Historical Fictionistas discussion

There is something which I have noticed occurring in a few different works of historical fiction which I find to be a bit of a minor pet peeve, and that is the fact that it seems that HF writers have a tendency to view age through modern perceptions of aging.

More than once I have come across a book in which a character would be referred to as "only" being 45 (or some similar age within the 40 and sometimes 50 range) and spoken of as if such was still relatively young. But I believe that the thinking of the 40s-50s as being considered young(ish) is a rather modern concept of age being people do tend to live a lot longer.

Without the benefits of our medical advancements or proper hygiene and sanitation, people ran the risk of dying from a variety of desires, or minor infections, along with the fact that death by war and famine were a lot more likely. Women having the added risk of being subject to frequently dying in childbirth. Historically speaking people did not live very long. I know that reading classical literature always makes me feel old, because young women will be complaining about how old they are getting, and you find out they are only 24 or 25, but they speak as if they are in their late 30s.

So would not someone living into their 40s-50s historically have been considered to be fairly old?

Yes, in the early middle ages. Perhaps aged might be a better description, but certainly, not in their prime. Of course, there were always some exceptions, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine.

Rebecca wrote: "Yes, in the early middle ages. Perhaps aged might be a better description, but certainly, not in their prime. Of course, there were always some exceptions, such as Eleanor of Aquitaine."

Yes there were people who certainly did live to be quite old, but I did not think that people generally held a view of thinking of their 40s as still being in their prime. But some writers seem to give that impression in how they address the question of age.

I've noticed this too, Silver. I agree with you that someone who was 40 would have been considered old for much of history... it's only very recently that that's changed.

Related to what you've brought up, I've seen readers bothered by young girls (pre-/early teens) married or having sex etc. But this was common practice. As soon as they could, they'd be foisted off on a man and start popping out the babies. Our modern ideas lead us to the concept of 16 generally being the age of consent, but that wasn't always the case.

I agree with Becky, my old book group read...oh i forget what it was (it wasn't very good) but two of the women stopped reading it because a 14 year old girl got married and was basically raped by her husband. It happend quite a lot, when men wanted their marriage rights and young girls had obviously no idea what was going on. But it sparked such a heated discussion and I think that was the time one of members actually quite the group.

I have the same problem with the portrayal of teens. Too often I see them behaving immaturely, like a modern teen might. But I think kids grew up a lot faster in historical times. By the time a girl was 16, she'd be considered a full grown woman - behaving like a child might lead people to believe that there was something wrong with her - that she was "slow". The book I'm reading now is like that and it's really annoying me.

This has been a topic of discussion in my in-person book group too. We are always amazed to realize that most of the rulers/leaders through early history were in their 20s - an age we think of today as just beginning a career.

The idea of being a "teenager" is such a modern idea. In a great many historical periods, you were a child and then when you hit a certain age (marriageable age, in the case of girls) you were a woman. There is no in-between grace period. That's another thing that annoys me sometimes with poorly-written historicals: when teenage characters act, well, like teenagers, and the adults all just accept it, like they've gone to some 21st century parenting class about "How To Get Along With Your Teen." When in reality, the average historical father would have belted his fifteen-year-old daughter across the behind for being bratty and immature when she was supposed to be behaving like a grown woman.

Kate wrote: "The idea of being a "teenager" is such a modern idea. In a great many historical periods, you were a child and then when you hit a certain age (marriageable age, in the case of girls) you were a w..."

So true, Kate. And our idea of when a girl ought to marry is so different as well as when she can be expected to act fully adult. It's a challenge when readers react to a 15 year old "woman" with the thought that she can't possibly be expected to act adult, but in her world she darn well better have!

And sometimes the problem of age can be a real pain in the ass for historical novelists. I recently had the quandary of trying to write a romantic scene between two historical figures: a man of 60 hitting on a 17 year old girl. I couldn't change the ages, because the birthdates were known and established - and yes, it's easy to say "Well, there was nothing so out-of-the-way about that kind of age difference back then." But you still have to sell this scene to 21st century readers, who even if they understand the historical context, are going to have a hard time swallowing a 40+ age gap. How to make the scene romantic and believable?

The solution I'm currently pondering: write YA novels instead, where everybody is 16 and you don't have these kinds of problems. :D

Kate wrote: "And sometimes the problem of age can be a real pain in the ass for historical novelists. I recently had the quandary of trying to write a romantic scene between two historical figures: a man of 6..."

