neglected history

[swan_tower]

Death-marching through The King's War (five hundred pages down; one hundred to go), I find myself considering a question that's been in my mind for some time.

Why is seventeenth-century England so neglected in fiction?

Seventeenth and eighteenth both, really, but I haven't gotten into researching the eighteenth yet. There's some stuff there, but they get trampled by the Elizabethan period from one end and the Victorian from the other. (Starting early with the Regency.) Tonight I'm probably going to take time off from the death-march to watch one of the only pre-Restoration movies I've been able to find (To Kill a King). I know of almost no fantasy novels set during the Stuart era.

Yet the seventeenth century is chock-full of conflict and change. You'd expect to find lots of fiction exploiting that . . . but you don't. Why?



We can frame it as a question of "what does the Elizabethan period have that the seventeenth century doesn't?" Sexiness. Elizabeth is a far more charismatic character than Charles; Shakespeare stomps Milton into the ground. (Shakespeare, obviously, extends into James' reign; as you might expect, I'm looking more at the middle of the century.) And Elizabeth comes out of the Tudor dynasty, so she's joining forces with her father and sister to make for an interesting setting. Charles? Has James. Yeah, not so much.

Or perhaps it's what the seventeenth century has that the Elizabethan period doesn't: more complications than you can shake a historian at. Not that Elizabeth's reign was simple, but every bit of reading I do just underscores the impossibility of drawing clear lines through, well, anything during this time. Peoples involved during the Civil War: English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, and half of Europe, as the Queen and other emissaries ran around trying to recruit help from anybody who would stand still long enough to listen. (Charles even sent a message to the Vatican.) Religions: Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, and the Independents, who were a grab-bag of everything fringe. There were peers on both sides, and gentry, and merchants, and common folk; about the only division you can find there is that Royalists tended on the whole to be younger. Brothers fought on opposite sides, as did fathers and sons, even husbands and wives; people changed sides, sometimes more than once. Some towns exchanged hands so often you wonder if the locals thought about installing a revolving door. And none of these categories match up: there were Roman Catholics in Presbyterian Scotland, Protestant Irish refugees in Wales, Anglo-Norman-Irish Catholics trying to support the Anglican King against the Puritan Parliament . . . maybe writers just look at it and say, "screw it, I'm going somewhen easier."

But maybe it's just that they're all a bunch of unlikeable bastards. Charles was arrogant and intransigent, and far too inclined to stick his fingers in his ears and go "la la la the Irish army will come save me any minute" when his more level-headed advisers told him he was screwed and by the way allying himself with Catholics was a bad idea. Pym was a brilliant politician, but I can't like him when I detest his tactics -- declaring everything he didn't like a breach of privilege of Parliament (GOD have I come to hate that phrase), voting his political opponents to the Tower until nobody was left but his allies, carrying out the exact same actions for which he had been lambasting the King just a short while before. (But it was all in a good cause -- a godly cause -- which makes it okay, right? Yeah, that hits too close to home to be remotely amusing.) Neither side is really all that admirable to me, and the moderates, whom I might find sympathetic, were politically naive to the point of idiocy.

I know some of you are at least moderately familiar with the period, though, so I thought I'd toss it out there. Why the lack of love for Stuart-era fiction? And can you make me any good recommendations of pre-Restoration novels or movies?

Comments

Not sure these qualify as "good" but...

[cheshyre]

a) There was a recent YA fantasy (title I, Coriander) set in Interregnum London; not terribly noteworthy.

b) Have you heard of Forever Amber? 1945 bestseller, in the vein of GWTW, in which major political upheavals are background to a determined woman's attempts to claw her way to the top. [I hope I'm not spoiling the story too much by saying the protagonist does manage to become one of Charles' mistresses]

George MacDonald Fraser, in his Hollywood History of the World (yes, there was a movie adaptation), describes it thus:

