Historical Fiction - How much do you describe?

I was having this discussion over on the critique boards, I thought it'd be an interesting dilemma for these boards as well.

I favour the third person limited perspective. However, apparently my readers find it problematic that I do not explain my setting (mid-Victorian London) to them. My problem, in return, is that a character who lived at that time and place, would not notice/comment (internally or externally) on a lot of things. For example, he might see that a hansom cab is in a derelict state, but he wouldn't stop to think about what a hansom cab ís.

It's funny, in the sense that, if I show some of my writings to a Victorianist, they'll actually compliment me on the incredible amount of detail it has, without being overly 'showing your research'. I try to put the details in the little things and play around with that.

Apparently, though, not explaining the setting does make it harder for a regular audience to understand. So how do you other historical fiction writers deal with this problem? Go for blunt realism/screw the audience, go for full exposure/screw your characters, or did you find some sort of ideal middle ground?

This dilemma I try to solve by the details. So my characters don't lament about dirty streets or discuss the style, the houses are build as long, as they are in their normal surrounding. They just jump over the puddle in the middle of the street or kick a head of rotten cabbage if it's in their way. As well, they wouldn't resume more at the sight of a hansom cab, as we do if we see a recent car (ok, the characters in my recent project would, because they live in 5th century and have never seen a cab).
But of course they recognise differences: The house behind the rotten fence is even smaller, than the houses at home. And oh dear! It's roof isn't properly layed with tiles but with straw. So I try to bring them in new situations, where they have to notice "extraordinary" things and describe the normal by comparing it to the new impressions.

Of course there might be things the reader don't know, like a your hanson-cab. So I don't even expect, that they know, what a pallium is or a sax. But in the context they are mentioned, I hope that they will understand, that the first one is a piece of clothing and the other one a swordlike weapon. And that has to be enough, because most readers are more interested in the story than in the subtilities of the material culture (which imho has to be as correct as possible anyhow).

I think this is an area where a good reader or two who doesn't know the period can come to your aid. Let them see if they can work things out.

My own pet peeve is chunks of useless infodump, artlessly done. I was reading a medieval mystery the other day where the characters are walking into a churchyard, and one of them runs into the grave of an unbaptised infant just outside the yard itself, buried as close to hallowed ground as they can. Now, he's a man of his time, he should know what it is. But instead of, say, just quickly having him realize what it is, and explaining it like that, he asks another character, who gives an entire paragraph of information about burial practices for children who die without baptism. And I'm thinking, who talks like this? It's like me seeing people pull to the side of the road for a fire engine, and asking a friend about it, who then gives me a short lecture on the role of emergency vehicles.

I try to work in details, but not hit the reader over the head with them.

As for the hansom cab, I think the reader can probably figure out the 'cab' means it's a vehicle, and if you mention a horse, they get that, and I think for most, it will click in their heads at this point that this must be one of those things everyone rides in through the London fog in Victorian-set movies.

I agree that characters would only notice things that are different/out of place! Like I tried to explain to some people over on the critique boards, think about how we ourselves go through life. If I go to work, I don't stop to ponder my car - unless, maybe, it suddenly sports dents or a broken windshield, or just gives up on me halfway! ;)

@ Maydeleh: Yes, those are exactly the sort of infodumps I try to avoid! I hate it when a writer bashes me over the head with information like that, it's sort of derisive towards your reader, as if they're too stupid to understand anything for themselves.

Although...considering the cab thing...I did actually get a remark about how the reader was confused because, there was a cab (which has to be modern, right?) but there was also a horse?! Finally, I got labelled as Steampunk, but chided for making such a clunky mush of settings. :P

Which brings me to another point...is it a bad thing if people have to look something up in order to understand it completely? ir is that just one of the hazards of historical fiction that a reader mght encounter? ;)

[Duplicate Post]

Normally I would subscribe to the 'less is more' school of thought. Recently however, I reread Keith Roberts' Pavane and came to the conclusion that lots of detail can actually work very nicely, for reasons I will come to.

This novel is actually an alternative history, describing a Britain of the late 20th century after the assassination of Queen Elizabeth I and the victory of the Spanish Armada changed most of European history to a massive degree. Anyway, in the first section of the novel it becomes clear that much of the technology in use is comparable to the late Victorian era. For example, most freight is transported by what seem to be very much like traction engines hauling 'road trains' across the countryside.

