I don't know if this qualifies as an anachronism but I've been listening to The Pillars of the Earth. At one point, Jack "pulled rank" to move to go through a gate ahead of others waiting. Would the phrase "pulled rank" have been used in the 1100s? Maybe so, but it seemed so out of place I couldn't concentrate on the book for sometime while I thought about it.

Heh! I love that you all always bring up more points than I could ever think of. Thank you.

Vee, I haven't seen "Elizabeth the Golden Age," but I quite liked the first one with Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth. I probably wouldn't have recognized inaccuracies, not being an Elizabethan Period scholar, but I usually don't expect costume films to be scrupulously authentic. The part with Bess and Dudley frolicking in the sunshine tickles me -- I like to think that she got the opportunity to frolick, though I don't know if anyone at the time documented such behavior. I'm with woodnymph on this -- I'll give dramatic films a lot more leeway than books, even novels. However, sometimes continuity faults in films will distract me completely.
Too many historicals get reduced to a very black and white view of the period that just happens to fit the agenda of whatever author is writing it.That's it, in a nutshell, georgia. I think the boom box in the early 1970s is an anachronism. The only portables that I remember from that era were small and tinny sounding and the bass (or boom) was the first thing lost. Oh, there might have been hi-fi mavens who built their own, but they hadn't hit the mainstream yet, I don't think.

Ach, I've just been interrupted. More later...

>but people acting out of character can spoil my enjoyment of a book or play, film etc

Oh yeah. I loved the book Anja the Liar by Thomas Moran (a fav author of mine) but the main character does something that is so out of character (and her action is central to what happens later) that it just didn't make sense. I still liked the book but she wouldn't have done what she did. Another is Corelli's Mandolin. I am still mad at the Captain for what he did to his best beloved for 50 years.

>But, the real difference I find in older historical novels compared to more recent ones is that many of the older ones seem to be much better written with less political correctness and a greater feel for the period;

I'd buy that

>but the new film Elizabeth the Golden Age has, apparently been condemned by Vatican historians as 'anti-papal propaganda' by showing King Philip of Spain as mad and scheming,

Well he might not have been mad, but scheming he certainly was; take his marriage to Bloody Mary.

> and Eliz I as 'a strong and courageous queen

Well, I thought she was. Tho the movie portrayed her as a half wit love sick blonde (one with red hair). Which is why I hate Phillipa Gregory books. There is a reason why that age was named after the queen.

I don't get upset by differences in dates if they aren't out of the ball park. Its differences in characterizations, anacronisms that are glaring, and character motivations, both in books and in movies. The Golden Age had all of these, tied up in a very pretty bow (the costumes were incredible!)

> go to the movies to be entertained, not to study history.

I understand this. But at least get basic stuff right? How hard can that be? Many people take these historical things and assume they are true. They get a very wrong impression of not only the history but the culture and world view. Look at how many folks overseas know all they knew about the US on the tv or movies. Thats a frightening thought. I want to see a movie that entertains, but is also gives an accurate picture of the time, the place, and of the people of the time.

>After all, the film did not claim to be a documentary.

Except that many people assume anything on film must be true. Movies like Immortal Beloved and Amadaeus, while excellent movies, were much less factual then most people realize. Is there harm to that? Maybe not. But I don't think its that hard to try to stick to some historic accuragcy when its important.

>After the heroine tells her swain that she feels whale killing is wrong and follows this with some athletic sex . . . neither sensibilities I felt fitted the Victorian setting . . . I had read enough.

Similar to Ahabs Wife. A 16 year old girl in the mid 1800s decides to up and run away on a whaling ship. Yeah, right. Much of the rest of it was off the wall - tho I have to admit the descriptions of whaling had me with my jaw open.

But, the real difference I find in older historical novels compared to more recent ones is that many of the older ones seem to be much better written with less political correctness and a greater feel for the period...laceyvail, I think so too. Something I've wondered about, though, is whether I just don't recognize exactly what agendas the authors of these older historical novels had -- if they had agendas...and surely they did or why else would they have written the stories the way they did? For instance, would it be readily obvious to today's readers what motivated a 1920's writer to choose, say, an 11th-century setting? It's known that Anne Bronte set The Tenant of Wildfell Hall as a historical novel because she wanted to make the point of how women had to endure inequity in the marriage laws before the laws were changed. Tenant is such an old book now that it probably makes very little difference to modern general readers that Anne wasn't writing as if events were contemporaneous. We read the classics today mainly for the good stories, without much thought of what kind of research the authors made and whether they were true to the time periods they wrote about. Ha! We probably shouldn't trust them just because they're old.I despise those who condemn Twain for the use of the n-word in Huckleberry Finn.The nimnods who condemn Twain are the same ones who fault Betty MacDonald's autobiographical books -- especially The Egg and I -- for being politically incorrect. By their lights, she should have been able to predict PCness, particularly after she's dead. I've defended both Twain and MacDonald so often that I'm weary of it, and most of the time now I just consider the spouters of that tripe idiots and keep my mouth shut.