The book was a huge bestseller, daring for forty years ago, which is to say coy by today's standards, and it paved the way for countelss inferior imitations set in a fantasy world anywhere between the Middle Ages and the Crimea, in which gypsy wenches were branded for poaching at Glasgow Assizes (sic), Victorian landlords exercised the droit de seigneur, and voluptuous heroines of humble birth went through legions of rakes, cavaliers, pirates, slavers, dukes, maniacs, and Highland chiefs (who ravished them as a preliminary to the wedding haggis) and other assorted lovers on their way to a title, commercial empire, or the king's bedroom. 'Forever Amber,' as I remember, was well researched in a sound historical framework, but its fictional heroine and plot had an enormous influence on pseudo-historical fiction writing which, to judge from American paperback stalls, still continues, and the film no doubt encouraged the trend.

Further thoughts

[cheshyre]

I can think of a number of Restoration-era stories and films, but not so much with post-Shakespeare James thru the Interregnum.

As far as film is concerned, they are called costume dramas, and movies tend to focus on eras with cool fashion. Early 17th C, may as well just go Elizabethan which audiences are more familiar with. And then you have those drab and dour Puritans until the Restoration brings back the gaudy gowns again...

Re: Not sure these qualify as "good" but...

[kernezelda]

I remember only one thing from Forever Amber, other than its general unpleasantness. A woman, probably the heroine, got very sick, including as a sympton a fur-like growth on her tongue. Ugh.

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

I think it's because the thirties especially were so crammed with manly, bloody swashbucklers that stories set there became a dead cliche through the fifties (which discovered the Biblical epic and the Troy model) through seventies--by which time history wasn't taught in schools any more, so no one under, say forty, knows much about the period. (VAST generalization, but you get the idea.)

Leslie Whyte, The Devil in velvet--all those many, many spinoffs from Henry Esmond are mostly in collectors' hands now, or ancient libraries. I keep meeting people who've never heard of Whyte, and he was the BIG seller of the forties historical scene.

[drydem.livejournal.com]

Elizabethan Era: Revolutionary War
as
Early Stuart Period: War of 1812

[thespisgeoff.livejournal.com]

Part of the issue with the Jacobean and Commonwealth periods is that the art coming out of England pretty much blew. Jacobean Theatre is bloody-minded, petty, and completely unreadable. Cromwell closed the theatres. So the places historical fiction writers generally run to for inspiration just don't exist - or if they do, they suck.

The Sciences, however, rocked pretty hard through it - enough for Neal Stephenson to make really great historical fiction work (I thought) with The Baroque Cycle.

[xmurphyjacobsx.livejournal.com]

Tangential -- Antonia Fraser's book "The Weaker Vessel", as I recall, was written to demonstrate that there actually WERE women in England in the 17th/18th century, because they certainly didn't show up much.

Prince Rupert

[fenrah.livejournal.com]

Aw, I love you for this post. I collect books on Prince Rupert. I think he had a fascinating life, involved with everything from the Thirty Years War to the English Civil War to the early days of the Royal Society, the beginnings of the modern British navy, and the early American collies. He was essentially a pirate during the interregnum and helped to support the British court in exile. He knew all kinds of interesting people. His mother, Charles's sister, was a crazy eccentric who raised her huge, impoverished royal family among a small menagerie of animals in the Netherlands. Rupert himself had a standard poodle who accompanied him into battle and died at Marston Moor. The Parliamentary forces spread rumors that the dog was his familiar. Rupert was colorful, flamboyant, sexy, and inscrutable. He captured the imaginations of people at the time and is alternately demonized and adored, depending on who you read. Most of my Rupert books are biographies. I've found just a smattering of fiction, none of it very good. Anyway, I'm rambling, but I agree with you: this period is overlooked by novelists. By everyone, really.

[fenrah.livejournal.com]

Alison Plowden's _Women All on Fire_ is about about women involved in the Civil War. I thought she brought them to live quite well, although the chronology jumps around a bit.

[kateelliott.livejournal.com]

By The Sword Divided is an British miniseries about the English Civil War. I saw it donkey's years ago and liked it then; can't say how I'd feel about it now.