Stick with your adult audience. We'd miss your books. But I sympathize. Not sure how to avoid the creepy factor when you have a 17 year old woman and a man of 60. Let's hope he was at least a really handsome, youthful 60 year old? Maybe she was yearning for a father figure so much it really works for her? I need a glass of wine and some good food and a real face to face discussion for this one! Sometimes the online discussion just doesn't quite cut it!

A charismatic and well-preserved 60, definitely. And I do remember that when I was seventeen, my celebrity crushes tended less toward Leonardo di Caprio than Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, so I figured it wouldn't be impossible for a 60 year old guy to win over a 17 year old girl if he approached with a ruby necklace, a sense of humor, and an air of knowing a LOT more about women than giggly pimply teenage boys.

Kate wrote: "A charismatic and well-preserved 60, definitely. And I do remember that when I was seventeen, my celebrity crushes tended less toward Leonardo di Caprio than Harrison Ford and Sean Connery, so I f..."

Especially if some of that "a lot" hinted in a tantalizing way to enjoyable sex! I'm with you on Sean Connery! Just keep him in mind as you write. If nothing else, it will cheer you up.

Sean Connery improves anything.

Becky wrote: "I've noticed this too, Silver. I agree with you that someone who was 40 would have been considered old for much of history... it's only very recently that that's changed.

Related to what you've b..."

This is a big deal and a very hard balance to strike. In my story the heroine is betrothed as a baby and has to marry as soon as possible... I know that that would have been around fourteen or fifteen (if not younger!) but I was so creeped out by the idea of a child becoming a wife I've stated her age as eighteen even though at that age she would have been considered rather 'old' for a first time bride. ;-)
But in the end it is a book for a modern audience and just as I've left out the fact that they don't wash or brush their teeth (because that's kind of a romance killer!!!) I've put her age at a more palatable level.
I do expect to get some grief for it, but I had to write what I felt comfortable with.
I just hope people will overlook the discrepancy and still enjoy the book...

You can always find plausible reasons for a delayed marriage. Maybe her prospective husband is a few years younger than she is, and they have to wait until he reaches 15/whatever age puberty hits until they can marry and consummate the marriage. Maybe she got horribly ill or injured and the marriage had to be delayed till she recovered. Maybe there was trouble pulling the dowry together into an amount the husband's family would accept. Maybe her husband goes to war before she's of age, and is away for a few years. It's fun to get creative.

Kate wrote: "Sean Connery improves anything."

If I wasn't married, and batted for the other team...

I noticed that no men had pitched in on this one. Let's see if I can change that. It's a tricky conversation, sometimes, but one that should be had.

I see the problem (perceived) that can occur with these early marriage and sexual encounter situations in HF, but using film and television (period drama) as a frame of reference, I think I would find it odd when a girl had reached 18 at marriage in HF. Surely most HF readers have seen one of the Romeo and Juliets, a Jane Austin film, something or other by Dickens, etc?

As stated earlier by Becky, the concept of 16 (18 in the US?) is a modern construct. Certainly, many countries around me in Switzerland (Italy and Austria, perhaps France too) have an age of consent at 14. Other countries in Europe and Asia go as low as 12 I believe. The increase in that age is a Western construct and most-likely stems from the church. Though I am no expert on such matters. Bound to be someone here he can enlighten us?

The 60 and 17 age gap thing is a difficult one though. Despite many teenage girls having crushes on Sean and Harrison (hi Kate), if I had a sexy 60 year old neighbour that hit on 17 year olds (even if they liked it), I would see red and never trust him again. For sure, I would lock up my daughter.
But, if these ages are established in history and are true to your story, then I think it is vital they are accurately presented. readers who cannot stomach the truth probably don't fit so well into your target audience.

So far as the members in Sarah Louise's book group, I am saddened that they could be so affected by the content. One can only hope it wasn't due to their own bad memories or experiences, which is of course an unseen factor that can cause disapproval of your work.

I'm rambling.

BTW, when I wrote my modern male lead (their are two time-lines in my debut work, one is HF), I imagined Colin Firth playing him. My villain, an older gentleman, was based on Trevor Eve (both British). I wonder if either of these were good choices?

I need a 60ish male, a 40ish farmer, a 40ish farmer-woman, a 40ish broken police officer and a 15 year old boy for my next novel. Any suggestions for winning over readers?