There is political correctness, much of which I think is at least making people think about how we say things and what words mean; then there is idiocy. Much of the complaints people have about the former are really the latter.

I also hope to be entertained while at the movies. If I choose to watch a James Bond film, a who-dunnit, Western or Lord of the Rings, Star Wars genre I am willing to put belief aside and sit back and enjoy it, but when a film such as Brave Heart comes along 90% of the audience go away thinking that is how it WAS. I can understand not wanting to sit through an 'animated, technicolour lecture' but most movie-watchers are not tuned-in enough to realise these historical dramas are sometimes quite inaccurate.
And it's not just Hollywood. The BBC is showing a new drama series 'The Tudors'. Before the first episode was even aired
the critics were writing "Here is one made for the American market". Presumably meaning it has a few 'names' in the leading roles, colourful costumes and plenty of shots of ancient castle walls, mist rolling over gnarled oak woods, a certain amount of rumpy-pumpy in the four poster/long grass and almost no accurate history.

As for historical novels. I was reminded of Towers in the Mist by Elizabeth Goudge, which I read as a teenager, although it had come out in the '30's.
The story is set around the 'Progress' of Elizabeth I to Oxford and E G uses her then home as the setting; an ancient house lived in by the Canons of Christ Church College.
In a short forward she explains that she has put an imaginary family into the house, that a book she mentions came out some years later and Sir Philip Sidney came up the University several months after the events she describes; thus covering herself from complainers.

And finally, on the same lines. I have just read a review of Mary Tudor: the First Queen by Linda Porter. The reviewer sings the praises of the book and 'Bloody' Mary to such a degree that you feel both must be biased. Did her subjects really take the burning of over 300 'heretics' in less than 3 years 'in their stride'? Did she really die of the 'flu? I had always understood it was the many many months of phantom pregnancy that killed her. All this so surprised me I did a google search and read all the reviews of the book, and even these at second hand come up with different 'takes' on the woman.
Still, it might be an interesting read and I'm off to put a chicken in a hot oven. It is already dead.

Freidag, I did not realise that Betty Macdonald caused annoyance over her non PC books because I read them in the 50's as I recall, before PC came along and thoroughly enjoyed them.
I read a lot of books written in the 20's and 30's and sometimes get ruffled by the class-ridden attitudes of some writers but 'of their time' and 'who they were' has to be their excuse.
I cannot bring any particular anachronisms to mind, if I am enjoying the book etc. I do the pearl and oyster trick and bury them mentally!

>Braveheart

Oh don't get me started on that one, or on The Patriot, or on many similar movies. Often the actual story by itself is fascinating - but writers feel the need to put in lots of action, sex, violence and melodrama to spice it up. (the part in Patriot where the English burn down a church with people in it had both my husband and I saying 'no way').

but most movie-watchers are not tuned-in enough to realise these historical dramas are sometimes quite inaccurate.Vee, what we seem to be railing against is the gullibility and stupidity of the masses -- be they moviegoers, tv-watchers or book readers. It's what I was talking about above with the reviewers of One Thousand White Women.Many people take these historical things and assume they are true. They get a very wrong impression of not only the history but the culture and world view. Look at how many folks overseas know all they knew about the US on the tv or movies. Thats a frightening thought.Cindy, I run across non-Americans all the time who think they know all about American history and culture from the crapola we've exported to them in our films and novels. They can't distinguish entertainment from fact. Same with many Americans about other cultures: Look at the many Americans who think all English traipse around in scenic settings, are perpetually "civilised," and speak with enchanting accents. (Sorry, Vee, your country provides the best example of American romanticism toward cultures they think they know about. I know about that firsthand: I once was guilty of thinking England had to be the most romantic place in the world until I was rudely awakened by some of the reality.)

One of the stupidest books I've read about American culture was written by DBC Pierre: Vernon God Little, winner of the Booker a few years back. I'd be surprised if this guy had ever stepped foot in Texas, and if he had he came with preconceived notions. His excuse seems to be that his novel is postmodern and parodic. That readers buy into the notion that his story is totally realistic lowers my already low estimation of readers who want to believe that type of gunk.

I haven't got time for anachronisms.

(Sorry - couldn't resist!)

