so very cold in the winter.

Exactly! :)

I woke up to all this chat, which has been like dessert after the Victorian post- bringing it all to life! Thank you so much for making it all real. What a fabulous group this will be.

Thank you, Debs for starting the group and for the invite!


Such a wonderful idea. x Hope your day is just perfect. x

Farida wrote: "Thank you for the information! It's just what I need now that my next heroine turned out to be from Victorian England."

Farida, isn't it funny the way the characters make the decisions?

I have a Victorian and Regency era set of Hangman Games here: http://englishepochs.blogspot.com/201....

It is fun and even if you don't know all the answers, you may learn some!

Debra wrote: "Farida wrote: "Thank you for the information! It's just what I need now that my next heroine turned out to be from Victorian England."

Farida, isn't it funny the way the characters make the decisi..."

Absolutely! I was very much surprised by such a turn of events :D

Here is what "Horrible Histories" have to say about the Victorians ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y121UI...

The Victorian Era (1837-1901) was a period of great socio-economic and technological change, especially in the industrialized West. Take a look back at the way the average European—country folk, townspeople, or city-dwellers—lived between 1600 and 1800; the changes won’t seem that significant. On the other hand, the difference between 1800 and 1900 was dramatic and profound.

Scientific and technological progress that had plodded along for centuries seemed to kick into high gear in the 19th century, especially following the Napoleonic Wars. Steamships replaced sail cutting the transatlantic crossing from weeks to days, railways reduced a day’s journey to hours, the telegraph and later the telephone and wireless made communications over long distances instantaneous. Gas and electricity transformed dark urban areas into cities of light. Improvements in public sanitation, medical practice, surgery, obstetrics and dentistry made it possible for many to live longer and healthier lives.

There was social advancement as well, with the emancipation of slaves and the beginning of the modern women’s movement. But there was a dark side to progress; rapid industrialization swelled the ranks of the working poor; men, women and children toiled long hours in abominable conditions. Factories and mills polluted the air and water, railroads and rank canals spoiled the countryside. Those changes were well documented in the literature of the time, for example Dickens’ “Hard Times” and Zola’s “Germinal.” Bad working and living conditions bred discontent, giving rise to organized crime, anarchy, General Strikes, rebellion and revolution. Industrialization and scientific advancement also led to the development of bigger, better and more efficient killing machines, culminating in the horrors of the First World War.

On the brighter side, there were fascinating changes in taste and fashion, art, literature and music. Painting, for example, went through several phases, from the Neo-Classical, Romantic, and Neo-Gothic, followed by the Pre-Raphaelites, the Aesthetic Movement and the Impressionists. Finally, at the end of the era, we see the beginnings of Expressionism and the Abstract.

As a writer of historical fiction focused on the 19th century, I try to research my chosen period thoroughly, avoiding anachronisms. Fortunately, there are plenty of resources available, especially now that we have the internet. Nevertheless, a writer needs to be cautious, choosing reliable sources for research. Even so, a glitch here and there may be unavoidable, but with sufficient care one hopefully avoids the glaring whoppers.
The Flower to the Painter

Many thanks for your comments, Gary. Glad to have you here.

You're welcome, Debra. And thank you for moderating this interesting and informative group!

Gary

Karen Wasylowski's article gives some wonderful information about Victorian Christmas traditions, with some lovely illustrations. Please go to the English Historical Fiction Authors blog here: http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot... This week's giveaway is Katherine Ashe's MONTFORT: The Early Years-once you've read the article, go to the giveaway and leave a comment for a chance to win.

Mary Lydon Simonsen's article gives a glimpse of how the railroads affected England. Please visit the English Historical Fiction Authors blog today! http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot... While you're there, be sure to enter the giveaway for a chance to win THERE YOUR HEART WILL BE ALSO by Felicia Rogers.

Gary wrote: "Even so, a glitch here and there may be unavoidable, but with sufficient care one hopefully avoids the glaring whoppers. "

Exactly so. I recently read a book which referred to a "king of England" in 1878 ... a time when there was most definitely no king. The author was referring to the Prince of Wales (who became king in 1901) and was most put out when I called out this particular error in a review. Her argument was that she had researched the book meticulously but decided to use "creative license" because her readers would not understand that the Prince of Wales was royalty.

I'm sorry, but this is simply beyond my comprehension. Given that most of us know who Prince Charles is, and that he is the Prince of Wales, how could someone *not* grasp that the Prince of Wales is royalty? And why would someone "meticulously research" something and then make an authorial decision to put something in the book that is blatantly wrong?

