Writing Historical Fiction discussion

I like to keep the background of a story historially correct but my main characters are my imagination woven into the story.

Thanks Valerie. Do you mean you use the history primarily as background for a plot that that is independent of the history, a la Umberto Eco? I'd love to read your stuff if you want to suggest a title. --Kurt

That is what I mean. The book I have in print, The Celtic Fabler, came about because of something I read in the 'Angl-Saxon Chronicles' in the passage for 577AD.
"Here Cuthwine and Ceawlin fought against the Britons and they killed three kings, Coninmail and Condidan and Farinmail,in the place now called Dyrham and took three cities, Gloucester and Cirencester and Bath"
This really annoyed me,(my celtic inheritence I expect) and I started to research it and so came the story of Saxon invasion and brutality and the survivle of the Britons told through the eyes of a young British girl.

I'm completely with Valerie on this one. I, too, researched the hell out of Victorian England and New York in 1873 for the basis for Gaslight. But the characters and settings are purely fictional. Unless I'm writing nonfiction, then except for whatever historical details I use, I have a completely blank slate at my disposal.

I love history. I read my first book on history when I was eight years old and have been reading and learning about it ever since and I think that is more years than you two are in age.LOL.
It only takes, maybe a small link in history that will set my mind going and I will research the background, often for several years while a story forms in my mind.

Valerie wrote: "I love history. I read my first book on history when I was eight years old and have been reading and learning about it ever since and I think that is more years than you two are in age.LOL.
It onl..."

EGGSactly. It took me ten years to finish mine for several reasons, the biggest of which I wanted to make absolutely sure my historical research was done properly. I love watching the History Channel because it sparks all sorts of delicious ideas and conflict in my mind.

It's funny. I have lived a long life, lived in four countries. Had a hard life on times and met some wonderful people and I have been told many times that I should write my life story but somehow I can't. I have tried several times, I even wrote down a time frame but when I write it seems boring so I guess I will just stick to writng my stories and try to get as many finished that I can.

Some would say all history is fiction. To avoid any such confusion, I will be precise: a good (to be defined) novel, unless intended as alternate history, should not radically depart from established facts. There are a couple of reasons for this, in my opinion, verisimilitude and responsibility to readers. Details may seem unimportant--the color of a dress, for example--but to ignore a period of mourning leaves a wrong impression of Victorian London.

...and vice versa: all fiction is historic. I see thought as partially an organic process that springs from the neurons, in similar form, among all of us humans. Our experiences, passed either verbally or less authentically, in writing, contribute to our byline as a species on this planet. Everyone's story is e4veryone's story. All we can do as writers, is to pull some out, dust them off, and polish them up a bit for the reader4s we intend to share them with. Detail is important only as it serves to make closer connections with individuals, otherwise, it's just the "tell" on the wall. IMHO, of course.

Yes, of course, I agree with what you say--when you speak of our experiences. And of course, we speak of our ancestor's experience as seen through our own lenses. If we don't at least try to account for differences in setting, culture, mores, etc., how can we call it historical fiction?

I guess it's a question whose answer shifts down the years along with the times. I find writing about the details of a specific event less interesting than speculating how that event was felt by specific lives only peripherally connected.

Richard wrote: "I guess it's a question whose answer shifts down the years along with the times. I find writing about the details of a specific event less interesting than speculating how that event was felt by sp..."
Yes. So much HF is concerned with the big names of the past and their doings. We rarely have a glimpse of the ordinary lives; lives that are more likely to be those of our ancestors. Few of us will have Plantagenet monarchs and their ladies in our lineage. I'd like to bring some of the forgotten people onto the page.

I took a fiction workshop from Russell Banks just when he was venturing into historical fiction for the first time with Cloudsplitter. He said he asked an author friend who had written several historical novels how much research he did and the friend replied, As little as possible. His point was that you don't want to over-research the history and end up putting in extraneous detail that interferes with the plot and characters. I think this is what gives historical fiction a genre label and always think of Dorothy Dunnett as the prime practitioner.

I love Dunnett because I don't always understand her. I have to think and sometimes mull to get what she's saying--maybe it is Scottish idiom--but I love being forced to think. Seems to me that lifts her out of genre.

In my current novel, I have chosen to use both historical settings and characters, though they are vague factual people. They contributed small, barely documented actions in history, leaving me to use my imagination to fill in the gaps. I have found this a thrilling journey in finding nuggets of information. Yes I am a research geek. Many authors in this genre use both or a mix. Tracy Chevalier, Brenda Rickman Vantrease and Susan Vreeland are a few of my favorite examples.