It depends how bad the anachronism is and how good the book is. For example, boom-boxes in the early seventies is just WRONG. People at college either had "Black-box" record players, or small stereos, small cassette players or they had built hi-fi separates. Boom-boxes were not around till the very late seventies or the early eighties.

On the other hand, Black Swan Green by David Mitchell is about a thirteen-year-old kid and is set in the eighties, and he keeps talking about things being "gay". Don't know whether it's used in this sense in the US, but in the uk, it's used by kids and young people (mainly boys) today to mean something is a bit wet; a bit girly; well, not very tough! The point is that I'm almost certain that it's a fairly recent usage - it didn't exist as this meaning in the eighties. So this is also an anachronism, but to my mind a forgivable one. And it's just possible, of course, that David Mitchell knows better than I do, and he remembers using the phrase when he was that age (which was about that time.)

I dislike it more in TV dramatisations of books, where the books are correct but the TV is just wrong. The fairly recent dramatisation of The Forsyte Saga is a good examples - middle-class couples didn't cuddle up to each other in the park, they walked decorusly slightly apart - and they CERTAINLY didn't have enthusiastic sex in summer-houses before they were married (and probably not after they were married, either!)

Martin, the term "gay" was used in the U.S. in the Eighties. What would have been said at that time in the U.K.?

Frieda, not sure if you realized that Cate Blanchett plays Eliz. I in both of the films about the Queen. As the article Vee posted points out, the way Cate was portrayed in the 2nd film has Eliz. far younger than she actually would have been in that time frame. Still, the scene worked for me. Perhaps I tend to read symbolism into movies, while I am being entertained. I never take all this literally. I am more concerned with the artistic vision of the Director.

Cindy, I know many parts of "The Patriot" were inaccurate, such as the Fort Valley bloody hatchet massacre done by Mel Gibson. On the other hand, it is a historical fact that Bannister Tarleton was not so very nice a person. I don't think his character was exaggerated too much in the film. I live in a part of Virginia where a lot of those battles took place, where streets are named after prominent individuals, such as Tarleton, et al. I think we in Tidewater, or at least many of us, tend to take seriously the history all around us, espec. the Revolutionary War, with Yorktown, Williamsburg, etc. so close at hand.

Mary, Martin's description of the word gay refers to its use as a mild insult between boys. I don't think it was used among kids in the 80's. They would probably have used the expression poofter while an older generation would have said so-and-so is a big girl's blouse.

Mary, I've never heard of Bannister Tarleton. For what was he famous (or infamous)?

Frieda, and everyone, how do you find 'non-Americans' view your country and its people?
I hope I'm not insulting anyone when I say many Americans feel the need to point out that they whopp'd (sp?) the British in 17??. There was even an episode of 'The West Wing' when some Presidential Aide didn't agree with the British Ambassador (played as a Hugh Grant-like twit) and told him "Don't forget we whopp'd you in 17??" which settled the matter with the BA cringing in the corner.
I consider this an anachronism as most ordinary UK'ers were/are not at all bothered about the lose of the colony. It just meant that our convicts had to make that longer sea voyage to Australia and go on to beat us at cricket.
We have lost so many wars over our long history (and won a few).
I know an old man locally who was telling me that his grand-daughter was about to marry a US airman she had met at the USAF base at Fairford. After the initial family get-together he told me "Do you know the Americans are just like everyone else." I think he expected them all to be filthy rich and like Hollywood film stars. I don't know what the US group made of his family as several of them (nice as they are) are a couple of bricks short of a load.

Mary - "gay" has been around in the UK as a synonym for "homosexual" since about the seventies. What I'm talking about is the use of the word "gay" as slang among kids to mean a mild insult. When I was younger, if someone did something a bit pathetic we'd have said that they were a bit wet. Kids these days would say "That's a bit gay."

The point I'm making is that this slang usage is relatively recent - male kids in the eighties would know that "gay" meant "homosexual", but would not have used it as a mild insult among themselves. As Vee says, I think they'd have been more liable to say "that's a bit pouffy" or possibly "that's a bit girly".

> On the other hand, it is a historical fact that Bannister Tarleton was not so very nice a person. I don't think his character was exaggerated too much in the film.

I'll accept your expertise on this, you know more about him than I do (tho I heard about him before from David) But we both knew that didn't happen, and it just bugged us (esp because by that point in the movie we had given up on pinpointing the errors)

> tend to take seriously the history all around us, espec. the Revolutionary War, with Yorktown, Williamsburg, etc. so close at hand.

We were in your part of the country a few summers back, loved it! David is the American history buff, whereas I know more about European history. So him taking me around sites and to places like Williamsburg was a treat.

