So I'm not the only one irked by seeing modern characters popping up in period dramas. I don't know who writes the Movie Media Hub posts on Facebook, but I'm with them on this point. Not specifically feminist characters, though: any character whose function is to spout modern attitudes a few centuries ahead of their time.
I disagree about why such characters are inserted into stories. There are multiple reasons. Most obviously, it's a way for a lazy writer to get laughs. "Heh heh, it's Victorian times but Holmes just said 'OK Boomer'." Ursula K Le Guin griped about fantasy writers who put contemporary American slang into their heroes' mouths:
"...Since fantasy is seldom taken seriously at this particular era in this country, they are afraid to take it seriously. They don’t want to be caught believing in their own creations, getting all worked up about imaginary things; and so their humor becomes self-mocking, self-destructive. Their gods and heroes keep turning aside to look out of the book at you and whisper, “See, we're really just plain folks." '
It happens because some audiences are easily pleased. They are asking, as Oscar Wilde put it, for art "to please their want of taste, to flatter their absurd vanity, to tell them what they have been told before, to show them what they ought to be tired of seeing, to amuse them when they feel heavy after eating too much, and to distract their thoughts when they are wearied of their own stupidity."
Anachronism is also a quick and easy way to get the audience on-side with a character. How can you not root for the guy who's denouncing slavery in the 18th century? Well, there were indeed plenty of people denouncing slavery back then, and a good thing too, but if you are going to put them in a script they shouldn't talk like 21st century characters. Unlike us today, they exist in a world where it apparently wasn't obvious to everyone that enslaving another human being was a monstrous crime. And even if you get the mindset and the dialogue right, it's still a lazy way to create rooting interest. Consider first whether you need to start with a hero whose every attitude is right-on. We were talking about the superfluity of likeable characters in a recent post and, as a great storyteller once pointed out, it is more satisfying to see one sinner that repenteth than ninety-nine decent characters who need no repentance.
Mainly, though, I detest this trope because of its cultural chauvinism. If somebody is interested in a story with an historical and/or non-Western setting, what is the point of inserting modern Western characters? You may say we can't fully know how people in such settings would see the world. Equally, we can't all be as selfless as the Buddha but that doesn't stop us giving money to charity. We make an effort at all sorts of things we can't hope to do perfectly, so why not storytelling or roleplaying? We do know that a farmer in medieval Iceland won't share the attitudes of people at a TED talk. If we want the farmer to make a stand for something we believe in today, we should look for a way he'd credibly conceive of and frame that in the context of his times. In writing or playing such a character, we can find stepping stones that help us imagine their interior life, for example using a process that Robert Graves called analeptic mimesis, effectively taking what you know of a time and place and dreaming it back into existence. That is true even in a fantasy story, as long as it's a fantasy setting where somebody has thought out some of the culture and economics that shape it.
In his book Medieval Horizons, Dr Ian Mortimer contrasts historical accuracy with historical authenticity:
"We impose our own prejudices on the past and reinvent it as 'how it must have been' to conform with our outlook. To appeal to a modern audience, therefore, a medieval heroine in a book or film must be shown as having control over her own life. Alternatively, she must appear constantly fighting her oppressors. Male peasants must similarly include at least once plucky, Robin Hood-like character who leads the others in defying authority. The result is a reproduction of modern society draped in medieval clothing."
It might be an interesting exercise to write a modern drama but insert one character with the (imagined) attitudes of somebody from the 23rd century. Presumably even the least demanding audience member would spot something amiss then. And how would they take to having their currently fashionable beliefs scorned as antediluvian and even toxic by some supercilious git from the future?
Of course, your tastes may vary. Looking for fiction or games set in the early 19th century, do you want Middlemarch and War & Peace -- or, alternatively, are you looking for Bridgerton? Taking an imaginative leap into another society, or just dressing-up in period costume? Now you know where I stand. Still, those Regency greatcoats are jolly tempting.
I always appreciated Star Trek IV for doing the 23rd century folks in the 20th century.
ReplyDeleteNot one of my favourite Trek movies, that. I think I had my fill in the '60s of cheap episodes where the Enterprise time-travelled and/or encountered planets that were just like Earth in the Prohibition, etc. Though not all Trek time travel stories were bad -- Next Gen's "Time's Arrow" still holds up.
DeleteA thought provoking piece as always, Dave!
ReplyDeleteIt certainly seems to be the case that those most troubled by 'colonialism', commit a strange type of colonialism themselves in historical drama/ fiction i.e colonising the past with moderns.
I also think that most sci- fi stories have got the flip side of the 'insert 21st century mind in Victorian/ Medieval body' problem - they project the mindset of their own era into the far future: e.g "the 1980s in space".
