Writerpedia discussion

Hello Everyone,

So I was over on the Amazon boards and came upon this discussion about historical accuracy and how important it is in novels. And I have to say I was amazed by the responses. People seemed to tend not to care if their historicals are accurate. As a history major and a historical romance writer I have to say this conversation took me somewhat by surprise. Yesterday, I had made myself check the word shenanigan which I used in my Regecy and realized it was an Americanism from the 1850's. See I knew that word had just not sounded right. Perhaps errors don't bother people but they drive me crazy. So what are your thoughts? How important is accuracy to you?

Seeing a modern expression in a story from an older time would take me right out of the story, as would any other anachronism. And yes, novels are fiction, but I would prefer that historical novels work within the truths of their times.

If it's a revised history, then the author needs to tell us before we even begin reading.

It depends on the story really. If the tone of the story is light hearted or more of an adventure tale than a straight up historical I can accept variances and silliness that don't strictly fit in the time period ( probably the reason that steampunk is pretty popular actually) but if its a very straight forward dramatic tale then it will drive me nuts to find historical errors.

100% accuracy is essential. However, good luck getting that accuracy unless you lived in the period.

If you're talking about household laptops in the 60's or electricty in the middle ages, you're going to get burned. However, remember - GoodReads is far more learned than your average reader base. Be as accurate as you can, but don't obsess.

Do the best job you can possibly do given your research, but don't get caught up that much in expressions like this. I realize it may 'pull some out of the story,' but an anarchronism as small as 'shenanigans' won't rub most readers the wrong way. Plus, it's ridiculously annoying to hear people talk in period-speak. Look at the movie Troy, or even The Diary of Anne Frank. Whenever an English audience is faced with any kind of foreign concept or dialect, all you have to do is give your characters a cute posh British accent for the higher classes and Cockney for the lowers - and the audience eats it up.

Don't underestimate your audience, but write your book how you see fit. Be as close to history as you can possibly make it, but don't ruin the quality of your work because the history books say so - unless you are documenting true events.

I don't like to be bogged down with dates or war stories, and I cannot stand old world English, but accuracy is a must. When something is wrong in a story, it pulls me from the book which irritates.(Your right, Ian, it's usually not a word but a fact of history that bothers) I then get mad at the author for not doing their research and mad at the editor for not catching the error. I agree there's a fine line between writing historicals to fit history and writing a historical to fit modern day readers. I was just surprised by how many people didn't care if their historicals were accurate, and there was alot in that catagory. If I want to read something completely made up, I would read a Harry Potter book. But when I'm pulled into history, I want to feel like I'm really there and that includes correct details. But then, even the error in my above post makes me crazy, LOL.

It's my philosophy that if you're going to write a historical novel, you might as well take the time to make it historically accurate, as far as dates and events go. I also think it's important for the readers to be able to understand the dialogue, but at the same time I've learned so many new words from stories that had period-correct language. Here's what I try to do: use words that would have been in use in whatever era the story takes place in, bu throw in some old-fashioned ones to keep everyone on their toes and give it some authenticity.

Gemma Irene wrote: "It's my philosophy that if you're going to write a historical novel, you might as well take the time to make it historically accurate, as far as dates and events go. I also think it's important for..."

This. I agree whole-heartedly.

Also, as an aside - please for the love of god don't spell out accents phonetically for every character. There's nothing more irritating or hard to read than a long string of, "Ay, buh if yee tink ta boy be runnin', why naht run wif him and see whot 'appens?"

I've seen it before, and I'm sure I'll see it again. Throw in period words of the odd word in phonetics for flavour, but don't beat your audience over the head with it.

Yes, I agree with you both. I believe keywords and phrases from a historical period help to pull the reader in, while giving the book authenticity. And I had a chuckle at your sentence, Ian, I've read books like that too.

Amanda wrote: It depends on the story really. If the tone of the story is light hearted or more of an adventure tale than a straight up historical I can accept variances and silliness that don't strictly fit in the time period ( probably the reason that steampunk is pretty popular actually) but if its a very straight forward dramatic tale then it will drive me nuts to find historical errors.

I agree--and for me, this applies to a story set in any time period, including today. I can forgive inaccuracies in a light-hearted romp, but if the story sells itself as a serious drama, then I'd like it to be as accurate as possible.

J. Rosemary wrote: "Amanda wrote: It depends on the story really. If the tone of the story is light hearted or more of an adventure tale than a straight up historical I can accept variances and silliness that don't st..."

I agree, the accuracy has to be there but equally you dont want the story to be slowed or bogged down because the author wants to prove they know the era they are writing about. The most successful historicals are where the facts are seamlessly woven in to evoke the sights, smells and sounds of the period without intruding.

I don't want my historical romances to be bogged down with historical facts either, that would bore me to tears. I agree sprinkling tidbits of info here and there works best, but it should be correct if it is supposed to convey a real sense of time. If I describe a scene at Almack's in Regency England, I make sure I do my research so I can describe the scene as it would have been then. Thanks for commenting, ladies.

I would also be sure not to get carried away explaining everything to death.

For instance, back in the day they roasted coffee beans over a fire in a small iron canister at the end of a rod. They rolled this rod over the hearth in the fireplace, turning and twisting until the beans were mostly roasted. It provided a very uneven roast, and they didn't filter the coffee after adding the grounds - ground by hand with a mortar and pestle.

If you were to describe your MC going into an old-school coffee house, you don't need to explain all of the above. Throw in one of the above for flavour, so the history geeks (yes, I'm proudly one too) go A-HA! but the rest of your readership doesn't lose interest. Infodumping is just infodumping, whether factual, historical, or completely made up.

I think the point is not how much detail you provide - that will depend on your own writing style and the nature of the story - but that what is provided is accurate.

Is it essential? No, we are writing fiction after all, but it is certainly recommended. Historical inaccuracies, unless required by the plot, will not only annoy those who know better, but can generate the impression of laziness on the part of the author

I agree with both of you, no one wants to be bogged down by facts, especially in a romance, but I do think any historical description should be accurate. Thanks for commenting. :)