I would also note that - while the research end is a tad easier in historical fiction, at least I found it so, instead of struggling to invent or dashing through a mountain of notes, I merely looked something up, the character end is harder. Fantasy tends to cheat and make all characters contemporary with contemporary sensibilities. Historical fiction demands more imagination in the sense that you have to put aside your own sensibilities(like how ridiculous would it be to have a feminist in a Renaissance piece?) and go about understanding the ideals of the period but at the same time making your characters independent and not cliché.
It depends how you define "feminist". I don't think it too much of a stretch to read modern feminist sentiments into "The enemy perhaps may challenge my sex for that I am a woman, so may I likewise charge their mould for that they are but men" -- Elizabeth I of England.
....she also frequently referred to herself as a prince. Most call Mary Wollstonecraft the first feminist, she wrote The Rights of Woman in 179 as a response to the famous revolutionary title The Rights of Man. A feminist wants equal (or at least close) rights under the law as men for all women. Elizabeth Tudor wanted power for herself, not equality. But anyway you get my drift it would be silly for a character from that era to say, "You know what honey? I think I should be your equal under the law and that I have the right to join Parliament" -_-
Joan of Arc, Catherine Valois, Caroline Brunswick, Anne Askew and what we know of Katherine Parr come to mind. Also a peasant woman would have had a reasonable level of equality with the men folk around her. There have been women in every age and generation that could be classed as feminists. And who if you are writing them it wouldn't be out of place to give them modern feminist language would actually work out as fun. With historicals I make caricatures rather than characters then use the story to soften them
I would delineate between "strong woman" and "feminist". Again Joan of Arc was not fighting for equal rights. Modern sensibilities in a period novel lead to a sense of unreality, remember our job is to make the reader suspend disbelief!
I'm not arguing it should always be done, but it can be made to work. As long as it is believable, rather than realistic it can work. However you would have to give everyone around her a modern voice that fitted their character. Or change their context. With context and a reason it can work. For example my book has Lillith, Boudicca, Joan of Arc, Anne Boleyn, Lady Godiva, Marie Curie and Agatha Christie in it. They have however due to a cosmic accident been brought up as modern teenagers. It has context so reader can suspend belief. Modern productions of Shakespeare can be very successful for example. There is a Sparkling Cyanide set in the 90s etc.
Oh, I was talking more straight Hist. Drama Fiction. And I'm not saying we should be limited by making every character an example of "the ideals of the time", just you have to remember that this is what this character would have been taught since birth. And if they do have any more progressive ideals then you could ask where would they have gotten them from? And it should probably be done sparingly, it would be silly to have a character that had all the ideals of the Enlightenment hundreds of years before it took place. It would be just as out of place as having Elizabeth driving a car to her coronation.
oh I do agree I think you have to blend fantasy with history to do the car thing However language can be played with a little. However I love Blackadder and comedies based in historical times as well and it could be a lot of fun to caricature someone like that. Bede and one of the Nuns around him could be a lot of fun.
Oh I love Blackadder too. "The bad news is that actually there are simply hundreds of catholics who desperately want their heads sneaked off and there's no-one to organize it." ~Elizabeth I. Satire is fun.