> hope I'm not insulting anyone when I say many Americans feel the need to point out that they whopp'd (sp?) the British in 17??.

There are ignoramuses in every country of the world. We have are share, and so do the Brits. I don't think you can say many feel that need. A few loud mouth ones who are an embarrassment to our country? Yes. But no place is without them unfortunately, and because they are the loudest, people think they must be typical.

>"Do you know the Americans are just like everyone else." I think he expected them all to be filthy rich and like Hollywood film stars.

Unfortunately because of the movies and tv shows that come their way, that is exactly what they think. They often aren't savvy enough about the diversity of this country to even consider thinking anything else. They don't quite think the streets are paved with gold (as my grandparents thought at the turn of the last century) but they certainly see it as a rich land, and assume they will be rich if they live there. And then some think it is ridden with crime and female nudity in the streets.

My sons (now ages 23 and 20) started using "gay" in that offhandedly insulting way when they were teenagers, maybe four or five years ago. I remember using "drippy" in much the same way when I was a teenager. I'm not sure when I first heard homosexuals referred to as gay, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the preferred term they used for themselves and probably existed long before I became aware of it. It's interesting, Martin, that you think the anachronism is forgivable in the context of that particular book. I'd think it would be out of place in any other book set in the eighties.

I just remembered a fairly recent film adaptation of Mansfield Park that had a hanky-panky scene. That was really jolting.

Vee, generally, I find that people the world over are very interested in the United States, or at least certain aspects of it. It's possible they are only being polite (or rude, as the case may be) when they realize I'm an American, but I don't get the feeling that their interest is feigned. I think I've mentioned this before to you, but it's a pretty good illustration of how superficial most non-Americans' knowledge is of the United States: I get asked all the time if I'm from California. When I say no, they'll ask New York? Texas? Florida? -- usually in that order. After that, many can't think of the names of other states. Usually if I tell them I'm originally from Iowa, I'll get a glazed expression, so I just say -- now, anyway -- that I live in Hawai'i and animation is immediate.

I find that Indians are by far the most knowledgeable about the United States even when they've never been there. I'm guessing the reason is all the telemarketing calls they make to U.S. phone numbers.

As for how people actually feel about Americans: of course the attitudes are as individual as the persons. I've found, though, that those who most disdain Americans are the ones who just cannot comprehend how a nation of not very intelligent people (by their estimation) have so much influence.

This is an interesting discussion (like all here at RP).

Whilst I think there are a lot of people who have learnt all they know about the US from TV and movies, at least they know something! The amount of ignorance about Australia is quite shocking to me. I think that most UKers (good word vee!) know a bit, as many have relatives here and of course, as vee pointed out, we have cricket in common. But there are many, many from other parts of the world who don't know Australia from Austria, don't know where we are on the map, or how big we are. I think most Americans (excluding RPers who are well read and aware) are surprised to learn that Australia is roughly as big as the US (nearly 3 million sq miles vs 3.67 million).

I don't think it is unreasonable for watchers to assume that historical films and TV shows are mostly accurate. I assume the basics of an historical book are fact, although I am aware this is not always the case. I don't think we can blame Joe Average (or Edna Everidge in my case *bg*) for thinking a producer would stick mostly to the facts, or for being unable to tell entertainment from fact if they know nothing about the time being shown. For instance, if I see a film where the US Army kills some Native Americans, how do I know if this incident really happened? I know some incidents like this happened, but don't know the particulars.

I do know that reading historically based books has often sent me off to read some non-fiction about the time.

>I hope I'm not insulting anyone when I say many Americans feel the need to point out that they whopp'd (sp?) the British in 17??. There was even an episode of 'The West Wing' when some Presidential Aide didn't agree with the British Ambassador (played as a Hugh Grant-like twit) and told him "Don't forget we whopp'd you in 17??" which settled the matter with the BA cringing in the corner.

I wouldn't take these references from Americans literally. I think this has more to do with American folklore, which takes on a life of its own being wrapped up in pride, the founding of our country and a sense of patriotism, and should not be associated with a person's education on the subject of history.

As for anachronisms, I think what bothers me most is when an author has taken great care to get so many details right, it makes the anachronism stand out like a sore thumb and can be quite jarring and throw me out of a story.

I hope this makes sense. I know I haven't worded it very well.

Martin, sorry, I misunderstood the use of the word "gay" in another context. Thanks for clarifying.

Frieda,I don't recall the use of "gay" for homosexuals until the late Seventies or Eighties. I do recall in the Fifties, growing up in the deep South, hearing the term "pansy" or "fairy" for the same meaning.

