14. Historical Fiction

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: In this episode of The Rest is History, hosts Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook explore historical fiction, sparked by Tom's controversial dismissal of Patrick O'Brian. They debate the genre's role as a gateway to history, its accuracy, narrative voice, and influence on popular understanding of periods. They cover classics like War and Peace, I, Claudius, and Flashman, along with modern works like Hilary Mantel's Wolf Hall. The conversation examines whether historical fiction is inherently conservative, the challenge of ventriloquizing pre-modern voices, and counterfactual history. They conclude by choosing Walter Scott's Waverley and Antonia Fraser's King Arthur as foundational books to preserve for future civilization.

Main Topics: Historical Fiction as a Gateway to History (Priority: 5/5): Tom and Dominic discuss how historical fiction, especially in childhood, sparks interest in real history—citing Ladybird books, Rosemary Sutcliffe's Eagle of the Ninth, and G.A. Henty's imperial adventures. They note that these narratives often set up myths later debunked, but remain effective primers. Patrick O'Brian and the Aubrey-Maturin Debate (Priority: 4/5): Dominic defends Patrick O'Brian's novels; Tom dismisses them as tedious due to excessive nautical detail ('rope'). This disagreement frames the episode's central tension between historical authenticity and narrative engagement. Accuracy vs. Artistic License in Historical Fiction (Priority: 5/5): The hosts argue that responsibility to facts is secondary to the novel's artistic integrity, except in recent/traumatic events. They praise works like Colson Whitehead's The Underground Railroad for weaving fantasy into history, and critique Bernard Cornwell's characters as 21st-century liberals in disguise. Narrative Voice and Ventriloquizing the Past (Priority: 4/5): They explore first-person vs. omniscient narration, with I, Claudius and Mary Renault's The Persian Boy as successful examples. The challenge of making pre-modern voices credible without anachronism is central, with anachronistic detective novels (Lindsey Davis) offered as one solution. Counterfactual History and Its Value (Priority: 3/5): Counterfactuals like Robert Harris's Fatherland, Kingsley Amis's The Alteration, and Kim Stanley Robinson's The Years of Rice and Salt are discussed as playful but serious explorations of what-if scenarios. Tom notes they often critique the genre's own absurdity. Is Historical Fiction Inherently Conservative? (Priority: 4/5): Dominic questions whether looking backward is conservative; Tom points to Scott and Tolkien as conservative examples, but notes Tolstoy and Dickens are ambiguous. They discuss how moral taboos now limit what can be depicted (e.g., Flashman's racism/sexism). Influential Works That Shaped Public Understanding (Priority: 3/5): Key novels that molded popular perception: A Tale of Two Cities (French Revolution), Ivanhoe (Saxon-Norman conflict), Gone with the Wind (antebellum South), and The Virginian (Wild West). These books are argued to have more impact than academic history.

Key Arguments: Historical fiction is a 'gateway drug' that often creates simplified myths later complicated by real history. Accuracy is secondary to artistic quality, except in recent/traumatic events; an obsession with facts is a recent (Scott-influenced) expectation. The best historical fiction makes the past feel alive and strange, not just a backdrop for modern sensibilities (critique of Bernard Cornwell's Uhtred). First-person narration can work if the voice has integrity; Mary Renault's queer perspective adds authenticity to her ancient Greek novels. Counterfactual history is valuable for exploring contingency and critiquing determinism, though often focused on 'great men' rather than long-term forces. The genre's conservatism stems from looking backward with love, but some works (like A Tale of Two Cities) are ambivalent, attacking both aristocratic oppression and revolutionary terror. Works like Flashman have become historical artifacts themselves, revealing changing attitudes toward empire and morality.

Data Points: Pages of 'rope' that caused loss of will to live: 30 pages - Tom Holland cites giving up on Patrick O'Brian after 30 pages of nautical detail, sparking the episode's central debate. Years between events and publication for A Tale of Two Cities: ~50 years - Dominic notes Dickens wrote about the French Revolution roughly 50 years after, allowing natural idiom without archaic affectation. Age of author when writing first historical novel (Antonia Fraser's King Arthur): 20s - Dominic reveals Antonia Fraser wrote her King Arthur book in her 20s, banging out 500 words nightly before going out. Word count per night for Fraser's King Arthur: 500 words - Dominic recalls Fraser's anecdote of writing 500 words on Sir Lancelot each night before partying. Number of Booker prizes won by Hilary Mantel: 2 (at time of recording; she later won a third) - Dominic mentions Mantel's two Bookers while discussing research-heavy style, though he notes she 'might have won three.'

Pivotal Quotes: "Everyone tells me they're great, he wrote on Twitter, but honestly, after 30 pages of rope, I had lost the will to live." — Tom Holland: Tom reading his own controversial tweet about Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series, which prompted listener uproar and led to this episode. "I think historical fiction that I tend not to like is condescending. It's historical fiction that is condescending towards the culture of the age." — Tom Holland: Tom criticizes novels whose protagonists are 21st-century skeptics planted in the past, specifically calling out Bernard Cornwell's Uhtred as a '21st-century guy trapped in a half-Saxon.' "The pain of parting is nothing to the joy of meeting again." — Charles Dickens (quoted by the producer): The producer writes this fortune-cookie-style quote from Nicholas Nickleby, prompting Dominic to joke that Dickens is being dismissed as a 'fortune cookie.'

Implications: Listeners should recognize historical fiction as both a gateway and a distorting lens. The genre's value lies in making the past strange, not comfortable. Future writers must navigate moral taboos and anachronism carefully—but artistic freedom should trump pedantic accuracy, especially for periods before the novel's invention.