tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post114334858313379212..comments2023-11-12T09:52:42.825-05:00Comments on Medieval Woman: Blogging with Historical Novelist Susan Higginbotham: Nonhistorical and Historical Characters: Should They Mingle?Susan Higginbothamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-1144242144932579052006-04-05T09:02:00.000-04:002006-04-05T09:02:00.000-04:00Good point, though!Good point, though!Susan Higginbothamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13517907583894026599noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-1144219337957031072006-04-05T02:42:00.000-04:002006-04-05T02:42:00.000-04:00I don't understand, though, why Ranulf had to be c...I don't understand, though, why Ranulf had to be created; didn't Henry I have like a zillion illegitimate children? Why not just pick one of them to do the role? But, thinking about it, it really doesn't solve anything, since I doubt we know anything about most of his bastards. You'd have to fictionalize them in the end, anyway. Never mind!Frankhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03301077496668834657noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-1143491115998397722006-03-27T15:25:00.000-05:002006-03-27T15:25:00.000-05:00Interesting question. I've been pondering it. I ...Interesting question. I've been pondering it. I think my conclusion is that I'm happy with fictional characters where they fill in gaps. So for example if we know that a historical personage had, or would have had, a secretary or bodyguard or squire or maid or lover, it's fair game for the historical novelist to invent such a character and have them do things consistent with the role. (Some periods require a lot of this sort of invention; take my period of 7th-century Britain, where if I'm lucky I might have the name of the king, some of his sons or brothers, some bishops and other churchmen and maybe, just maybe, the queen. I have to make everyone else up). Or if an event is recorded but it's not known who did it, I don't mind a fictional character filling the gap. E.g., somebody killed Tippoo Sultan in the fall of Seringapatam but it's not known who, so I have no objection to Bernard Cornwell attributing it to his fictional Richard Sharpe. Taking your example, if it's known that Henry had pangs of conscience over the blinding and it's not known why, I don't think I mind it being via Ranulf. I was less happy with Ranulf's role as Maude's ever-loyal supporter, though, because I rather felt that that might have shifted the pattern of events. Does this make sense?Carlahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11901028520813891575noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21031350.post-1143362964647680482006-03-26T03:49:00.000-05:002006-03-26T03:49:00.000-05:00I haven't read the Katherine Howard novel, but I d...I haven't read the Katherine Howard novel, but I don't think I'd object to Clarissa, either - I don't mind fictitious characters who mainly exist for the protagonist to confide in, so we can see what she's thinking. To me, this plot device works better than lots of internal monologue. However, the character of Hannah in Philippa Gregory's 'The Queen's Fool' crosses the line of what I personally find 'acceptable', for want of a better word, and I'm not too thrilled at the thought of Penman's Ranulf, either.Kathryn Warnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00397714441908100576noreply@blogger.com