I have problems with a lot of historical novels that are popular right now because the authors are really pretty sloppy about research. The characters they portray manage to be a little too conforming to current tastes: like two women in The Snow Gypsy both want independence not marriage. And at least one was nevertheless available for the obligatory breathless sex scenes that publishers of these books demand. The profession of the main character, Rose, also has a lot of appeal for contemporary readers: she was a veterinarian who specialized in herbal cures -- and based on a real woman's autobiography.
I'm aware that the intended audience for books like this does not have high expectations for historical accuracy. Despite this, it sometimes bothers me that they also seem to believe they are learning about history by reading them.
I would love to know if the author's descriptions of food in the book are historically accurate. I really enjoyed them, but don't know whether to trust them -- the stews made by the gypsies and the fruit from the trees in the mountain village do conform to stereotypes, for what it's worth. The dish that was most often mentioned was called migas. Rose, who is learning about life in rural Spain, hears of it because it's a favorite of a child she has taken responsibility for, and they eat it very often throughout the book: "Migas was a dish she’d never heard of before coming to Spain. Breadcrumbs fried in pork fat and garlic, served with whatever else you might have in the larder." (The Snow Gypsy, p. 194).
I'm aware that the intended audience for books like this does not have high expectations for historical accuracy. Despite this, it sometimes bothers me that they also seem to believe they are learning about history by reading them.
I would love to know if the author's descriptions of food in the book are historically accurate. I really enjoyed them, but don't know whether to trust them -- the stews made by the gypsies and the fruit from the trees in the mountain village do conform to stereotypes, for what it's worth. The dish that was most often mentioned was called migas. Rose, who is learning about life in rural Spain, hears of it because it's a favorite of a child she has taken responsibility for, and they eat it very often throughout the book: "Migas was a dish she’d never heard of before coming to Spain. Breadcrumbs fried in pork fat and garlic, served with whatever else you might have in the larder." (The Snow Gypsy, p. 194).
I'm not that well-informed about Spain or about the gypsy pilgrimage to Les-Saintes-Maries de la Mer in the Camargues so I can't critique those parts, although I suspect that the descriptions were based on the way those places are now, not on history. I have been to Les-Saintes-Maries and to Grenada, Spain, where much of the action takes place, and my memories did make the reading more enjoyable. As far as I know, the post-Civil-War terrorizing of the population in Spain was quite accurate, as I've read in actual history books like The Assassination of Garcia Lorca by Ian Gibson.
A few historic claims did bother me. The parts about the characters' memories of the deportation and fate of French Jews in World War II didn't work for me. The book takes place in 1946, but the characters all knew way more about the fate of their relatives than I think had been uncovered by that time. A few other details were dubious as well. For example, a doctor treating a child in a remote Spanish village mentions that he could use penicillin, but didn't think he should. At that time, penicillin was only available in certain military hospitals and other venues controlled by the US/Britain. I wondered: hadn't the author seen the movie "The Third Man" which is exactly about black market penicillin in the late 1940s.
A few historic claims did bother me. The parts about the characters' memories of the deportation and fate of French Jews in World War II didn't work for me. The book takes place in 1946, but the characters all knew way more about the fate of their relatives than I think had been uncovered by that time. A few other details were dubious as well. For example, a doctor treating a child in a remote Spanish village mentions that he could use penicillin, but didn't think he should. At that time, penicillin was only available in certain military hospitals and other venues controlled by the US/Britain. I wondered: hadn't the author seen the movie "The Third Man" which is exactly about black market penicillin in the late 1940s.
Finally, I was amused when the heroine keeps getting more and more clothing and other things out of her rucksack -- "Crammed into the main compartment were a tent, cooking utensils, and a sleeping bag, along with a few basic toiletries and a small assortment of clothes." (pp. 39-40). She even had a "nightdress" and some dressing-up items. The author didn't seem to know that tents and sleeping bags were quite bulky before nylon became available for camping gear. Not really important, just perhaps a bit anachronistic.
I think my interest in real history gets in the way of my enjoying a certain genre of "historic" novels like this one, and that most readers, including my brother, just aren't bothered.
I think my interest in real history gets in the way of my enjoying a certain genre of "historic" novels like this one, and that most readers, including my brother, just aren't bothered.
The author's descriptions of flamingos and horses near the Gypsy meeting place in the south of France did trigger my memories... here's a photo I posted during our trip there in 2016. |
4 comments:
The conincidences in those books drive me to distraction but I bet my mom would like this and think it was accurate (which would drive me to distraction as well).
I agree with you. It's all well and good if I don't know the history but if I do, I get terribly frustrated. (And I suspect you're right about the audience!)
I wish I could remember where I heard this not long ago, but someone (reputable) was saying that these days people tend to get their news more for comedians and their history more from "historical" novels that may or may not tell it accurately. I'm inclined to agree. A novelist can move characters around, must as they might in a movie, condense things etc. I love the PBS Victoria series but I was distressed to learn it was based on Daisy Goodwin's historical fiction Victoria instead of Julia Baird's researched biography. It doesn't make it less entertaining but it does play a bit fast and loose with timetables and perhaps facts. And I know it isn't the only one, just a great example!
Funny, I read this book, too. Historical fiction books are all over the map these days and it does irritate me that many think they are experts after reading one. That being said, it was an interesting story.
oh no that would annoy me very much if historical details aren't correct. Grrrr!
Post a Comment