But otherwise - yeah - not much.

Re: Not sure these qualify as "good" but...

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

a) Even if it isn't noteworthy, I'm glad to know about it. I might give it a look.

b) I think I heard about that, yeah. Not sure it's any good, but again, I might still give it a look.

Re: Further thoughts

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

Pretty clothes aren't the only reason to make a historical film, but you're probably right that they can be filed under "sexiness."

Re: Not sure these qualify as "good" but...

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

gyeagggggggh.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I certainly knew jack about the period before I started researching.

Add me to the list of people who have never heard of Whyte. Maybe I'll see if my library has his stuff.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

<lol>

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I would disagree that historical fiction writers generally draw their inspiration from the theatre of the period; it's one source, certainly, but far from the only one. There's lots of other literature -- Stuart England had some decent poets -- and many things other than literature.

One of these days I will have time to read The Baroque Cycle.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I've liked whatever things I've read so far of hers; I might check that out.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

If I were going to write about the actual waging of the Civil War, instead of skipping over it, I would totally read that book. But the stack of things critical to my actual years is high enough that I don't think I'll get there, alas.

Re: Prince Rupert

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I can't see demonizing Rupert from a historical perspective. He was reasonably intelligent and honorable, and might have squeaked a victory for Charles if politics hadn't tripped him up; you might disagree with the side he chose, but he was still a good guy.

Now, demonizing him from a contemporary perspective? Hell yeah. He was pretty much the worst thing that happened to the Parliamentarians. (I was going to say "except for Montrose," but Montrose was really an awful thing happening to the Covenanters in Scotland instead.)

I didn't know about his connection with the Royal Society, though.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

That's pretty much the only other thing I've come across, looking around online, but Netflix doesn't have it.

[xmurphyjacobsx.livejournal.com]

Paranoia made me check for my copy (which I actually FOUND) and I was paraphrasing the first line of the author's note. I completely enjoyed the book until the last chapter/epilogue.

If your research goes in that direction, I have one or two good references about costume/clothing for that period I picked up at the British Museum book shop a few years ago.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I would love clothing references.

What annoyed you about the last chapter/epilogue?

[thespisgeoff.livejournal.com]

Well, yes - but you're talking to a theatre guy, so that's my frame of reference. It's a huge hole in theatrical history, so with my blinders on, it feels like a huge hole in creative history.

Honestly, you can do Quicksilver and stop there, although the next two volumes are also pretty darn good. They're novels written just for Plan IIers.

[juushika.livejournal.com]

I'm currently reading The Nature of Monsters which takes place in 1716 and the few years following. The prologue is set during the burning of London, so it's a factor—but the main character is a servant maid, and the restoration and politics take a background role. It deals more with the theories in medicine and the status of the working class in that era. It also qualifies as one of the "gritty underbelly" sort of works you looked for a while ago, although it is a book not a film. The book isn't exceptional by any means, but it is at least there.

Re: Prince Rupert

[fenrah.livejournal.com]

As you said, he wasn't good at the politics. If I'm remembering correctly (it's been a while) Earl of Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion is not complimentary. Clarendon was a political enemy, but he was also an eye-witness, so his book was serious source material for later historians. Rupert was put on the defensive in his own lifetime for claims coming from Clarendon and similar that he could not control his own cavalry or his desire for plunder, thereby losing battles. Frank Kitson spends a good deal of ink arguing against these ideas in the first book of his biography, Portrait of a Solider.

You've been reading this recently, though, so you probably know this better than I do. It's been a few years since I read these books, and I haven't actually read Clarendon's, only quotes from it.

About the Royal Society...let's see... *digs through her books* OK, this is from Frank Kitson's Admiral and General at Sea:

"In December 1662 Rupert was made a member of the recently formed Royal Society. Seven months earlier he had gone as a guest of John Evelyn to watch an experiment carried out under the Society's auspices on the effect of a vacuum on a man's arm. Over the coming years a number of his own inventions and experiments were demonstrated to the Society, although he himself seldom attended in person" (139).