Nearly all of my characters were actual people. I felt compelled to make some of them (those not famous) more multi-dimensional. In nearly every scene I made certain that the character whose point of view was being featured was dealing with a personal conflict not directly related with the larger conflict, combatting the enemy. I felt I had to change the last names of those characters that I had developed the most because the characteristics I had attributed to them had no basis in fact. These were the character I liked the most.

I love novels that are character-driven, and I also love historical novels because I love to learn about the past and feel I am in that time with the characters. I want to feel what it was like to be there--the sights, tastes, smells--everything. That it be historically accurate is extremely important to me. The writer doesn't have to put every little detail of research in the story, only the most important thing--the thing that makes the scene come alive in that period. These can accumulate throughout the story, so that by the time you have finished, you feel you have been immersed in that period. You have become the character(s) and know what they feel.

Using detail from research is important but shouldn't be overdone. I agree. You must provide detail to help immerse the reader in the historical period. Soemthing like this -- two British officers and an enlisted man on a spying mission spending the night at a Massachusetts tavern. "His having been the last of the baths, he had stood in a large wash basin in the middle of the floor, Browne and De Berniere pouring water over him from two pitchers, one hot and one cold. He had lathered himself with strong lye soap. Afterward, they had cleansed him with additional rinse water. Using large, coarse towels, he had dried himself."

So are we to believe two officers helped the enlisted man with his wash and rinse? I would question that, spies or not.

One of the best discussion of historical fiction I've read is by Phillipa Gregory in The Women of The Cousins' War, an anthology by three historians providing the historical underpinninbg for Phiullipa Gregory's last three novels.

I've just finished Skopp's 'Shadows Walking'. The story (set in the rise and fall of the Third Reich) is soaked in historical atmosphere. I felt as though I inhabited that time and it has left a mood on me that fades only slowly. I've since learned that the author writes from a background of years of research - but I felt that my education was conducted with a light but sure hand. Admirable.

Harry wrote: "I've just finished Skopp's 'Shadows Walking'. The story (set in the rise and fall of the Third Reich) is soaked in historical atmosphere. I felt as though I inhabited that time and it has left a mo..."

Harry, thanks for the tip. Just ordered a copy -- 30 out of 33 Amazon reviewers give it 5 stars!

Tom Fleck featured.
Posted on January 1, 2012

Today I've a post on Debra’s English history site:

http://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.co...

The site is rich in erudite articles ranging from King Athelstan to Regency Wallpaper.

My cast of characters are people who lived, and that being so, I feel a strong duty to them to distort nothing they said or did – unless the report is suspect. I also feel an obligation to the society in general, not to muck about with them, not to defame or traduce them. It's almost as if their ghosts are hovering over me. I'd expect a tap on the shoulder if I slandered one of them.

In my case, I have very circumstantial material, so I can't stray from that, only extrapolate. I have a sort of holy text.

I write very early British Celts and there is very little information left but I researched for several years until I was sure I had found all that there was available. I kept the main historical figures correct but the rest was up to my imagination.

I try as well to keep my main historical figures accurate. I also use my imagination. A historical writer has to do both. Yes, be accurate about historical events. Portray major historical figures as they are revealed by original sources. Their words and thoughts need to reflect what you have learned about them. Some of my characters, though, were based only partially on real people. What I made of them as individuals and, sometimes, what I had them do were products of my imagination. Having fictionalized them, I changed their surnames. Changing these people did not alter the accuracy of my story's historical events. What really bothers me is when a historical fiction writer generalizes a historical event because he has not done the necessary research and when he has a major historical figure do something important that is absolutely historically false. Jeff Shaara in "Rise to Rebellion" about the Battles of Lexington and Concord is guilty on both counts.

I have placed a flood in Suffolk England in 1902, which was actually a year without flooding. I use data from other floods in the same area in other years. There are no historical ramifications; the area used to be flooded frequently. What do you think about that?

That is something I get annoyed with as well. People say to me 'well it is only a story' but a lot of people will believe the historical facts written and don't bother to check if it is really true so a false view of history is formed. My historical people are as correct as I can make them but they are in the background of my writing and my characters, the ordinary people, then have free range to my imagination. I use my own feelings as to 'what would I do? what would I think?' and it seems to work because readers are telling me that I am making it so real and they can understand it.

