I don’t know what it is about historical/political fiction that I love so much.
I think there is the whole not-at-all-based-in-reality thing that I can escape into. Take The Ghost for example. Sure there are elements of Blair or Bush in the politician character, but for the most part he is a new, complex, interesting character with which one can engage.
The Interpretation of Murder took us into the heart of turn-of-the-century America, through the eyes of Sigmund Freud. Yes, I’ll admit they are all real characters (mostly), but the situation is entirely fabricated.
The Rule of Four and The Secret History fall into that whole Skulls/Dead Poets Society genre, without, I feel, slipping into the Da Vinci Code-esque realm of populist speculative fiction. They’re just damn good tales told well.
What inspired this little rumination? I’m currently in the midst of The Minutes of the Lazarus Club, by Tony Pollard, which I’m thoroughly enjoying. It’s an easy and enjoyable read, and the characters are fascinating, plucked from history and resettled as they are, potentially as conspirators in a sinister and murderous plot.
The twisting and contorting of history for the ends of entertainment has always been a popular pastime; particularly now in the era of The Da Vinci Code. The latest exponent of the reconstructed history genre is probably Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds, which depicts the end of World War II – if it was directed by Tarantino himself. It says something of humankind that although books are written and movies are made based on the notion of spectacle, we constantly look back to an era or a time or a set of characters or an atmosphere drenched in nostalgia, in classicism, in ‘the old’.
Retro-modernism, anyone?
Until next time…