A recent interesting comment exchange with Cath at Read-warbler has got me to thinking about crime fiction that takes place in the past. In some cases, the stories were written in the past, so that at the time, they were contemporary. Others are historical crime novels, where more contemporary writers place their novels in the past. Both kinds of novels have their appeal, and both can offer interesting insights into a particular time in history. But there are differences.
One difference we sometimes see is in the sorts of characters created. For example, both Agatha Christie and Dorothy L. Sayers (and they aren’t the only ones) created stereotypical Jewish characters. This isn’t to say that those characters are all ‘bad guys,’ or even unsympathetic. But they do reflect the views of the times. That’s not surprising, since both writers were of their times. And those times were antisemitic. More contemporary historical novels arguably feature more nuanced Jewish characters who don’t always fit the stereotypical description of what Jews are ‘supposed to be.’ What’s more, if you consider novels such as Rebecca Cantrell’s Hannah Vogel series, which takes place at a similar time in history, antisemitism is depicted in a very negative light, rather than as a matter-of-fact way of looking at the world.
Along the same lines, one can also see a difference in the way women and Blacks, among other groups, are depicted. Gladys Mitchell’s Mrs. Bradley is an independent, highly educated woman who’s not conventionally beautiful, but who is successful. She’s the protagonist of an interesting series in which she uses her intelligence, not her looks or charm, to solve cases. That said, though, she is still in many ways a woman of her time. Her attitudes towards class, for instance, reflect the era. The same is true of several of Agatha Christie’s female characters. In some ways, she seems to have been forward-thinking about women’s lives and roles. Honoria Bulstrode, Rosamund Darnley, and Lucy Eyelesbarrow are all intelligent, independent women with initiative. And yet, they are of their time. There’s discussion, and there are assumptions, of marriage, settling down with families, and so on. The most appealing contemporary historical fiction is similar: For instance, Jacqueline Winspear’s Maisie Dobbs series, which takes place during a similar time period, features a bright, independent woman. And yet, Maisie is of her time in some ways, too. There are historical novels, though, in which the female characters are more anachronistic, with careers, attitudes, and so on that don’t reflect the times. It’s an issue that authors of historical novels need to consider as they write.
Another difference between crime fiction written at a certain time, and historical crime fiction, is, sometimes, the level of detail and description. Of course, length of detail and description are also, at least partly, a matter of the author’s style. Even so, there are arguably differences based on when a book is written. For example, Fergus Hume’s The Mystery of a Hansom Cab, published in 1912, is approximately 164 pages. While there is certainly description in the novel, there isn’t a lot of explanation. In one scene, for instance, Hume describes a sitting room that has antimacassars. That word would need no explanation at the time this book was published, because antimacassars were common. The same thing is true of Arthur Conan Doyle’s writing. In The Hound of the Baskervilles, Doyle mentions a character who is a farrier. No explanation of what a farrier is or does is offered, possibly because people of the time would know that. Authors of historical crime fiction may feel the need to give more detail and description in order to fill in the gaps for modern readers. The most appealing historical crime fiction doesn’t overfill the story with a of detail; rather, the reader gets a sense of the time and place through the characters, the action, and the setting.
There are other details, too, that are sometimes treated differently depending on when a book is written. For example, Phoebe Atwood Taylor’s The Cape Cod Mystery was published in 1931. The novel takes place during the summer when everyone who can, has escaped the heat of Boston and New York and come to places like Cape Cod. The novel’s focus is the murder of a novelist who’s taken a summer cottage, and the involvement of amateur sleuths Prudence Whitsby and handyman/man of all work Asa ‘Asey’ Mayo. There’s a solid sense of local culture, atmosphere, and setting, so that the reader feels a sense of the place. But there isn’t a lot of narrative about sights, sounds, smells, and so on. Rather, that information is woven into the story in a natural way, and not a ‘tacked on’ way. It’s more matter-of-fact. It’s harder to do that in a historical novel about the era. For one thing, authors want to be sure they’ve got the research right. For another, since it is a different time, there may be things modern readers don’t know.
It isn’t easy to write a historical novel or series that feels authentic in the same way that novels written in the past can feel. And that’s not surprising, considering the difference in perspectives. Possibly that’s one reason that there are arguably differences between a novel written during a time period and a novel about that time period. Thanks, Cath, for the inspiration. Please treat yourselves to a visit to Cath’s excellent blog. Fine reviews await you there.
*NOTE: The title of this post is a line from Bryan Adams Summer of 69.
Crime Writer Margot Kinberg 
The difference between historical fiction written about a specific time and fiction written in that same time is an interesting topic, Margot, and I am glad you tackled it. I often enjoy the mystery fiction written at the time of World War II because of the casual mention of how the events of World War II affected the people of the time, and how they saw the war. Sometimes historical novels feel forced, like they are putting too much emphasis on inserting historical background in the story.
I usually like historical fiction that stays close to the realities of the time it is depicting, but sometimes I enjoy stories about women who succeed in having adventures and careers that would have been impossible or extremely unusual at the time. I recently read The Benevolent Society of Ill-Mannered Ladies by Alison Goodman, and it was an example of female characters expanding beyond the accepted roles expected of them in Regency England, with the help of money of their own. I enjoyed it a lot but am curious about how realistic the story was.
I agree that Cath’s blog is an excellent resource.
LikeLike
Thanks, Tracy. I think the topic is really interesting, so I’m glad you thought the post worked. You make such an interesting point about how historical novels can sometimes feel forced. I do know what you mean; it’s as though the author is trying to prove expertise in one particular historical time period. Well-written historical novels don’t do that, but I know what you mean. When you read novels written in a given era, the events of that era flow naturally.