This is an excellent question. I've had readers and reviewers question the maturity of my young characters writing things like "Would he have known about sex at 10 yrs of age?", "Why is this 8-yr-old drinking wine?", and "Would a child really say that?".

Do we stick to the historical facts or fudge ages a bit to satisfy readers who are read historical characters through a modern lens?

I can't comment on what kids knew and talked about throughout history (I presume they knew a bit though, through biology schooling).
But having worked in schools for a few years as a teaching assistant (some time ago, I was close to the kids ages), the stuff they talked about made the hairs on my back stand on end.

I hope I can keep my kids from being the same... but who knows what they discuss in the school yard?

Greg, Mel Gibson knew he was too old to play William Wallace in Braveheart, but he said that people aged faster back in the middle ages so being 10-15 years older than Wallace didn't stop him from taking on the role.

Colin Firth is always a good choice when writing a male lead. My new favorite is Hugh Bonneville - he was so dorky looking in Mansfield Park and so evil in Daniel Deronda, but he's a great example of a man who got better looking with age.

Hmm, yeah, Hugh Bonneville isn't a bad choice either.

OH!!! So glad you started this thread, Silver! This is also one of my biggest pet peeves. When I was trying to sell my book to a traditional publisher I kept getting the feedback that it "should" be a YA novel because of the main character's age at the beginning of the book, yet the subject matter wouldn't appeal to the YA audience (marriage troubles, adultery, motherhood.) My main character is 13 at the beginning of the book and has just been married off...which was exactly what happened in that time and place when you reached "womanhood" (i.e. reproductive age.)

Way back a couple of years ago when I was writing the book, I submitted one of the first chapters for critique to an online forum. One of the critiquers got really rough-tongued with me because I had another character say to my main character that now that she'd begun to menstruate, she was a woman and it was time to start acting like one. This critiquer really did not appreciate that sentiment -- he ranted on for several paragraphs about how my main character was NOT a woman -- her body was only STARTING TO BECOME that of a woman. To which I replied, a) *I* know that better than you, sir, because, being female, I have gone through female puberty, and I do not need to be lectured on what that entails! But more to the point, b) my main character lived in ancient Egypt, 3500 years ago, when thirteen was practically middle-aged, and her culture had VERY different views on issues like "official womanhood" than ours does. I explained to him that it's far more important to me to be truthful to my setting and my character than to beat modern readers over the head with modern ideas.

His response to that was to tell me that it didn't matter in any case, because menstruation was "disgusting," and that "half my readers" (meaning, I assume, men) would "throw my book against the wall" at the mere mention of it. And there was only a mere mention of it; it's not like I went all The Red Tent on my book. Ha ha ha...so much for modern thinking, I guess!

I guess that's a good segue into another enormous pet peeve for me in historical fiction: When authors inject modern ideas about sexuality or related topics into their books. I'm reading a historical novel right now that is good except for the main character's very anachronistic ideas about prostitution. She comes from a culture that revered temple prostitution as a sacred, admirable act, yet this character has modern Abrahamic-religion feelings about it (i.e. extreme shame, disgust, and self-loathing.) Otherwise it's a well-written book, but the anachronistic approach to prostitution is driving me up a wall. 2000-BC Canaan is not the same world as 2012 Anywhere. :/

Anyway, that's off-topic; sorry. That's another thread for another day.

Ugh, my above post made it sound like I suck at taking a critique. I don't, I promise. That was the only one I reacted badly to, and that was because it was delivered in such an outrageous way.

Lavender wrote: "Ugh, my above post made it sound like I suck at taking a critique. I don't, I promise. That was the only one I reacted badly to, and that was because it was delivered in such an outrageous way."

I do not think it made you sound like that. That particular individual sounded rather ignorant, and your response to him seemed to be a fair and appropriate one.

I always find it annoying when readers complain about things in Historical Fiction books because it offends their modern sensibilities, so to speak, even though such things would have been common and just the way things were in the period in which the book was set.

I don't blame you - what a rant that guy subjected you to! That's a reader you DON'T want.