Petunia wrote: "I have placed a flood in Suffolk England in 1902, which was actually a year without flooding. I use data from other floods in the same area in other years. There are no historical ramifications; th..."

I think that counts as accuracy. You're accurate about floods in that area. The year matters to no-one (unless you were there). This is the sort of change I feel within our licence, and necessary for a novelist.

I too am fighting the internal battle with history. LOL.
I am involved currently with a novel set in tenth century Byzantium. I am struggling with the issue of historical accuracy. I was intrigued with the idea of Greek Fire and what a state secret it was, to the extent that it was a three part process to make it and only one group of people would know about each separate step. To this day, historians have not been able to completely duplicate Greek Fire. I got to thinking what an interesting thing it would be if someone were to make off with this volatile secret. However there is no mention in the history books of anything like this ever happening. And how much can I bring in to the story, the real life reigning emperor of the time, Basil II? My MC is fictional and a Varangian mercenary. I wish to be as historically accurate as possible.

Bardas Scleros was a real person as well and at one point in history did stage a rebellion against Basil II in a bid for the throne. Having a weapon like Greek Fire at his disposal would have been a tremendous advantage, especially once the navy defected to him as it eventually did. Could I have this whole espionage thing going on and basically imply it didn't make it to the history books since it was kept so secret? Or am I messing with historical integrity? This is the main tangible goal in my story, the abstract one being my MC's struggle with drug addiction and his own inner demons.

It's fiction. My view is: do whatever you like, so long as you avoid the kind of howler that any undergraduate could spot.

If your mum can look up the incident in her old encyclopedia and prove it never happened, you may have strayed too far from the path of poetic license. ;) Otherwise, go for it.

As I said elsewhere, Wintersunlight - never let the facts get in the way of a good story and remember - history is written by the victors.

Wintersunlight wrote: "I too am fighting the internal battle with history. LOL.
I am involved currently with a novel set in tenth century Byzantium. I am struggling with the issue of historical accuracy. I was intrigued ..."

As both a HF reader and writer, I'm a bit of a stickler for the facts but I think it's totally plausible that your espionage plot was secret that it never made it into the history books. I'm sure we only know 10% of the crap that went down over the centuries. And when your book is out, post it here! My new HF love is Byzantium!

So true, Martin. I create a chronology timeline and stick all the facts as far as we know them in black and then I intersperse the dates of all the things I want my characters to be doing and color code them according to character, also with dates and all in order. This helps me keep things organized and to keep things in perspective of what I can and cannot do.

Yes, I am still outlining at this point. I am not only having to research Byzantium which is something I have not been so proficient on, but Norse culture and warfare, something I am thankfully much more adept at and have had a fixation with since childhood Phew.

Now if I could just figure out what to with those years between 980 when Basil II puts down Scleros' rebellion and 988 when he institutes the Varangian Guard and puts down another rebellion with their help. There seems to be a lot of empty years here. Since they didn't really have calendars hanging on everyone's wall and take note of the date like we do today, can I just not mention dates in the book and have those years just sort of slide by? What they will be doing all that time I have no idea though. LOL. I really hate to cheat and move the Varangian Guard thing closer to 980, even though one history book uses the term "purportedly in 988" which makes one think they aren't really sure if this is when it happened or not. We do know that the Varangians were an important part of Basil's military as early as 907.

When asked why his fictional characters comitted feats that other real people actually did, Bernard Cornwell answered: 'Heros must have something to do'. Alexander Kent brazenly mined British naval ship's logs for deeds he allowed his fictional seamen and ships to accomplish. Lord Cochrane be damned. All the history in those books is close to 'historical'. Most of the characters are not.

I feel that when I read these books I am reading historical fiction. Am I fooling myself?

I am presently researching information about Algonquian natives living along the North Carolina coast during the 1580s as well as specific information about the important actors of English colonial attempts to establish a settlement at Roanoke Island: Queen Elizabeth, her main advisors, Walter Raleigh, Thomas Harriot, and John White to name a few. I will be faithfully accurate in how I portray these individuals, but there are gaps in what historians know. Everything they profess to know about the natives is provided by the Englishmen that interacted with them. We see the natives through European biases. My challenge will be to portray the natives as normal human beings constrained by their particular culture. I feel I have acceptable leave to create fictional characters and events here without altering the accepted facts about real people and actual events.