Getting back to the artistic vision of film directors: I found it interesting that the director of the Elizabeth I films is from another culture (Shekhar Kapur). I am intrigued by how one culture, in this case, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, might appear to someone with a completely different historical background and cultural upbringing. I find it difficult to believe that many could see films like "Braveheart" and "The Patriot" and take them for gospel truth. I don't go to the movies to learn about historical fact. I tend to suspend judgement when watching a film, trying to ascertain the "big picture" that the director had in mind. (and my goodness, what of "The Last Temptation of Christ"? Does anyone recall that controversial film, taken, I believe, from a work by Kazanzakis? What is also important to me is: "is it a good story?" I am hoping to be entertained for 2 hours or so, and to take away a new artistic vision, or a new way of seeing the world.

I don't think it is unreasonable for watchers to assume that historical films and TV shows are mostly accurate.Kath, I don't think it's unreasonable either, but I'm afraid watchers are too trusting. I remember a few years back many moviegoers thought Oliver Stone's JFK "proved" one conspiracy aspect of the assassination. The film is a very well-made, entertaining biopic/whodunnit and because it's so slick, it's quite believable if the only things viewers know is what the filmmakers are feeding them.I do know that reading historically based books has often sent me off to read some non-fiction about the time.That's one of the best things about historical novels -- spurring interest in times and events that people wouldn't ordinarily give a flip about. As much as I loathed The Da Vinci Code, several RPers pointed out to me that it was actually a springboard to other reading. 'Course, in my opinion, some readers sprung too far, but that's not the point.I am intrigued by how one culture, in this case, Anglo-Saxon/Celtic, might appear to someone with a completely different historical background and cultural upbringing.Mary, that's an interesting perspective. The recent adaptation of Vanity Fair had an Indian director and naturally enough, for her, she homed in on the Indian parts. Becky Sharp on an elephant is not the first thing that ever came to my mind, and it still isn't -- in fact, until I saw the film I had forgotten about the India sojourn. As for the "The Last Temptation of Christ": that one is so tied up and fraught with people's personal beliefs that it does no good whatsoever to say "it's only a story; it's fiction" to them. Sometimes I think we need new terms or something to distinguish what is exceptionally true historical fiction and something that is historically inspired fiction because some readers/viewers sure do have a tendency to confuse the two when they are lumped together as historical fiction/historical novels.

How do you all feel about film adaptations that are nothing but anachronisms? "Richard III" was updated to Nazi Germany in a film starring Ian McKellen. Well, Shakespeare probably played fast and loose with the facts of Richard III, so I guess it's an example of anachronism based on anachronism. I thought the Nazi Richard III was quite fascinating, not so though with the modern "Romeo + Juliet," (the one with Leonardo DiCaprio) which I found barely watchable. On the other hand, I'll watch "West Side Story" with nary a thought that it's Romeo and Juliet brought to 1950s/early 60s New York, with song and dance.

I think modern takes on old standards can be very well done. I remember a production of Twelth Night here that took place in the early 1900s, and just loved it. And like you, West Side Story has long bin a favorite. I do think thats what makes Shakespeare so popular - his works really are timeless, and you can easily put his stories into our times, hardly missing a beat. But I have seen these fall flat on their faces, so it all depends

I enjoy this in books too - for example, Gregory Maguire's takes on famous stories or fairy tales are rather intriguing.

Sometimes they bother me, sometimes they don't. Some authors put anachronisms in deliberately, expecting you to recognize them, and it makes me feel very clever to get this. I'm sorry to say I can't think of an example right now, but I have read several books of this sort. Other times an author has done really careful research and just slips up on one little point. If the rest of the book was done well, I can usually forgive this. What I really hate is a sloppy book with poor period research all through it, or the costume novel -- a modern story dressed up in corsets and cliches. One of the real pleasures in reading the novels of Georgette Heyer was the detailed and accurate research she did. I read once that one error had been identified in one of her many novels, thought I forget which one. A pretty amazing record, I would say.

As a gardener, and as a person interested in heirloom plants and garden history, garden anachronisms often catch my interest. Movies are the worst offenders, worse than books. I can't tell you how many times I have watched a period drama and groaned aloud when the bewigged and beribboned hero hands his lady love a hybrid tea rose, a hundred years or more before they were developed. I used to joke with gardening friends that I wanted to get a job as a Hollywood rose consultant. They could certainly use one.