I think it's also worth bringing up that it can be a bit all-encompassing to assume that 18 was automatically old for a historical bride. It depends on the period. Lavender's Egyptian heroine might marry at 13 since she lived in an era with shorter lifespans, but other eras had longer lifespans and thus later marriages - a well-born 19th century girl usually didn't make her debut till 18, at which point she was on the market for marriage. Money plays a part: I'm doing a lot of research on the Renaissance right now, and my reading pointed out that a 13 year old bride like Juliet actually would have been considered young for her time and era. Dowry inflation was such a problem in Renaissance Italy that families had to spend literally years pulling together enough money for their daughter to get a decent husband - hence, an 18 year old bride wasn't that uncommon. Social class also plays its part: a rich heiress or princess in the Middle Ages, for example, would get betrothed younger, because their families wanted all that money locked up and safe - see King John's twelve-year-old queen. Whereas a peasant girl was free to marry when she wished and often waited till 17-18.

Bottom line? Historical periods differ vastly, and things like money and social status are huge factors. It's dangerous to assume anything too sweeping.

Silver wrote: "I always find it annoying when readers complain about things in Historical Fiction books because it offends their moderns sensibilities, so to speak, even though such things would have been common and just the way things were in the period in which the book was set."

Patricia wrote: "Do we stick to the historical facts or fudge ages a bit to satisfy readers who are read historical characters through a modern lens?"

I think this is the age-old dilemma with writing HF.

I'm enjoying this discussion. Having moved the age of my Late Bronze Age Anatolian heroine back and forth as I wrestled with this issue, it's nice to hear I'm not alone.

Lavender wrote: "Ugh, my above post made it sound like I suck at taking a critique. I don't, I promise. That was the only one I reacted badly to, and that was because it was delivered in such an outrageous way."

That was ridiculous of him to say menstruation is disgusting. I'd like to throw a book at him.

I write in the 17th and 18th centuries when English women and colonists got married in their 20s due to the economy. However, Sephardic Jews during the same period tended to marry much younger - boys and girls in their teens. But again, this was economic - the Sephardic Jews who lived in the colonies and in England often could afford to set up a home earlier.

According the the American Psychological Association, American adolescence lasts until about 29. Back in the colonial era there was no such thing as adolescence.

Ah, Lavendar, the mere mention of the word menstruation had my dry retching. All of us men are that weak.

I am guessing this happened on Authonomy (or one of the other like-designed sites). It is a worthless comment from a moron. As I stated earlier, readers like that are not your target audience, so don't worry about it when they say stupid things. Laugh, and move on.

I am guessing the guy who wrote it is 45, lives with Mum, has never been kissed, and Mummy hid these things from him while he peacefully watched Star Trek and ate frozen dinners.

*snort*

Lavender wrote: "She comes from a culture that revered temple prostitution as a sacred, admirable act, yet this character has modern Abrahamic-religion feelings about it (i.e. extreme shame, disgust, and self-loathing.)..Anyway, that's off-topic..."

I guess it is off-topic but so discussable. I read a book on sacred prostitution recently, which came to the conclusion that our 'temple prostitute' is still influenced by the Bible's cultural ignorance and hostility; the author questions the translation 'prostitute', partly on the grounds that we moderns aren't going to get our heads beyond the negativity, to us, of that word (at least, I remember I decided, if I were to write hist fic with them, I'd make up a different term). I was there to understand another aspect of ancient religious sexuality: the cross-dressed men, that the Bible also makes a mish-mash of.

But to get slightly onto the point, this is the most wonderful thing about historical novels - exploration of other cultural ideas - and to be stuck in modern ethics or behaviour makes the exercise futile.

Of course, age is not the only speed bump in HF. Religion is another. Then there are attitudes toward slavery to consider.

I'm reading a book right now that does a great job showing how American colonial men and native men did not believe women were as intelligent or morally strong as men. But then the author ruins it by having all the main characters hold modern views about slavery. And though these characters are religious after a fashion, they have very rational views about nature and illness and the dead.

But again, do you write the characters as they truly might have been (i.e. as sexist, racist, homophobic, superstitious, religious bigots) or do you write them with only a few acceptable historical prejudices so that a modern reader will be able to relate to them and like them?

I'm a reader, not a writer, and I consider myself fairly open-minded. I appreciate the time and effort that writers put into their works and where historical nuances don't fit my sensibilities, I remind myself that 1) I am reading fiction and 2) that many of these historical viewpoints are exactly that - historical. I know that it was considered acceptable for men of 60 to wed women of 18 (Larry King, anyone?) and that children of a tender age were expected to behave as adults (Toddlers & Tiaras?). The more things change, the more they stay the same. Write as you see fit - if it's good, we readers will read it.

Greg wrote: "Ah, Lavendar, the mere mention of the word menstruation had my dry retching. All of us men are that weak.

