Not too long ago, in a writer's group that I had belonged to, there became a debate about history and how it is portrayed. A person was taken to task for saying that most women in the medieval times were considered worth less than the farm animals. After people had made comments in denial of her views, she then apologized.

But in a very big way, it was true. yes there were women that stood up and demanded to be counted, but the majority worked and did what they could to survive. Most did not have the time, luxury or the privilege to be able to try to effect changes.

But this is not my point. My point is that each author will perceive history in their own way. Some are more accurate than others, but it is the writers, and reader's, duty to portray it in their own words. If everyone agreed as to what happened in history, then there would be no room for debate, no room for discovery.

As much as we all enjoy the written word, it is a relatively new concept. A very long time ago, nothing was written, especially anything that might get the people in trouble with their enemies. For most of our history as human beings, history had been passed down from person to person orally. For instance, take the ancient Celtic Druids. They had to study and learn all of their people's stories and lore verbally. It would take at least twenty years to commit all of these to memory, and there were at least two hundred stories, poems, lore's, etc. to learn.

Remember from school when someone would whisper a phrase in a person's ear and it was repeated in other's ears until it had circled back to the original whisperer? Was it not true that by the time it had returned to the sender, it had altered so significantly that it was almost unrecognizable from the original phrase?

With oral stories being passed down from person to person, they all had an obligation to keep the text true to the original in order to keep the facts true and strong, but how often do you think that some of the original context was lost from the original? If you think about it, the written word is not that different in regards to stories. Each author/story teller puts their own mark into the story.

Keep this in mind when you read/write anything with history. What we may consider to be true, may not necessarily be so. But it does open the subject up for further debate.

Take for instance the tales of King Arthur. In the traditional tales Guinevere is portrayed either as the typical female of the time, or as a simpering ninny. She is the one who betrays Arthur and opens a Pandora's box (sorry for the mixed metaphor's ;-) that brings around the ultimate destruction of what Camelot had stood for.

Yet in some of the recent tales being told about King Arthur and Guinevere, Guinevere is portrayed as this strong woman who battled beside the men to protect what everything had stood for. It is a reflection of what has come to be known about the time period, but also, more importantly, it is the take the current author's have taken on the traditional tales.

But, do you also wonder if it is a reflection of our current times? The time period of Guinevere and Arthur, women did not stand up to be counted for very often. The men were the ones to rule the household. Yet, today's society, women do not take things laying down, they are out there fighting beside the men, fighting for what they believe in.

The tales that are told, each generation puts their own spin on them and each tale reflects the current time period.

How will your tales reflect our time period?