Hello,
everyone!! It’s Louise here again, and believe
it or not, this post marks my final contribution to the Heroines of Fantasy blog for the year. Where has the time gone, I wonder?!
After scratching
my head and wondering how best to mark the occasion, I’ve decided to go back to
basics and look at the roots of the historical novel.
I’m sure
I’ve confessed previously that before I started writing historical fiction, I
hadn’t really read much when it came to this particular genre. It was only when I started work on Fire and Sword that I started exploring
the genre and it was then that I finally discovered what exactly I’d been missing
through the years! In 2004, I became a
great fan of Hilary Mantel’s work when I read her novel of the the French
Revolution, A Place of Greater Safety, and it was around the same time that I
discovered the work of Linda Proud, who writes about Renaissance Florence.
But there remained
a yawning chasm in my ‘Have Read’ shelves, and that was the classic works of historical fiction written by my
fellow Scots.
This is,
perhaps, a bit of an exaggeration. Through
the years, I’d read a bit of Tranter. I’d
read a bit of Dorothy Dunnett’s list, too (her work is top of my ‘To Read’ list
for 2015). I’d read some of the classic
Scots historical novels like Robert Louise Stevenson’s Kidnapped and John Galt’s Ringan
Gilhaizie. And I'd really enjoyed the historical novels of Reay Tannahill. But I’d never read the
classic Scottish novels penned by the father of historical fiction writing
himself: Sir Walter Scott.
So over the
summer, I’ve been reading Scott’s first novel Waverley.
I’ll admit
it right now. I’m a modern reader, with
modern literary tastes. Though I find a
lot of contemporary writing a bit too fast for my liking, I find big, heavy 19th
century novels quite difficult and – dare I say it! – too tedious to be what
I’d call a fun read.
Soon as I
opened it, I realised that Waverley was precisely that kind of novel. Reading it soon became a chore: I found the
hero exasperating, and the level of description exhaustive. Despite this, I persisted. Before long, I found myself relating to the book not
as a reader, but as an archaeologist. I found Scott's picture of mid-18th
century Scotland incredible for the amount of detailed information it gave about the
times Scott himself lived in, and about the Jacobite Rebellion, which was a
period still considered to be in the recent past by his reckoning.
Scott’s
depiction of Scotland’s past still resonates in the present, colouring the way
in which our native country is viewed both at home and abroad.
As I chugged my way doggedly through, there came a point when I realised
that it had shaped Scotland’s literature, too, to the extent that when I looked
with a critical eye at Waverley, I can
see its resonances echoing even in my own book, Fire & Sword. The relationship between the hero of Waverley – Edward Waverley – and the
anti-hero, Fergus Mac-Ivor, paved the way for a juxtaposition between hero and anti-hero which is more familiar to us all, I think: the dynamic between the upright,
honest Davie Balfour and the swaggering, charismatic Allan Breck Stewart (who
was based on a real historical figure) in Robert Louis Stevenson’s Kidnapped.
When I
wrote Fire and Sword, it wasn’t my intention
of continuing this tradition. If
anything, I wanted to react against it.
But when I look afresh at my own novel , I see that one of the key themes
is the way in which the young,
inexperienced John Sempill of Ellestoun (who tries hard to do the right thing
and uphold the chivalric code he values so highly) finds himself allied with
Hugh, 2nd Lord Montgomerie – a man whose morality is dubious to say the
least, and who can at best prove unreliable and at worst downright treacherous. With this relationship underpinning the story, I can’t help thinking that somewhere along the
line, my muse must have tapped into this long-standing tradition and created
something which pays homage to it.
As writers,
we strive to be original, to create something completely new and
unfamiliar. But we’re just the latest in a
long line of literary craftspeople, and however hard we try, we can’t escape
the past entirely. It shapes us, makes
us what and who we are. Sometimes
it’s good to just sit back and take stock, and to realise where exactly we fit in
with those who have gone before.
1 comment:
I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who has a hard time reading the classics as a modern reader. It's so hard to get into that headspace when our own is all we have. I think those who stick with it, like you, find the flow, become accustomed to those things we don't experience in modern fiction. I'm still trying, now and then, to catch that flow. I read The Great Gatsby and, try as I did, I could not find the greatness and awe with which it is regarded. I've tried Virginia Wolff and Harriet Beecher Stowe--blrgh. Maybe the same gene that makes me like only wine that tastes like juice also gives me an "immature" reader-sense.
Post a Comment