The main character of this section spends a long time going over the details of how he gets his traction engine working before a journey, interspersed with reminiscences about times when he or someone else screwed up and damaged the delicate machinery, or about the history of the family company. There's pages of this stuff, and it works, in my view, for the following reasons:

-It says a lot about the character, in that he is methodical and a perfectionist (and why he grew up that way), and more importantly, that he has a deep love of carrying out these painstaking tasks well - to him, starting up a steam engine is an art
-It adds to the action later - once we know the complications and limitations of the machinery, it's clear why the story unfolds as it does
-It gives a wonderful flavour of the time, and serves as a reminder that technology has not always been easy to use - in some cases it took a real craftsman to get the best out of the technology of the day, but at the same time there was no instruction manual - you had to learn by doing

And so on and so on. I can see people reading it, thinking 'where on earth is all this self-indulgent stuff going?', but as well as being a joy to read for its own sake, it works in the context of the whole.

I recently finished a Philippa Gregory novel and I had to look up "pillion saddle" because she mentioned it several times, but I had not heard of it (and I do medieval re-enacting and majored in medieval studies in college). The context gave me a general idea of what she was talking about (I knew the lady was riding some sort of special saddle), so it wasn't detrimental to the story that I didn't know, at that moment, what kind of saddle it was exactly.

My historical novel involves Jews and I sometimes have to mention Jewish words which are not readily known by a Gentile audience. So I ended up doing things like:

"Samuel knew then why Yitzchak had come to the wedding; the ketubah--the marriage contract--had to be witnessed by two people unrelated to the families." I also include an out-loud reading of the ketubah, which incorporates both traditional Jewish contract language as well as medieval contract language (I specifically used medieval wills as a basis for what gets listed in the ketubah).

I assume that my audience knows some things about the middle ages--most people who read historical fiction know something about the time period(s) they like to read--but if I feel something is obscure, I try to describe it.

I love historic costume, in particular, and people's clothing tends to be described in detail as it is put on or taken off (it's a historic romance after all!). You might prefer to detail certain things in your novel, but not everything.

My MC goes into Prague to rescue his Jewish love interest, and I don't spend a lot of time discussing the setting because 1) I simply don't know much about what Prague looked like in the middle ages--or even much about what it looks like now--and if I don't put in a detail, it can't be wrong!; and 2) the action is much more important than the setting. I use descriptions which are important to the plot/characters.

For example, Jakub has come to town to try to rescue the parents of his Jewish love interest (whom he got out of the city first). He first notices that there is an unusual amount of smoke rising from the city. Then he notices that there are no guards at the gates into the city. And that it stinks worse than a city normally stinks (Jakub is from the countryside, and it specifically says he notices the stench of a city because he's unused to it). Finally he wanders into a square and sees hundreds of people on fires, being burned alive. He runs from the scene and tries to circle around to the Jewish quarter, but runs into a mob who is in the process of looting. He finds out that from someone that Alzbeta's father was killed that morning, so Jakub flees the city to retrieve Alzbeta and take her to the safety of his estate.

I avoid describing how the city looks and instead describe what's happening IN the city. A few things I can take for granted--that it would have had at least one large square, that it would have had a gate with a guard, that it would have stunk to someone used to living in it--because those things are generally true for medieval cities everywhere. A handy map gave me a few street names in the Jewish ghetto and placed it close to the river. So, in the book, someone gives Jakub directions--using those street names--to get to the river, and he and Alzbeta jump into it and allow it to sweep them downriver, out of the city.

So I don't think you need to be too detailed about the look of the setting if you keep the action of your character detailed.

I think you have to think in terms of the character and who they would be describing things to. If its something that someone of the era would know as a day to day thing then avoid over explaining it. Just keep in mind that readers can be dropped into the story with very little explanation and anything they might want to, they can google. Assume they are more interested in your plot and characters than the setting and set pieces.

When I wrote "Brotherhood and Baseball," I put in my intro that being legally blind and such, I try to move thigns along with dialogue as much as possible, so they wouldn't be able to smell the gunpowder at an altered Chancellorsville, but things would move fast and be enjoyable.

I don't think you have to describe everything, either, and I shied away from any terms people today wouldn't know. Instead, I try to use dialogue a lot. With dialogue, you're moving the pace along swiftly enough that it doens't matter if you can't count the tents int he UnionArmy as General Couch, others behind him, exits the hospital tent where an incapacitated General Hooker has been relieved of command. What matters isn't the number, it's his emotion and finally choking out a hearty, "Let's win, men!" I think readers will know what to expect pretty much. (After all, even if you don't know anything about Chancellorsville, you can perhaps guess very easily at the point of departure right there without being told, right?)

Of course, if you want to describe things in more detail, there can be certain reasons a Victorian era person, say, would notice things that they would normally take for granted. Has a character been away from home for a while. As i say, with my vision I didn't cover in great detail a Civil War soldier returning home, since I don't notice such things myself. However, if I'd wanted, I could have had him gaze over each object as muse how he thought he'd never see it again, and how that plain whatever never looked so lovely, and so on. indeed, make a character a poet or writer, and you can have them describing things in great detail themselves, without making it seem like an infodump. Of course, you would have to avoid going overboard with that, which could be tricky.