Yes, it's possible to get a bum source once in a great while. However, I found that particular error to be inexcusable, and more so after the "explanation" -- because it was done deliberately.

Sad, really.

I agree with you, Sharon.

Considering that literary and folk lore tradition is permeated with things like fairy tales, historical stories, et cetera that feature princes, I find it hard to believe that anyone would not understand the idea that a prince was royalty even if they didn't know Prince Charles from George Bush.

That author's explanation is one of the most odd I've heard in a while for a major factual deviation.

I also agree, Sharon. It's especially odd since 1878 was smack dab in the middle of the Victorian Era. Referring to Victoria's son Edward as "King" more than twenty years before he actually became king is much more than "creative license," it's downright ludicrous. It would be like a contemporary writer referring to the present Prince of Wales as "King Charles," and then excusing the blunder by saying, "Well, folks might not think Charles is royalty because he isn't a king." Gimme a break.

I'm afraid that sort of thing only works in Speculative Historical Fiction, where the author is intentionally re-writing history with a "What if?" scenario. Such as "What if the South won the Civil War and Jefferson Davis became President of the U.S." etc.

Gary wrote: "I'm afraid that sort of thing only works in Speculative Historical Fiction, where the author is intentionally re-writing history with a "What if?" scenario. Such as "What if the South won the Civil War and Jefferson Davis became President of the U.S." etc.
"

Exactly -- and it was not that kind of a book. I gave the book three stars, because the overall concept was good. However, I did call out in the review that one star was specifically knocked off because of the "king" business. It bugged the hell out of me. The author's response convinced me that I didn't need to read any of the rest of the series. :-(

Sharon wrote: "Gary wrote: "I'm afraid that sort of thing only works in Speculative Historical Fiction, where the author is intentionally re-writing history with a "What if?" scenario. Such as "What if the South ..."

And you were quite right to be bugged. As a writer of Historical Fiction, I believe a certain amount of creative license ought to be allowed, especially when you're dealing with ancient history where "facts" are fuzzy, or when you're writing about legendary characters who "might" have been real people like King Arthur, Roland and Oliver, Hector and Achilles, etc.

But 1878 was in the modern era. England had a Queen and a Prince of Wales, and they were both quite famous. To write otherwise in something other than a speculative historical re-imagining is simply an error or misstatement of fact that ought to have been corrected.

Did she seem to understand the era otherwise?

Debra wrote: "Did she seem to understand the era otherwise?"

At times, yes. There were some anachronistic phrases referring to period things (e.g., calling a workhouse a "homeless shelter" and the Paris cemetery registry a "funeral parlor." Perhaps she presumed that was the only way her readers would understand? I don't know.). Part of the book took place in France and part of it in England. She seemed not to have spent much of her research time on England, from what I could tell. That said, I was not in her head and don't know for sure (obviously). The thing was, I had wanted very much to like the book; the author was someone I knew slightly on-line and who seemed like a very nice person. I had promised to give an honest review, and when I did she turned into something of a harridan. :-(

:(

Sharon wrote: "Debra wrote: "Did she seem to understand the era otherwise?"

At times, yes. There were some anachronistic phrases referring to period things (e.g., calling a workhouse a "homeless shelter" and th..."

Calling a workhouse a homeless shelter isn't just anachronistic, they aren't the same thing. People don't work at a contemporary homeless shelter. In fact, the homeless are kicked out of the shelter during the day and expected to look for work.

I'm sort of shaking my head as I read this. A King of England in 1878? Really?

As an author myself, I know what pains I had to go through to get everything just right. I had probably five editors, one with a degree in 19th c. Social history, three of which were English, one an Australian who had a degree in Language and taught at a university level in London. It was recently pointed out to me by a friend in the UK that I had two anachronisms and one Americanism remaining in my book. (I thank her for this, btw.) The anachronisms? The use of the word "pled" instead of "pleaded" (two instances) and the Americanism was the word "gotten" instead of a "to be" verb. And that was it. I can only imagine how much worse it might have been had I not surrounded myself with people in the know, and done my homework. I'm not here to toot my own horn; my point is, if you're not English and you're not an expert on English history or historical fiction, you'd better learn to be, because if it's not dead on, people will let you know, it will go in your reviews and your credibility will be at stake.

