Pages

Friday, January 31, 2025

Unpopular Opinion - History Is History, and Fiction Should Reflect That

Many years ago, I did something I've regretted ever since. I posted a review of a book by a self-published author that was kind of mean. The book wasn't all that good, but I shouldn't have been as snarky as I was in writing the review. I've tried to remember since then that there is a person behind the author's name on the book and to be a little less unkind, even if I didn't like their work.

I may break that rule for this book - Girl in a Cage by Jane Yolen and Robert J. Harris.

Actually, I'm not even going to talk that much about the book; there are some things about it I didn't care for,  but nothing worth breaking my rule. But the thing that just burns my butter is how the authors play fast and loose with history. 

The "girl in the cage" is 12-year-old Marjorie Bruce, the daughter of Robert the Bruce, who staged a rebellion in the early 14th century against Edward I of England to gain Scottish independence and defend his right to be king of Scotland. I don't have any problem with the history that Yolen and Harris present about the war between Robert and Edward. They keep the historical events of Robert's defeat at Methven and the desperate attempt by the women in Robert's family to escape to Tain, where they could catch a boat to Norway and safety. Unfortunately, Edward's army caught up to them and they were eventually betrayed by a fellow Scotsman as they sought sanctuary in a religious shrine. I learned a lot about this episode of Scottish history.

But where things go wrong is in Yolen and Harris' portrayal of what happened after the women were captured. In the book, Marjorie is taken to Lanercost in the north of England and put in an iron cage, where she remains, exposed to the elements and public ridicule, for three weeks before being sent to a convent as a prisoner. Yes, some of the women who were captured - Mary Bruce (Marjorie's aunt) and Isabella MacDuff Comyn (a supporter of Robert) - were imprisoned in cages (for years, not weeks). However, most sources agree that although Edward ordered a cage to be built for Marjorie at the Tower of London, she was never put in the cage, but was instead sent to a convent at Wotton for the next eight years. The authors made up the whole premise of their book and falsified history.

The authors acknowledge in a note at the end of the book ("What is True About This Story") that while Edward ordered a cage, "Marjorie was never sent to London but was instead made a prisoner at the Gilbertine nunnery...." They go on to say, "We speculate that as the other two ladies were caged on the Scottish borders, that Edward may well have subjected Marjorie to a similar fate at Lanercost, where he lay sick" (emphasis mine).

You may say, "Oh, come on - this is fiction! Of course there are going to be some made-up parts." Sure, even with historical fiction, there have to be made-up parts; for example, the dramatization of the scene at the shrine when the women's capture is imminent. I have no problem with putting words in their mouths and thoughts in their heads as they go through that historical event. But to make up historical events just to serve your fiction is....WRONG. In my opinion, anyway.

Why? Because who in the 21st century has heard of Marjorie Bruce? (Maybe they teach about her in Scotland, I don't know.) We don't have any historical information about her going into Girl in a Cage to provide context. The first thing in the book is an accurate timeline of the history of Robert's life up to the point when the story takes place, so we assume we are going to be reading history - fictionalized, yes, in the way mentioned above, that historical figures are "brought to life," so to speak. We go through the entire book believing we are reading about something that really happened, only to find out in the author's note at the end that it didn't happen. It's a mental jolt. It's misrepresentation. It's a lie. What makes it worse is that this is a book for children, who may not catch the fine distinction between "we speculate" and "we know." They probably won't take the time to go back and look up the historical record the way I did. As a result, they may go through life with a wrong set of historical facts in their heads.

I guess I'm just super-sensitive to misrepresentation of the historical record and of lies being presented as truth at this point in society. And yes, I know there is a whole genre of "alternative history" fiction. But I feel strongly that writers of historical fiction owe it to their readers to stick with the facts and not to bend them or make up entirely new facts just because it makes for a "better" story, especially for young readers. If you want to make up history, say so at the beginning of the book, not the end. Let your readers go into the story knowing they are reading something that is not factual. Respect the history!

Rant over.

 

No comments: