...'relevance' might be attempted in two different ways: either a) by trying to show historical experience as directly similar to modern experience, which is what Hooper seems to have done by giving her heroine a chick-lit sensibility; or b) by making it seem similar indirectly, by way of analogy or metaphor, which is what Philip Reeve does (though he's doing a lot more besides) in Here Lies Arthur.
Yes, using Here Lies Arthur is a bit complicated by the abundance of things PR is doing, isn't it? I take your point about relevance, but I think I'm going to try to mix up your two and shelve one of the new mix-and-match methods for a later post. Part of the problem is that Reeve (in Here Lies Arthur only) and Crossley-Holland (in the Arthur trilogy and Gatty) are dealing - directly or indirectly - with both situations and mentalities that are inherently relevant to modern ones: religious intolerance leading to violence, for example.
Of course that doesn't mean that I think it doesn't matter when the 'only' relevance of the book for modern readers is in the experience and feelings of the protagonist (leaving aside the possibility of trying to relate the Great Plague of 1665 to AIDS or a flu pandemic - which would be pretty silly in 'straight' historical fiction!). It's just the way it's done in this book. I think a good example of this being well done is Catherine, Called Birdy, in which the reader is easily able to feel with Birdy and yet is brought to understand that her feelings and expectations are necessarily different (wrt marriage for example). Or even in Here Lies Arthur - Gwyna is easy to identify with, though her gender changes would be incomprehensible in modern society, so her 'relevance' is done with a generally sound historical sensibility. (Maybe except for the very minor quibble of her perhaps unlikely literacy.) (And yes, it is different because there are so few records from 6th century Britain - but that's definitely another entry!)
no subject
Yes, using Here Lies Arthur is a bit complicated by the abundance of things PR is doing, isn't it? I take your point about relevance, but I think I'm going to try to mix up your two and shelve one of the new mix-and-match methods for a later post. Part of the problem is that Reeve (in Here Lies Arthur only) and Crossley-Holland (in the Arthur trilogy and Gatty) are dealing - directly or indirectly - with both situations and mentalities that are inherently relevant to modern ones: religious intolerance leading to violence, for example.
Of course that doesn't mean that I think it doesn't matter when the 'only' relevance of the book for modern readers is in the experience and feelings of the protagonist (leaving aside the possibility of trying to relate the Great Plague of 1665 to AIDS or a flu pandemic - which would be pretty silly in 'straight' historical fiction!). It's just the way it's done in this book. I think a good example of this being well done is Catherine, Called Birdy, in which the reader is easily able to feel with Birdy and yet is brought to understand that her feelings and expectations are necessarily different (wrt marriage for example). Or even in Here Lies Arthur - Gwyna is easy to identify with, though her gender changes would be incomprehensible in modern society, so her 'relevance' is done with a generally sound historical sensibility. (Maybe except for the very minor quibble of her perhaps unlikely literacy.) (And yes, it is different because there are so few records from 6th century Britain - but that's definitely another entry!)