Wintersunlight - Basil II was a busy man and I am sure he was doing something between 980 and 988, probably involving the Bulgarians. You might check in John Julius Norwich's 3 volume history of Byzantium (the 2nd volume would cover your period), or John Whortley's translation of John Skylitzes' history of the period.

I am writing a novel that takes place after Basil's time, mid-11th century, so I've picked up a lot of Byzantine history books. On Amazon, I also read Gordon Doherty's book, Strategos - Born in the Borderlands . I think he mentioned some sort of secret service in it. Other folks commenting on the Amazon page said that there was one. First I'd heard of it though.

Wintersunlight wrote: "one history book uses the term 'purportedly in 988' which makes one think they aren't really sure if this is when it happened or not..."

I think I can help you with this one, because that date is specific enough to send off big fireworks, like Greek fire. ;) It just so happens that 988 is the year in which Russia, then called Rus or Rhos and run by Varangians, converted to Christianity and therefore joined the Byzantine Commonwealth. Specifically, Grand Prince Vladimir of Kiev agreed to abandon his 800 concubines and accept Anna Porphyrogenita of Constantinople as wife, together with her religion. The rest, as they say, is history.

So I am guessing that the purported source is the Laurentian Redaction of the "Tale of Bygone Years," better known as the Russian Primary Chronicle, which records events from the ninth century on but exists only in a fourteenth-century copy.

I don't know if that means you can predate the Varangian Guards to 980. There may in fact have been some connection to Kiev and the conversion. But there were Varangians in Constantinople even before the formation of the Guards, if that helps.

Thanks, C.P. and Eileen. From what I can tell, he did not become "the Bulgar Slayer" until after putting down the rebellion of Bardas Phokas That is all I have been reading for weeks now. LOL. And yes, I am well aware of all the goings on with Vladimir and his religion switch. :) In fact, my story is supposed to start with his father, the famous Sviatoslav and while Romania as it was then known, was still under the primary rule of John Tzimiskes.

However I had a revelation. Since I am covering so much ground with the siege of Dorostolan, the death of Emperor John, etc, is it really necessary to have me delve into later dates. In answer to the question I asked myself, I decided no. After all, if Basil were to have a Varangian that he depended on that much, such a man might be a persuading factor to make him eventually decide to institute the Varangian Guard later. And that is what I want to portray in my book. A man (the Varangian) who proves his loyalty and who keeps his word once given. So I am ok with ending my story soon after 980.

Since Basil is much better know for his Bulgarian wars, I like to focus on lesser known history. After all, much of the later Varangian period after the Guard was instituted has been waaaay overdone by other authors. At least IMHO. Sorry if I am so verbose.

Sounds good!

Actually, Basil did have some encounters with the Bulgarians prior to 988. There was the Battle of Trajan's Gate in 986, a terrible defeat for him. I could see a Varangian helping to rescue him from that battle, which was pretty horrendous, from what I've read. Just a thought.

Sounds like a good one, Eileen.I actually forgot about that one. After a while, having not actually been there, these battles all start to sound the same. LOL.

One thing about historical fiction is that it gives you the chance to be there, on the ground, with the people of the time. It is often difficult to see how the people of the time and place you are writing about view their time and place.

I have read many historical novels, particularly about the Tudors - the gift that keeps on giving for historical novelists! But it was only when I read Philippa Gregory's book, The Other Boleyn Girl, that I came to appreciate what it must have been like to have actually lived in that time and place. Henry VIII was a tyrant - cruel and selfish. Until I read her book I had no idea the kind of fear that people lived with during his reign.

The battles that Basil fought can start to sound the same, until you try and imagine what he live through. Another thing to remember is that the Byzantines had long ruled over the Bulgarians, and probably thought of them more as rebelling, rather than like an outsider attacking the empire. Also, Basil was a young man at the time of this battle, maybe 28 years old? Still learning to be the great general he would become.

Think about how a 28 year old man, orphaned as a child and forced to fight to gain and keep the throne, would feel after a defeat like that. It was years before he returned and finally defeated the Bulgarians, but he did eventually do so. Think about how he would have felt towards the soldiers who were loyal to him throughout the years before he was secure on the throne, when some of the dynatoi tried to seize the crown, and outsiders thought to encroach on a youthful ruler's territory.

Basil II was a remarkable man. Unfortunately, his one failing was his inability to produce a successor of even half his quality. But when I think about what he lived through, and the challenges he had, I think he probably did the best he could.