Rosefolly

Paula, interesting the rose mistakes. I sometimes notice food that is shown out-of-time.
The over-flowing fruit bowls with bananas, Golden Delicious apples, tomatoes in salads etc in pre-WWI TV plays and films. In the gardens the lawns that have been beautifully mown and the carts that clatter along country lanes with only two wheel tracks when there should be three. Two for the wheels and a central one made by the horse.
Funnily enough, although I found The Pillars of the Earth to be a good page-turner there was one small but to me annoying anachronism. The main 'family' have a child who they call Thomas after the father, but they say they will call him 'Tommy' for short. Groan. I'm sure the diminutive for Thomas in those Medieval times would have been 'Tomkin'

I have seen many performances of various Shakespeare plays and still prefer the ones with a setting appropriate to the period in which it is set.
Of course WS, although writing about the Romans, the Lancastrians, Yorkists et al always set his plays in his present; the 'Elizabethan/Jacobian age. His players didn't wear costume, the scenery would have been minimal. It shows how the power of his words would draw the audience into the atmosphere he had created.

Vee, yes, and the Bard twisted the truth, at times, as well. I just learned that the actual MacBeth of Scotland was not quite the arch-villain as portrayed in WS' play....

Mary,

attached is a link to a short story I love by Kage Baker. It takes place in the near future where tourists can visit some sort of AI/cyber being construct of the bard where they get to have Q&A time with the great playwright. When a busload of Scots arrive, they give him a hard time over his portrayal of Macbeth. I get a chuckle out of that one.

Here is a link that might be useful: The Dust Enclosed Here

georgia, thanks for posting the story -- very clever and amusing to read.

> the costume novel -- a modern story dressed up in corsets and cliches

Oh I love that - what a perfect label for really bad historic fiction!

>and the Bard twisted the truth

Oh yes, esp in his histories. The Tudors were in power, and his take was often their take. Richard the II is a good example of twisting the truth beyond all recognition.

Kage Baker's Company novels are really interesting, btw. In The Garden of Iden is his first book; anyone interested in history or revisionist history is likely to enjoy these.

Is revisionist history a speciality of the US?
Can it be linked to those of you who believe that the world was created in seven days? According to a recent newspaper report over 40% of Americans hold this view. If true it is amazing . . . and worrying.

Here is a link that might be useful: You cannot be serious

Goodness, Vee, I hope that poll is inaccurate. Amazing, worrying AND embarrassing!

>According to a recent newspaper report over 40% of Americans hold this view.

Suggestion - stop reading survey reports about what Americans think, do or know. They are usually surveys with small sampling, with questions worded strangely and are usually not indicative of the population as a whole. Is it true? Maybe. But if it is, look at it this way - 60% don't. Also remember that any vestige of puritanism that still beats in the hearts of some of our citizens would not be there if your country had managed to find a way to keep the pilgrims within your borders :)

>Is revisionist history a speciality of the US?

That wasn't what I meant by revisionist history, tho I wonder if I used the right term. I am talking about the many books that have been written which look at a historic event and imagine what it would be like if....There is a particular author who is famous for this - in one series he took the look at the Civil War as if it were fought by time traveling soldiers.

Cindy, I think you are referring to alternate history, where a writer takes an event and gives it another outcome, one example is MacKinley Kantor's If the South Had Won the Civil War. "What if" scenarios are alternate history.

Revisionist history is that which is rewritten to suit a new way of looking at historical events, sometimes to meet a new purpose or agenda, such as feminism (women's histories were not well represented). Revisionism can be good or bad (and all shades in between), but lately the term has taken on a mostly negative connotation.

Cindy, an interesting take on the Founding Fathers of your country. My own American ancestors were Quakers who arrived with William Penn. The head of that family James Steele, a carpenter, was able to study and went on to become Secretary to the Province of Pennsylvania. A position he could never have reached in England, whatever his religious beliefs.
What I find so anachronistic and worrying in the US, a country that has provided a safe haven for many millions of incomers from all walks of life is that now I see Great Britain as the more democratic of the two.
Just one example. The other day the new session of Parliament was opened with the traditional ÂQueenÂs SpeechÂ. In this Her Majesty read that Âher Government seeks to increase the length of time a suspect may be held by the police to 56 days, from the present 28 days. This is most unlikely to be voted in as many members of the Govt. plus the Opposition parties will vote against it. Even when the Bill reaches the House of Lords (still an unelected chamber) it will meet with even greater disapproval. Despite the horrors of 9/11 and 7/7 we still have a strong sense of the rights of the ordinary individual and the importance of Habeas Corpus, and trial by jury
IÂm not trying to be preachy or ÂHolier than Thou it is just that the situation saddens me.
To keep this literature orientated you may enjoy Rumpole and the Reign of Terror by John Mortimer. JM, until recently the complete ÂChampagne Socialist has now cooled in his feeling towards the present Government and he has old alter ego take on a case of a suspected terrorist while railing against Âmodern justiceÂ.

