I was rudely awakened this morning by the fire alarm. As I waited outside for the all clear to return to my cozy bed, I decided to download a sample of Wilbur Smith’s Warlock on my iPhone. Warlock is a fantasy novel set in ancient Egypt and I had been meaning to check it out for some time, but I never managed to get around to it until now.
By the end of the first page, it became apparent that artistic license was going to be the order of the day. I had hoped that Warlock would be a work of historical fantasy on par with Susanna Clarke’s Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell, but Smith took so many liberties with the past that it had a negative impact on my ability to enjoy the story.
Now I get the fact that this is a novel and not a history textbook. I also understand that artistic license is often necessary. But if you’re going to set your work in a real-world society, I think you have to adhere to a certain basic standard of authenticity. Populating your version of ancient Egypt with people named “Lostris” and “Memnon” is like writing a story about feudal Japan with characters named “Tiffany” and “Bartholomew.” If you’re going to fudge that many details, why not just go all the way and set your story in a wholly fictional world of your own creation?
Let me make one thing clear, though: I’m not saying that Warlock is a bad book because it lacks authenticity. It’s just not the sort of book I want to read. I think I’ll download something by C. J. Sansom instead…
Codex Lochianus 
I don’t understand why a writer would want to write a novel in a historical setting without doing a proper amount of research first. It just seems like such an obviously critical element of the process.
LikeLike
He probably figured that the average reader wouldn’t care about the lack of authenticity, so long as the story itself was interesting.
LikeLike
Ah. You know I got to try and tackle this one. Smith is one of my favorite authors. Why indeed not just make up your own world? Two words: popular author. Smith wants to sell books.
When it comes to history subjects, Egypt sticks in the minds of the popular imagination. There is money to be made off if it. Problem is, when you get into the authenticity of the culture, the modern reader has a hard time wrapping their head around it. Its just too foreign. Smith just probably figured the modern reader would enjoy it more if he just nailed the story and wrapped an Egyptian ‘flavor’ around it (like you said). If he put it in a made-up world he loses the Egyptian flavor and also the story’s selling point.
As for the names, my guess is that he figured, ‘well, I’m going to use Greek names for places, why not use Greek names that “sound” Egyptian for people.’ You and I have had this discussion before–Egyptian names can be really hard on the eyes and tongue. He probably figured a mainstream audience wouldn’t like them.
I feel your pain, though. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m not sure I agree that modern readers are turned off by authenticity. Steven Saylor’s Roman mysteries are all wonderfully accurate, yet they’re also quite popular. The same thing goes for Pauline Gedge, who has written a number of books set in ancient Egypt. Both of them managed to figure out a way to sell books without sacrificing authenticity. It’s certainly more of a challenge, but it’s not impossible.
I’m also not sure that authentic Egyptian names are automatically impenetrable to the reading public. Of course you probably shouldn’t name your main character Djedkhonsuefankh, but there are plenty of more reasonable names you can use: Bak, Menna, Roy, Qen, etc. There’s actually quite a bit of fiction out there that uses authentic names. But if you absolutely have to use a made-up name, I think it should at least be a plausible one (Egyptian doesn’t really have an ‘l,’ so “Lostris” doesn’t really work).
From my perspective, Smith would have been better off emulating Guy Gavriel Kay. Kay creates his own worlds that are heavily rooted in the past. For example, UNDER HEAVEN is set in Kitan, which is a fictionalized version of Tang dynasty China while SAILING TO SARANTIUM is set in Trakesia, which is based on the Byzantine Empire. The advantage to that approach is that you can infuse your setting with historical flavor without having to worry about questions of historical accuracy.
LikeLike
Those are good examples of folks who write authentic historical fiction and are well liked. I miswrote when I said “modern reader.” Mainstream would be more accurate. These authors you listed are not your typical pool side trash which Smith would fall more into the lines of. This is what I mean.
Looking at it from a business stand point, if Smith had gone the Guy Gavriel Kay route, his marketing department would probably kill him. He is known for stories that take place in historical Africa. His fanbase wouldn’t have known what to do with a fantasy book.
In the meantime, he’s just gonna bug the crap out of us who like our historical fiction more pure.
LikeLike