Artistic license: thoughts?

[analect]

All righty... in the interests of leaving some discussion open for those who want it, I have a question. How far do you take artistic license when dealing with something in a fictional context, and how much knowledge - either of the thing itself, or in terms of acknowledgement of the license you're taking - do you expect your audience to have?

I'm sure we all have different approaches here, so I'm curious.

As a kick-off point, I recently posted a story of mine that's been kicking around for a while to my journal. The Red Man is a horror short that involves references to Celtic druidism [click to read]. Though I researched a bit for the story, I don't know a lot about either historical or modern practice - however, I do have a few druid friends.

Their religious/philosophical slant is very different to the angle the story explores (notions of Awen and bardic tradition, while awesome, are not terribly horrific). So I guess you could say, here, I've taken the same kind of artistic license that The Wicker Man (the proper film; let's pretend the 2006 remake never happened) took with ideas of preserved pagan practice; i.e., it could have happened that way.

Is this something you do with different ideas? Or are you a stickler for realism and research? Does artistic license always (or ever) mean pandering to stereotypes, or is it a useful tool for playing 'what-if' with?

Comments

[holyschist]

Although even when you say "official Church line" you have to be careful, as Catholicism was not practiced the same way in Ireland as it was in Italy, even in the same era.

I'd argue that at least some of that is probably due to influence of the underlying culture--I mean, that's part of why we have lots of forms of Christianity.

And I'd see it as more likely that the sympathetic lady would question going into new territories and running off with captives to be enslaved, or abusing her slaves, or whatever, than necessarily questioning the institution that her entire world is based upon.

Yeah--or she might question it, but that doesn't make her willing (or able) to check out of the system, just as modern westerners may question the global inequality that makes the western lifestyle possible, but most can't fully check out of the system even if they truly want to. And of course a Roman lady would be very limited in her ability to advocate for any kind of social change (and a Roman man wouldn't be much better off, although you certainly get social critique).

[niniane]

Oh, yeah. Different forms of Catholicism (esp. in the Middle Ages) really did vary a lot, generally due to the established religion. (Although sometimes even due to their founders or other influences. Ireland took a hard line against slavery long before the Catholic Church as a whole did because of the influence of St. Patrick.) So while there were commonalities, even then, it's hard to say "Christian attitudes towards women" as there wasn't a standard attitude. (It would be like saying, "Classical Greek attitudes", which is rather goofy, as the experience of an Athenian woman was radically different from that of a girl off flashing her thighs in Sparta.)

It's virtually impossible to check out of any established social system. (Note all the people, like me, who fully believe in global warming, accept that it's going to destroy the world, yet still drive. I wish I didn't have to, but there's not really a viable alternative.) The same is true in all...

I'm willing to give some leeway for historical characters. But so many writers decide that their heroine is going to be this...I'm not sure...like, feminist, anti-slavery zealot. Which I suppose she could be, but this would totally alienate her from the rest of society and probably get her locked away in some tiny room in her parents' estate rather than win her supporters.

That said, it would be kind of funny to see someone write a historical novel where their hero/heroine did behave like a modern person, with modern views and then was treated as such by the people around her. ;)

[holyschist]

Well, hmmm. Modern stereotypes (allowing for variation between cultures) that have their roots in classical and medieval Christian thought, such as the beliefs that women make decisions in emotion (and that this is bad), or that women should be sexually restrained and chaste, for example. I've read Celtic-era fiction where people expressed those kinds of opinions and--well, the male heroes of Celtic myth make hot-headed decisions all the time, and the women blithely sleep around without censure (and even allowing for exaggeration on the part of the Romans, the latter is backed up with earlier historical sources). So then I find myself thinking "why do these Celts sound like medieval Englishmen/modern misogynist jerks?" and I'm thrown out of the story.

[niniane]

Some modern stereotypes have their roots in classical and medieval Christian thought. But not all. *shrugs* Definitely the idea that women are more emotional seems to come from classical thought. As did the idea that women (and men) should be restrained and chaste. (Although women often weren't assumed to be all that chaste - it was more that they should be than that they were. Many medieval primary documents seem to point out that men need to help women restrain themselves from their bestial impulses, as OMG were they ruled by lust, those crazy women!)

The Celts (or at least the Irish) definitely seemed to go for the hot headed men (who were regularly pretty stupid. Oh well...). I'd argue that the Myceneans probably did too, considering that Achilles is their main hero. And, yeah, women do sleep around (not always without censure, although sometimes), which is different. But, yeah, lots of differences. And I agree that when you get a pagan Celt behaving just like a modern day person (or Elizabethian Englishman) that it really does throw things.