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.