Cindy and Vee, re Puritans, Quakers, et al. I think you both might find David Hackett Fischer's book "Albion's Seed: Four Folkways in America" fascinating reading. It deals with 4 distinct cultures from various parts of the British Isles who early on settled America and their many differences. He contrasts and compares and obviously did exhaustive, detailed research, yet the book is anything but dry....

>I think you are referring to alternate history

Duh - thanks frieda, thats exactly what I meant. I didn't realize what 'revisionist' now meant.

veer, Im not referring to our founding fathers and mothers, who started our country and wrote our Bill of Rights and Constitution. I am referring to the puritans who colonized America and left much of their puritan values and mores in our culture. Doesn't matter how many generations go by, they seem to stick in place.

>IÂm not trying to be preachy or ÂHolier than Thou it is just that the situation saddens me.

Well, I am a little frustrated, because your posts often do sound that way. I am not a 'love it or leave it' American, I constantly complain and am upset by what is happening here. But I tire a little of generalizations and assumptions based on a small sample, in a country as diverse and heterogenous as this one is.

And yes it saddens me too. But realize that most Americans are sad as well - close to 70% disagree with Bush and his policies, and unless the Democrats really screw up, its probably that we will have an administration that understands the importance of democracy and the relevance of our constitution.

Woodnymph, Albion's Seed has been recommended to me before. I do know a little and find his theories interesting. I really do need to read it.

Mary, I've tried to order Albion's Seed from the library, but they don't have a copy. Probably rather specialised for them. They have, however come up with Undaunted Courage (though only in paper-back and with hardly any illustrations/prints) and The Hummingbird's Daughter.
I have now burnt my copy of Surveys and What to Do with Them.

Veer: Have you asked the library to obtain Albion's Seed through inter-library loan? No one library holds everything, but it should be obtainable that way.

(This is with my medical librarian's hat on!)

Friedag, thanks for bringing up this interesting topic. It does bother me to find anachronisms in books, and in movies too.

rosefolly (Paula) -- I'm glad to see I'm not the only one to be bothered by rose errors. Even in the film "Chicago" I noticed a bouquet with recognizeable modern hybrid tea roses, many years before they would have been introduced.

Often period movies show modern rose bushes and other kinds of plants growing in old-time gardens. They do need rose consultants for movies, don't they?

DH and I also notice furniture errors in period films. And don't forget those bleach-blonde pioneer gals in the old westerns, the ones wearing eye liner and lipstick!

Well, speaking of makeup, my favorite anachronism is when actresses lie in bed, or just wake up, and they look perfect, hardly a hair out of place. With eyeliner on already, of course. Ben Elton (Brit comic/writer) does a great send up of that in a scene in This Other Eden, when a couple, both actors, have sex but it doesn't go near as smoothly or prettily as it looks on screen.

leel. Are you still wearing your medical librarian's hat? re Albion's Seed I could ask for what they now call an 'out-of-county loan' but they have become quite expensive, up to £4 = $8 a book, to borrow for a month (the service used to be free). I did a brief on-line check through a variety of county library web sites and of those I could access easily there seems to be almost no copies of A S.

Veer--I didn't realize you were in the UK. Here inter-library loan is free (not really; its paid by our taxes). My other suggestion is to take a look at some used book sites. I have many times purchased books for ridiculous sums--the postage far outweighed the purchase cost!

As for my hat--that's never off.

On revisionist history. The other day my husband aired a theory he'd heard from a colleague who wanted a reference for it for a book they are writing together: The American Civil War was not a civil war at all, at least not from the confederate point of view. They considered themselves an independent country fully justified in fighting against the unionist states. My question is whether this idea has been seriously discussed by any American historians? If so, I'd like a reference.

Marianne in Sweden

Marianne, I am no Civil War Expert, but suggest you look for the 3 volume work on this topic by Shelby Foote. This author and scholar, who grew up in the South, was considered an expert on the Civil War, and many others had consulted with him. I am quite certain that there is much writing to be found on the topic you seek.

The Shelby Foote book is indeed a well regarded accounting of the American Civil War. I don't know much about Gettysburg College, but they have a nice listing of the "Top 200 Civil War Books" if you are looking for a list to work from. If you scroll down, you'll find a whole section listing books that specialize in the history of the Confederacy.

I would also recommend the Ken Burns PBS documentary on the Civil War which I think is available on DVD (at least here it is).

