These days when I finfish a book, the phrase "penny dreadfuls" comes to mind. That does not mean the book was dreadful. Quite the opposite! They were often thrilling reads, based on sensational stories.
In the 1890s, Alfred Harmsworth began publishing half penny publications, with "more respectable" content. Originally these were high minded moral tales. But before long, they too became dreadfuls, publishing stories similar to the originals. So much so that A. A. Milne, the author of Winnie the Pooh, said, "Harmsworth killed the penny dreadful by the simple process of producing the 'ha'penny dreadfuller'".
Over time, the phrase "penny dreadfuls" came to refer to any time wasting sensationalist fiction.
Today we have a tendency to regard reading as a superior activity, no matter what is being read. Those of the Victorian Era would not have agreed. That didn't mean they wouldn't read the penny dreadfuls, merely that there was a distinction between quality literature that enhanced the mind, and sensational dreadfuls that merely entertained it. One hundred years later, that distinction appears to be completely lost.
I read a lot of modern penny dreadfuls. I love thrillers and murder mysteries. I also love historical fiction. More and more frequently however, I become a bit frustrated, because the line is so blurred. I start out thinking I'm reading an account based on true history, and then find that I'm reading a thrilling tale of adventure and crime, with a mention of a historical event thrown in once or twice.
"Historical Fiction" can mean a lot of things. I remember my grandmothers bodice ripper paperbacks being referred to as "historical fiction". Adults around us would use that phrase with a smirk on their face, "Historical Fiction" meant smut, plain and simple. Bodice rippers were the 1980s version of penny dreadfuls, much more salacious than anyone could have dreamed would be commonly available in print, in 1880. By definition, those bodice rippers (so named for the photos on the covers) are true historical fiction.
"Historical fiction is a literary genre where the story takes place in the past. Historical novels capture the details of the time period as accurately as possible for authenticity, including social norms, manners, customs, and traditions. Many novels in this genre tell fictional stories that involve actual historical figures or historical events."
In other words, I expect too much when I read a book labeled Historical Fiction.
We need another category. Something between Non Fiction and Historical Fiction, where the historical events are researched and portrayed accurately, but extra fictional characters are added in, or an additional modern story line is added with historical flashbacks, preserving the integrity of the history.
The historical fiction most of us are reading today is, in my mind, more dangerous than the smut our parents were hiding from us 50 years ago. Todays historical fiction distorts history completely. [ahem.... Marie Benedict. Although perhaps it is unfair to call her out, she's far from alone - she just happens to write about a lot of my favorite Pennsylvania based subjects, and therefore draws my ire more than most.]
Actual historical events as we know them have been distorted and sensationalized until there is no distinction between fact and fiction. It's hard not to confuse the two even when you have read the historical background. Stories make an impact, facts are forgotten. That's just our nature.
We start to believe that we are reading noble, educational, works, learning as we are entertained, when in fact, we're all reading nothing more than penny dreadfuls. Even worse, history is being rewritten in our minds, facts completely lost in exchange for salacious stories.
That seems unnecessary, when you realize how many salacious stories already fill our factual history.
No comments:
Post a Comment