Besides that, as a reader, there's nothing more jarring than being pulled out of a story because something jars. When I read, I want to immerse myself in the setting, I want to feel like I'm there or could be. But a king in England in 1878? I'm sorry, that's...Well, it's disrespectful to Victoria, for one thing, and to all that was accomplished by her (and Albert) in the Victorian era. There was an Edwardian era, and it did start, at least socially, before Edward took the throne, but 1878 is pushing it. And pushing it hard.

I hate to assume it was a self-published book, but...er...can I assume it was a self-published book?

No, I totally agree with you. TOTALLY. And neither do I think it's an excuse. In fact it makes me a little angry, because, being an independent myself, what we want most is to remove the stigma of decreased quality. Literary license is all well and good, but I, like you, have rearranged an entire timeline to coincide with events that actually took place. Wikipedia and other sources (archived newspapers are my new favorite source) will give rundowns of major events in a given year. Things like blizzards, which in the UK would have seriously affected the economy, travel, social events, etc, should not be ignored. Ok. So who's going to remember the weather? That's one thing. But what about a major event? Victoria's Diamond Jubilee, or, the event which affected my own work the most, the opening of what we now know as "The Tube", an important, and ultimately life changing event for those who lived and worked in London at the time. Could I have said it happened in 1892 instead of 1890 (which was the original year I wanted my story set.) Well...I could...but I'd really rather not get called out on it. There are people who know these things and it will always be blamed upon the fact that 1) I'm 'self-published' or 2) (my favorite) I'm an American. You can't flub history, and particularly if it's a country you're not native to.

Now I sound like a pedant. I hope I'm not. I just think it's like anything else in life, you have to prove yourself. Being published is an honor, and being read an even greater one. As independents, our standards (at least for ourselves) should be higher. Readers are the new gatekeepers, and we're insulting them if we don't put out our very best work.

I might add...that most of the anachronisms and inconsistencies I see don't have anything to do with events or inventions, but with social attitudes. Our modern idea of intersexual relationships is not the same as it was then. A man and woman did not share a cab and then rip each others clothes off for a little roll in the...cab?...before (dressing again, corsets and all) arriving at a ball. It just didn't happen. Extreme example, I know, but...it bears saying. ;)

OK, so maybe a lighter subject?

Does anyone have any favorite events of the period? Interesting facts? What attracts you most to the Victorian era? Is it costume? Is it etiquette and manners? Is it the idea of gentlemen as gentlemen? (What happened to those, btw?) Is it the idea of transportation by horse and carriage or train?

What is it? Tell me.

V.r. wrote: "No, I totally agree with you. TOTALLY. And neither do I think it's an excuse. In fact it makes me a little angry, because, being an independent myself, what we want most is to remove the stigma of ..."

Okay, I think I accidentally deleted my original post in the process of removing a duplicate, LOL. Goodreads is clearly acting up. I'll see if I can recreate it at some point.

V.r. wrote: "OK, so maybe a lighter subject?

Does anyone have any favorite events of the period? Interesting facts? What attracts you most to the Victorian era? Is it costume? Is it etiquette and manners? Is ..."

For me, it's the manners and mores. It's interesting to see how we evolve (or devolve) through time and across cultures. The lower and upper class attitudes in Victorian England, for example, were far more alike than either was like the middle class which arose during the period.

Social customs like how to behave at a ball and the like fascinate me.

V.r. wrote: "I'm sort of shaking my head as I read this. A King of England in 1878? Really?

As an author myself, I know what pains I had to go through to get everything just right. I had probably five editors,..."

Trying to recreate the lengthy rant I went on is not going to work, LOL. Yes, it was a self-published book, but (as previously noted) I think that makes it even more incumbent to get it right. It just adds to the stigma against indies if someone gets it wrong.

And with that, I will pick up my soapbox and walk away, LOL.

Sharon, I saw your original post. and now I see Goodreads is duplicating me, as well. Hmmm.

It's the manners and mores for me as well. and it makes me wonder if the current resurgence in Historical Fiction, in drama and in film, doesn't have something to do with our society missing, even if it's subconscious, some element of civility in our own day and age. It's a thought. But one I think about a lot.

Can you elaborate on the similarities you see in the upper and lower classes in contrast to the middle class? That's an interesting thought, and I'd like to hear more.

V.r. wrote: "Can you elaborate on the similarities you see in the upper and lower classes in contrast to the middle class? That's an interesting thought, and I'd like to hear more. "

I'll stay with Victorian England to keep with the subject matter. :-)

One example is diction. The lower classes and upper classes both dropped their ending "g" on words like "hunting" and "fishing." The upper classes enjoyed similar entertainment to the lower class; "slummin'" was a hobby for many gentlemen, who would go to dockside alehouses and the like.