I am guessing this happened on Authonomy (or one of the other like-designed sites). It is ..."

hahaha...nope, it wasn't Authonomy. I've actually never ventured there before. It was a more private/invitation-only forum where we were all supposed to be "friends," so that made it even more obnoxious. ;)

Judith wrote: "I'm enjoying this discussion. Having moved the age of my Late Bronze Age Anatolian heroine back and forth as I wrestled with this issue, it's nice to hear I'm not alone."

Judith, can you give us an idea of how far back and forth you've been going?

This discussion is getting better and better :)

I read it yesterday with a great enjoyment and was about to take if off the ages' topic, but somehow I was distracted and managed not to respond.
But now it only got better :)

I can't understand how people would pick an historical and then going around expecting it to fit our modern standards. This is the best thing about HF, this temporary transportation into another completely different world, with COMPLETELY different cultural values. To read about the independent 20 plus women a person can pick plenty of good contemporary fiction :)

Bryn wrote: "... But to get slightly onto the point, this is the most wonderful thing about historical novels - exploration of other cultural ideas - and to be stuck in modern ethics or behaviour makes the exercise futile. ..."

I could not agree more!

I write about a culture that saw a human sacrifice as a completely logical fitting thing.
I couldn't write on them properly without fully understanding and accepting it.
This thread made me think how some people people may react.

I wish I could say that I can't understand why people would expect a novel set in historical times to align with modern mores, but sadly I can. We're selfish people and, at least in America, the majority of us are not very worldly. We tend to see things as "our way is the right way." I guess that's just human nature.

Still makes me batty sometimes, though.

Lavender wrote: "I wish I could say that I can't understand why people would expect a novel set in historical times to align with modern mores, but sadly I can. We're selfish people and, at least in America, the m..."

From what I've seen it also makes certain readers uncomfortable. I remember when I read Outlander with a group there was a reader who went ballistic over one particular scene. It's when (view spoiler)[Jamie spanks Claire for disobeying him. (hide spoiler)] It seems to be a controversial scene for some readers because they believe that it perpetuates domestic abuse and that it wasn't romantic (not that it was meant to be imo), etc. BUT it was a scene that was critical in the story and fit with the character's beliefs and with the time period.

It's the same when people complain that there is too much violence in books about slavery or that a young girl marries an old man or animal abuse. It seems like some readers don't want to deal with the ugly side of life when they read for entertainment...to get away from those things on a daily basis.

Jackie wrote: "It's the same when people complain that there is too much violence in books about slavery or that a young girl marries an old man or animal abuse. It seems like some readers don't want to deal with the ugly side of life when they read for entertainment...to get away from those things on a daily basis. "

I recall seeing a blog entry in which the author had a good and proper rant about how the Song of Fire and Ice series glorified violence and rape. Isn't the internet fun? You get exposed to all kinds of crazy people.

Zoe wrote: "I write about a culture that saw a human sacrifice as a completely logical fitting thing. I couldn't write on them properly without fully understanding and accepting it."

Bet that's a challenge for you, Zoe. Isn't setting yourself such challenges the biggest fun - and the brain-stretchingest exercise - an historical novelist can have?

Human sacrifice has been so common in our history, we ought to try to understand it. And who else but an historical novelist is going to look from the inside? See the human face? Because (in one sense) these were people just like us.

We'd better stay aware of human possibilities, like slavery and bigotry. When we talk like this I start to think we have a serious job to do, us historical novelists.

Robin wrote: "Jackie wrote: "It's the same when people complain that there is too much violence in books about slavery or that a young girl marries an old man or animal abuse. It seems like some readers don't wa..."

Good lord, how is George R.R. Martin glorifying rape and violence? He's merely saying that it happens, not that it's right.

There seems to be a whole breed of reader out there who think that the views expressed in a book are by necessity the author's views. Richelle Mead recently did an interesting blog post where she said that some readers accused her of glorifying anorexia because one of her characters felt she was fat at size four. Which really says something about the character, not the author, but try telling people that.

On the other hand, I got an email accusing me of being racist because of the attitudes my characters had toward provincial cultural mores.

Kate wrote: "Good lord, how is George R.R. Martin glorifying rape and violence? He's merely saying that it happens, not that it's right."

Hence the crazy people comment, lol. Some people out there just can't get their heads around a simple concept. Alternatively, they are just being controversial for attention.