Here is a link that might be useful: Top 200 Civil War Books

Referring back to liberties taken with Shakespeare works, I must share my Saturday night experience. DH and I have season tickets to a wonderful local playhouse. They do one Shakespeare play a season, and I look forward to it every year. This year the selection was "Hamlet."

I opened the program to read that they had opted to make changes to the play in the hopes of drawing a more youthful crowd. They shortened it considerably, the play was done in only 90 minutes. This didn't bother me nearly so much as other choices which annoyed me to no end. I will mention just a few. Hamlet and Horatio conversed using cell phones. Hamlet and Ophelia danced. How did they listen to the music you might ask. Well, they each took an ear bud from the headphones of Ophelia's iPod of course. The play within the play was a movie shown on a big screen and Claudius' reaction was video taped. Laertes also brought a gun to revenge his father's death.

All these modern touches seemed so out of place against the traditional language. Are these modern inclusions necessary if we want our youth to appreciate these plays? I managed to foster a fondness for the works of Shakespeare by reading them and seeing them performed traditionally. Certainly, it's hard work to parse the text, interpret the meaning, appreciate the subtlety and humor in what can be unfamiliar language, but does dropping an iPod into the equation mean teenagers will suddenly feel the relevance and begin to flock to Shakespeare? What function do these anachronisms really serve? Maybe I am being grumpy at not seeing the play I was expecting. Maybe someone here can offer an insight on the production manager's motives I might have missed while in my snit. Or would you also have been annoyed?

Marianne, when the thirteen English colonies broke away from England, they were full of conflicting ideas on just what kind of government they wanted, and what kind of relationship they wanted to have with each other. The first arrangement was the Articles of Confederation, which was more like a European Union style arrangement than a single unified nation. They found that it didn't suit their circumstances adequately, so they bonded together more closely under the constitution we have now, with rights balanced between federal and state government. Over time, power has accumulated more and more to the federal government, which some people like and some do not. Originally though the states were semi-independent -- that's why we call them states, not provinces.

I believe that is the technical justification offered by the South for breaking away from the North, that they were separate states leaving a union in which they no longer wished to participate. Their motivation (slavery) was truly dreadful and morally appalling, but there is a kind of legal logic to the actual withdrawal that fascinates me. However, victors write the histories, and since those of us in the north won the Civil War this logic is ignored outside the south.

By the way, in the south to this day the Civil War is called by an alternate name, the War Between the States.

Rosefolly

cherry, what a ridiculous performance! I was in HS in the 70s, and I don't remember a Shakespear performance that tried to hippify everything (tho I have no doubt there was one or two). I didn't need that modernization to enjoy the performances. That being said - I already had seen some Shakespear by the time I was in HS, so I may be quite different from the normal kid today. And maybe they do need all that

I know they certainly need their cell phones. At lunch today I saw three people at a table, all talking on their cell phones for about 15 minutes. Why bother going to lunch with each other if you aren't going to talk with them? (sorry, old person rant)

Rosefolly, to your explanation I would add that the southern states viewed the war as a battle over their own eroding states' rights vs federal rights rather than the northern states' view that this was a war to abolish slavery. I completely agree that this view is not known or taught outside the southern states, or at least not taught north of the Mason/Dixon line and my familiarity with that theory came from my southern husband. It makes me wonder if the south seized upon the "states rights" issue simply to divert attention from the repugnant wish to continue slavery or if the north/federal gov't did the same with the slavery issue for the economic benefits of keeping the southern states in the union rather than moral reasons. Actually, I'm sure there was plenty of obfuscation to go around but as you stated, the victors write the history.

Even though it was written in the 'Sixties, McKinlay Kantor's "If the South Had Won the Civil War" remains a well-researched classic. It appears the War Between the States was almost inevitable, given the clashes of two such different cultures and life-styles. Of course, at the same time, the Western U.S. was opening up, new states were being formed, so it had to be determined in those states whether slavery would be permitted. The role of England with its cotton trade from the American south is also intriguing. It's a fascinating and complex topic, with scholars still analyzing all the variables. No wonder so many active Civil War Roundtables still exist today....

I haven't read the book but just saw mention in another discussion of a cell phone appearing in someone's pocket in McCarthy's book No Country for Old Men, supposedly taking place in 1980.
Also, there was mention of a watch in Ben Hur. Movie or book, I'm not sure.
Has anyone heard about these before?

Gettysburg College is near and dear to my heart-DD is an alum. They are one of the few colleges in the US to offer an American Civil War major-DD's roommate pursued and earned that. The college sits on the edge of the battlefield, one of the bloodiest of the war and the farthest north of any battle. They know whereoff they speak when it comes to the Civil War.