The middle class, on the other hand, were very particular in their elocution, such that instructors were sought to teach it, and held such starchy ideas about morals that they covered the legs of their pianos and referred to them as "limbs." Seriously. The word "leg" was something that should not be said in a lady's presence. When people think about the Victorian era and its manners/morality, they are inevitably thinking about the middle class.

I still occasionally see holdovers for the manners, particularly in ballroom dance. I do period ballroom, but even in modern ballroom it happens. My former instructor called me one evening to see if I could come to a dance because he had a dearth of ladies (an unusual circumstance), so I changed clothes, grabbed shoes and went. A very nice, elderly Asian man came over and bowed to me. "Dear lady, I know we have not been properly introduced," quoth he. "I wonder whether you would be so kind as to dance with a stranger."

I still smile when I think about it. And he could really dance!

That's funny! The thing I think of most when it comes to the middle classes is how over the top they were about everything. They had those books to tell them what the upper classes did as far as etiquette and so they strove to do it better than they. An upper class person would never need a book to tell them how to behave! The lower classes, of course, were not so concerned with keeping up appearances. They had more to worry about than that. But it is an interesting comparison. I find the whole class system, and the exceptions to it and challenges to it, intriguing. I love it when people say, "That could never happen!" And then you show them how it did indeed happen...

I find the preconceptions that many people have, because of the starchy middle class, a bit frustrating at times for that reason. I think, at least I like to think, they've been rather misrepresented over the years. There was a lot going on behind the scenes that was down right riveting. which is why they're so fun to write about.

Great discussion and I must run, but to answer one question: What happened to gentlemanly manners? I am old enough to have seen a big change in that. I feel that that occurred when some feminists spoke up that they resented having doors held open for them and packages carried. They were strong enough to do so for themselves. I noticed a big change at the time. Men quit picking up what I dropped and asking if this or that was too heavy for me. Gender deference changed. Men must now be confused when they read us saying that we miss the gentlemen of the past! My opinion.

Debra wrote: "Great discussion and I must run, but to answer one question: What happened to gentlemanly manners? I am old enough to have seen a big change in that. I feel that that occurred when some feminists s..."

My attitude on "who opens the door" is "who got there first?" I'll hold the door if I get there first, and for *anyone* who has their arms loaded down. That is not so much an issue to me as seats on public transit. I have seen apparently healthy young men refuse to give up their seats for elderly folk, pregnant ladies in particular, or women in general on our local BART trains. On London's tube, it's quite the opposite. Gentlemen fell all over themselves to make sure I had a seat on a crowded train -- one which I would give up for an older person in a minute.

Unfortunately, I think that people are just not taught basic consideration of others anymore. While I loathed the repetitions of what I still call the Little Lady Lecture(TM) as a kid (as in, "You will sit quietly with your hands in your lap and behave like a little lady" during whatever it was -- and I especially hated being dragged around when my mother paid calls on people who had no kids and nothing to keep me occupied), somehow I managed to survive the whole thing, LOL.

Debra, they are. And I agree that it had to do with the women's liberation thing and free love. Women actually gave up their power of influence in favor of equivalence, which is not the same as equality. I think it's sad. I don't want to be ungrateful for all that was done in the cause of women, but it seems that at some point we quit trying to raise men to higher standards and instead stooped to theirs. Are things better now? In some ways, but I often get the feeling men actually really resent women now. As if we've let them down somehow. I, too, would like to see the return of the gentleman. I'm ok with chivalry.

"Unfortunately, I think that people are just not taught basic consideration of others anymore."

Agreed. Manners are important. Respect for others is important. But people live for themselves these days, and if there are consequences, it must be someone else's fault.

I loved the chivalry of the past, even in my younger years, but where there was chivalry on the right hand, there was sexual harassment on the left. That was very widespread. I am much more comfortable now in many situations than I was then because that has improved. Or maybe it is just that I am too old to be harassed. :)

I'm not sure about that. I mean, there have always been the uncouth, examples such as in North and South come to mind, and there was always the cad. The difference to my mind is that you had a right to tell them to stop, and if they didn't somebody was going to exact revenge. It isn't that way today and if some guy wants to stop you and make snide comments and harass and be vulgar, there's nothing you can really do about it. Besides which, I think society is far more sexually charged than it ever was before. Every encounter has the potential for some kind of opportunity for somebody. I find it tiring.