Kate wrote: "Robin wrote: Good lord, how is George R.R. Martin glorifying rape and violence? He's merely saying that it happens, not that it's right. "

Exactly. And that it happened as a matter of course in medieval Europe, which his fantasy world is meant to mirror.

I went to a reading featuring GRRM back in July or June or something -- immediately after A Dance with Dragons came out. I will never forget his spot-on response to one person who asked him how he decided to include so many gay characters in his books:

"I looked around at the world...and I saw that there are gay people in it."

He's just a dude who tells it like it is/was. I've read all of his books several times over (huge fan over here, obviously) and I do not think violence of any kind, including rape, is glorified *ever.* He is very frank about them, but no character the reader is meant to sympathize with enjoys it.

Bryn wrote:... We'd better stay aware of human possibilities, like slavery and bigotry. When we talk like this I start to think we have a serious job to do, us historical novelists."


I knew there was a reason for me being so narrow-minded reading historicals only :)


How can anyone judge anyone else's culture basing one's opinion on his/hers own culture.
Even our co-called modern world is no more than a county one was born at. It takes one relocation to another continent to understand that even one set of MODERN standards differs greatly from another.
Let along give or take a few centuries ;-)

I remember reading 'Shogun' of James Clavell for the first time. I was stunned by what this book had done to me, a person who couldn't care less about some distant Japanese history (Japan was no more than those good running cars for me). I remember how surprised I was, when toward the middle of the book I found myself looking at Europeans from the samurai point of view, those strange sailors who would neither bath nor understand the simple honor of throwing your life at the whim of your master. Of course to cut one's belly for various reasons made a perfect sense. How could it not?
Clavell taught me to shed my upbringing while looking at a different culture. An amazing feat! :)
(and I still aspire to be like him, only with different continent :D)

I won't go into my this-days favorite topic of human sacrifice, lol,
but it really is not about dragging a struggling virgin onto the top of the pyramid. It was a little similar to the samurai thing and it did make a perfect sense to BOTH sides. Well, in most of the cases :)

Pauline Gedge's Eagle and the Raven did the same thing for me. A few days buried in that immersive world of the Celtic tribes fighting against the Romans, and it made perfect sense that the characters planned to kill themselves and their children rather than be taken captive.

Laura wrote: "Judith wrote: "I'm enjoying this discussion. Having moved the age of my Late Bronze Age Anatolian heroine back and forth as I wrestled with this issue, it's nice to hear I'm not alone."

Judith, ca..."

Laura, you asked me how far back and forth I moved age of marriage. All in the early to mid teens. I was only jiggling within 3 or 4 years. I start a few years before marriage and how old she is then of course affected everything else and although I started with a young child, I eventually moved her up somewhat closer to the verge of adulthood. It changes voice and all sorts of things, so it was a major pain to sort out.

I find this thread to be fascinating because it is such a common issue, especially in historical fiction or any work set in the past. Maybe one of the reasons that some works are read by so many for hundreds of years after their time is because readers find new topics to discuss in the work, such as customs, worldviews and character traits that are not in keeping with modern times. Maybe this is why I'm such a historical fiction junkie! I think everyone is making valid points about the topic.

MaryKate wrote: "I find this thread to be fascinating because it is such a common issue, especially in historical fiction or any work set in the past. Maybe one of the reasons that some works are read by so many fo..."

Just as with non-fiction historical books, historical fiction tells us as much about the present day as it does about the past.

Kate wrote: Pauline Gedge's Eagle and the Raven did the same thing for me. A few days buried in that immersive world of the Celtic tribes fighting against the Romans, and it made perfect sense that the characters planned to kill themselves and their children rather than be taken captive."

Exactly! A good historical should do just that :)
(I will most definitely look this book up)

I had a very similar problem with the historyof the native tribes of Costa Rica while writing my books. Their views of marraige, human sacrifice, slavery and rape varied from one tribe to another. I find slavery abhorrent, but the tribes of the area thought it was commonplace and useful.

The idea of selling one's child to be a human sacrifice was also difficult, but I finally had to immerse myself in the culture and realize that being the parent that gave their child to the gods, who brought forth a time of peace and bountiful crops made some sort of sense.

Being a woman, rape is horrendous no matter what. But there were instances of "sacrificing the virgin" that had nothing to do with slitting her throat. Some of the great HF novels I have read helped me understand that people and cultures were different, and that is just how it is.