Historical Fiction and Feminism | Olivia J

"No matter what you do, your job is to tell your story," Gary Vaynerchuk

I just can't hop off the literary analysis train, can I? 

Disclaimer: I am not an authority figure on the history of feminism. I also don't read or write all that much historical fiction, at least not at the frequency at which I write contemporary or survival fiction. Hence, this is not comprehensive or set in stone by any means. These are just my thoughts, here to get you thinking. 

Historical fiction is too feminist. 

Let me explain. 

I've been in a reading slump for the past two weeks, so I've been rereading some of my favorite books that are way overdue for a reread, and this includes the Vengeance Road duology by Erin Bowman. (Read my review for Vengeance Road and Retribution Rails at the respective hyperlinks.)

However, I'd like to re-explore the gripe I had with both of these books, concerning the feminist prose and undertones.  I also had this gripe with These Shallow Graves, among other historical fiction works that take place before the first wave of feminism. 

For Vengeance Road, the focus is less on feminism explicitly, but many of the thoughts and quips of Kate, the main character, reflect a modern egalitarian mindset. She comments regularly on the problematic state of women in the West, and how others perceive her. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this commentary, it feels too self-aware - and at times, unneeded - for the context of both the story and the character. 

For Retribution Rails, Charlotte, the book's main female character, is an outspoken feminist. This works slightly better in the context of the character, since Charlotte is an educated, wealthier girl, and her choice of career faces a lot of sexist backlash. However, it all still feels out of place. 

Why? 

Because feminism existed differently back then. It was viewed differently then, and feminism isn't even viewed the same as it was ten years ago. The author tries to put on this lens of twenty-first century morals onto a story that took place over one hundred years ago. This disconnect jolts the reader out of the story, and dates the writing significantly. 

The thing is, is that now we can look back on history and say that "yeah, that was wrong," and "yeah, that was oppressive," but these characters set in the past don't have the cultural context we have now. Many of them probably didn't have a problem with the way their society worked, but still made the best of what they had and who they were in the context of their culture. 

Another problem is that, back then, feminism was a beyond radical idea. Not many people - even women - supported it. Sure, people have believed in feminism since the beginning of time, but only recently has it become a mainstream thing.  But having all of these main female characters ALL be these radical feminists feels unrealistic, especially considering the time period. Surely, not all women felt the same way, as women don't feel the same way even today. Often, the women who don't challenge the social order or make these feminist comments are painted as weak, which is a whole other problematic can of worms . . . 

Going back to my point, it doesn't feel realistic for all of these young female characters in historical fiction to be radical underground feminists. Sure, the late-1800s was when feminism was gaining leverage, but by saturating every single historical fiction story with an overtly feminist character paints an unrealistic picture of how most women believed and behaved. 

Granted, I understand why both the authors wrote these themes and specific lines in, and the publishers kept them in. They kept them in because we live in a feminist era, and the target audience for these books are young people, who are more feminist than ever. By weaving in some nice feminist propaganda into modern historical fiction stories, it allows for easy digestion of the actual state of women in said era. It misrepresents the good - and bad -  of these time periods. 

Which, now that I think about it, is kind of worse than just leaving the issue alone. 

I'm not saying that feminist females in historical fiction are bad, or should be erased. What I am saying is that the over-saturation of feminism in historical fiction is actually very unrealistic. Not every historical fiction story with a female main character has to tackle feminist content. 

What is your take on feminism in historical fiction? Do you believe it has been too modernized in the context of historical fiction? What is the place of examining social issues in historical fiction? Can a female character in historical fiction still be a strong character without being an overt feminist? 

(The answer to that last question is a resounding 'yes', by the way.)

As edgy and controversial as always, 

~The WordShaker