You also make an interesting point about certain characters who don’t necessarily behave the way people of a given time would. Sometimes that can work well. Other times it doesn’t feel as realistic. Still, Some of those strong female characters are interesting, aren’t they? And as for Cath’s blog? I learn every time I visit.
LikeLike
On the whole I prefer historical fiction that goes back to before novels were commonplace – otherwise I’d rather read a book written at the time. So I prefer Golden Age authors to books written now but set in the Golden Age. Mainly this is because it is rare for contemporary authors not to end up with anachronistic characters – in fact, in these days of political purity, they’d probably find it hard to get a publisher if they genuinely reflected the attitudes of the time. However, since there are no novels from Tudor times or Brother Cadfael’s era, I’m glad authors choose to write those historical novels!
LikeLike
I think it’s really interesting that you make that distinction, FictionFan, between books that take place before books were commonplace, and historical fiction that’s more recent. I hadn’t thought of the difference when I was writing this post, but I see your point. It’s true, too, that publishers might not be willing to work with a historical novel that accurately reflects the attitudes of a given time. And yet, that can mean characters that don’t ring true, or situations that would be really unlikely. I think it’s hard for modern writers to capture a historical period without ‘information dump’ or anachronism. Perhaps it is easier to do that if you write about a very long-ago era…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m so delighted you took this bookish issue and ran with it, Margot. The post you’ve come up with it is so interesting with so many salient points. (I envy you being able to do that.) I was thinking of the book that spawned the discussion, The Light Years by Elizabeth Jane Howard and how she portrayed a lesbian couple. Not exactly her portrayal but the fact that she openly talked about how they felt about each other and their struggles and that this struggle was an intregal part of the novel. That was from 1990… another more recent example is The Trouble with Mrs. Montgomery Hurst by Booktuber, Katie Lumsden, where she does exactly the same. But go back to 1941 and a book I read last year, Northbridge Rectory by Angela Thirkell. There’s a lesbian couple in that too. Of course, Thirkell doesn’t actually say so, we read nothing about their struggle to be together and how their families came into it. It’s just clear that this a lesbian couple who live together but what they went through to achieve that is not up for discussion… it just ‘is’. It’s absolutely fascinating.
And on a side note, it’s funny you should mention antimacassars. I was fascinated to learn that macassar oil was something produced in Indonesia for men’s hair, which of course produced a lot of oily hair, which rubbed off on the furniture… so the fancy, embroidered covers ladies made to protect the chairs and sofas were of course called, ‘antimacassars’! I love stuff like that.
LikeLike
I’m so glad you thought the post worked, Cath. I just thought the whole idea of looking at historical fiction vs fiction written at a given time was so interesting. And you lay out exactly what I had in mind with your comparison of those three novels. I think there really are some things that are simply portrayed in different ways, depending on when a book is written. I’m so glad you brought the topic up in the first place!
And thanks, too, for the mention of antimacassars. It’s always fascinating, isn’t it, to think about how words originated, where they come from, and so on, and in this case, what an antimacassar actually was supposed to do. It’s such an interesting look at history!
LikeLike
That’s such an interesting post, Margot, and you touch upon topics which do come up regularly in my crime reading. I tend to prefer contemporary historical writing i.e. ones from the older days like Sayers, Christie and Co. There are so often attitudes which are not acceptable nowadays, but I feel we need to acknowledge that and simply recognise that they existed during the time the book was written. It’s perhaps for that reason I sometimes feel uncomfortable with modern novels set in the past; I find myself irritated when an author creates a feisty feminist character who would be very unlikely to have existed at the time as it’s anachronistic. Probably that’s why I stick to genuine Golden Age Crime!
LikeLike
Thanks, KBR. I’m very glad you thought the post worked. And you bring up a really interesting and important thing, too: attitudes of a given time. We may find certain attitudes offensive now; I know I do. But those really were the ways people felt at the time, and I don’t think it does any service to pretend that’s not true. Characters who stray too far from those points of view really don’t feel authentic – at least not to me. One can understand why contemporary writers don’t want to convey those things, but that can make a novel feel less authentic, if that makes sense. And perhaps you’re right that contemporary historical writing (like Christie, Sayers, etc.) are clearer reflections of a given time. I don’t blame you for preferring GA crime novels on that score!
LikeLiked by 1 person
I loved the Maisie Dobbs series. Occasionally I wondered how realistic it was in describing the life of a young to ultimately middle aged woman in England during the first four decades of the 20th Century.
Mr. Churchill’s Secretary by Susan Elia MacNeal felt unfortunately real in the opening section in her being denied a position because she was a woman no matter her qualifications. It left reality behind in a theatrical conclusion.
LikeLike
I thought the Maisie Dobbs series was excellent, Bill. I know what you mean about wondering how realistic it was, but it worked very well, at least for me.
As for Mr. Churchill’s Secretary, I remember your fine review of that book. I think that sort of experience was unfortunately all too common at that time. As for the ending, I know what you mean about a theatrical ending; I don’t think that adds much to a book.
LikeLike
I loved this post Margot – it’s a subject that fascinates me. I love fiction set in the past, and I love Golden Age crime – but both types of books will occasionally make me wince! Anachronisms in one, casual racism in the other. But that doesn’t stop me reading them.
Thanks for a very nuanced look at the topic – you made me think.
LikeLike
Thank you, Moira. I’m so glad you thought the post worked. You’re right about the way both GA crime fiction and fiction set in the past can make a reader wince. It takes a deft hand to really transport the reader reliably to the past. And, yes, there are many GA novels that have cruelty in the form of bigotry all through them. It doesn’t mean we don’t love exploring the past, though, does it?
LikeLike