Actually, that is kind of the slant I was looking at. This is a man who could not even trust his own native guard, therefore had to institute Pagan barbarians. It doesn't sound like his Imperial Chamberlain or Scleros were highly trustworthy as well, and until 976, pretty much all the ruling had been done by John Tzimiskes. So he must have felt very much alone. Also he had not had very much military experience, so a man who was quite experienced in military tactics AND loyal to him would be invaluable. Thank you, Eileen for your wonderful historical insight!

Wasn't the Imperial Chamberlain a eunuch who was Basil's uncle or great uncle? If so, that would be an interesting dynamic to explore. Scleros was clearly in it for himself, but the uncle would have had different motivations.

There is so much raw material available for historical novelists in the Byzantine civilization. The first book I read of Byzantine history was John Julius Norwich's A Short History of Byzantium.

In his introduction he commented that one thing you could never say about the Byzantines was that they were boring. He was so right!

Basil Lepekanos (sp?)was indeed a eunuch and was in it for himself as regards John Tzimiskes, as he is the purported poisoner of this Emperor. I think he was concerned about the confiscation of his vast landholdings. But I can't get over the fact that the more I read about the Imperial Chamberlain, the less I trust him. LOL. He just keeps wanting to come into my story as a sort of bad guy. Whether this is fair, historically or not, is another things.

So true on Byzantium being a novelist's dream. I think that is part of my problem. I don't know which few years to appropriate for my story sometimes. I was really wanting to use the death of Svaitoslav on the Dnieper Rapids, but sadly, may have to lop that part off and focus on the 980s instead of 970's. I don't want to draw the story out over too many years. And I want to turn my attention to the goings on of Vladimir up in Kiev as well as what is going on down in Constantinople.

Finally, and I don't know how historically I can get away with this, I would like to feature the Jomsvikings. I know historians say there is no proof that Jomsguard never existed, but it is mentioned in contemporary work of the time. When Vladimir wanted to take Kiev from his brothers, he sent to the king of Norway (his kinsman) for help and the king sent mercenaries. Well, the Jomsvikings were certainly mercenaries. Am I stretching it too much to bring in these half legendary guys?

I don't know anything about the Jomsguard and just a bit about Vladimir, so I can't comment on that.

As for Basil Lekapenos, I would say trust your intuition on this. As a family member and eunuch, he should have had less self-serving motivations. However, last night I was researching Zoe's reign in the 11th century and one of the Orphanotrophus' eunuch brothers (who was also the brother of one emperor and the uncle of the next), had acquired almost 2 tons of gold - theft from the imperial treasury!

Greed and fear - two of the most reliable motivations found in human history.

Have you outlined the book? Mine is covering about 40 years, but some of the years will be compressed since not as much is happening. In the Ancient & Medieval Historical Novel group we just read Mercenaries by Jack Ludlow about Robert Guiscard's de Hautville family. I enjoyed it but he didn't list years in his book and some of the things he had happening didn't seem to quite match the years I recalled. When I checked, I was correct. But then at the end of the book he said he had compressed events.

I'm not sure I would have done it the way he did, but I was glad that he at least knew he was compressing time and not just grabbing stuff from a history book to make the story more dramatic.

If something is mentioned by contemporary writers, then I would consider that somewhat reliable. Nothing wrong with using it. And it certainly sounds reasonable from how you've described it.

Fiction is telling a story, hopefully one that engages readers with both characters and plot line. Setting fiction in historical context requires balancing the need of story for interest and action with the needs of historical accuracy. My intention is to remain true to what is known historically about the society, situation and characters but to release imagination to fill in gaps and liven up the story. Usually there is ample opportunity for the writer to amplify historical facts with compelling scenes from imagination. Its an exhilarating endeavor!

I am interested in discovering works of fiction based on the author's family history, so I just created a new Listopia list called, Fiction Based on the Author's Ancestors. Please add your favorite reads of this type. Thanks in advance. B.

Bernice wrote: "I am interested in discovering works of fiction based on the author's family history, so I just created a new Listopia list called, Fiction Based on the Author's Ancestors. Please add your favorite..."

Just posted mine and my favorites. Thanks for that discussion thread.

Steven wrote: "Bernice wrote: "I am interested in discovering works of fiction based on the author's family history, so I just created a new Listopia list called, Fiction Based on the Author's Ancestors. Please a..."

Thanks so much for expanding the list, Steven. BLR