And, finally, I always enjoy seeing a reference to Robert Graves! I think he employed his "analeptic mimesis" to great effect in projecting us all back to the times of Ancient Greece in "Homer's Daughter" which contains a heroine who is very much of her time - and none the less feisty and fascinating for not being feminist.
Now RG, writer of historical novels, is a character in more than one himself - I would like to think that if I met his story-twin in the pages of one of my own tales, I would be doing my best to let RG himself live and speak to us again - not dressing up some modern avatar in his stolen clothes.
I should really pay Ian Mortimer a royalty for suggesting this post, John, as it was while reading his books as research for Jewelspider that I came across the idea of what he calls Robin Hood Syndrome.
DeleteWe certainly can't accuse Robert Graves of any such error -- nor any good writer of historical fiction, come to that. I do understand why some people want to rewrite the past, but I think the very fact that human beings have often been so ghastly to each other throughout history is why we should strive for warts-n-all truth. People have had to deal with injustice and prejudice just as they've had to deal with disease and famine and underserved disasters. It's in confronting and standing up to adversity that we see humanity at its best, and we're selling the best of our forebears short if we simply indulge in a bit of cultural chauvinism to stroke ourselves for knowing better.
I'm about to embark on King Jesus, incidentally, and if it's half as good as Homer's Daughter it will be better than anything else I've read this year.
I take it that it isn't a coincidence that you're starting "King Jesus" in the run- up to Easter? Sure beats a chocolate egg.
DeleteYour mention of King Jesus, along with Homer's Daughter, made me reach for my (electronic) copy of Jean Moorcroft Wilson's biography of RG, which contains the following memorable quotation from another officer in Graves' regiment -
"He fairly got on people's nerves with his hot-air about the Battle of Loos, and his brainwaves about who really wrote the Bible...The Blighter's never satisfied unless he's turning something upside down. Do you know, I actually heard him say that Homer was a woman...And he had the damned sauce to give me a sort of pi-jaw about going out with girls in Liverpool."
So, these stories were obviously gestating in Graves' head as early as 1915. I can imagine him employing analeptic mimesis to temporarily escape from both shelling in the trenches of the Somme and the dating-scene of the dance- halls of his own modern era...
Actually. John, it is a coincidence. I'd completely forgotten about Easter (it always takes me by surprise) but have now made sure to get in some eggs -- or rather, a giant chocolate pistachio shell, that being Waitrose's Dadaesque alternative to the traditional confectionary of the season.
DeleteI see that Gen. Henry Rawlinson (nephew of the chap whose words begin Dragon Warriors book 6) also had a bee in his bonnet about the Battle of Loos, as he said: "From what I can ascertain, some of [our] divisions did actually reach the enemy's trenches, for their bodies can now be seen on the barbed wire."
To invoke the spirit of Edmund Blackadder - "I'm not convinced that Christianity would have established its firm grip over the hearts and minds of mankind, if the celestial sign by which Constantine had been told to conquer was a Waitrose Chocolate Egg!"
ReplyDeleteMr Baldrick: "No, but it would have taken a hold of their stomachs!"
Agnostic as I am, hot cross buns are on order for next weekend -- albeit stem ginger & apricot HC buns, a kind of modern-day Albigensian heresy, perhaps.
DeleteThanks also for reminding me of that Rawlinson quote, which I always liked. Now WWI has itself become the stuff of legends: tonight we are going to see "Warhorse" at the Liverpool Empire.
ReplyDeleteI should quote Rawlinson's remarks here for the benefit of those who haven't read DW. My original source was Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable, which got it from Rawlinson's Historic Evidences:
Delete'This distinction [between myths and legends] was, I believe, first taken by George in his work Mythus und Sage; Versuch einer wissenschaftlichen Entwicklung dieser Begriffe und ihres Verhältnisses zum christlichen Glauben. It is adopted by Strauss (Leben Jesu, Einleitung, § 10; vol. i. pp. 41-3, Chapman's Translation), who thus distinguishes the two : "Mythus is the creation of a fact out of an idea; legend the seeing of an idea in a fact, or arising out of it." The myth is therefore pure and absolute imagination; the legend has a basis of fact, but amplifies, abridges, or modifies that basis at its pleasure. De Wette thus expresses the difference : " Der Mythus ist eine in Thatsachen eingekleidete Idee ; die Sage enthält Thatsachen, von Ideen durchdrungen und umgebildet." (Einleitung in das alt. Test. § 136, d.) Compare Professor Powell's Third Series of Essays, Essay iii, p. 340. "A myth is a doctrine expressed in a narrative form; an abstract moral or spiritual truth dramatised in action and personification, where the object is to enforce faith, not in the parable, but in the moral."
The reference to Chapman brings us to Keats, and so to Homer, and thus back to Graves!