Historical Fictionistas discussion

This is the question I just posted on my blog, www.mostlyhistoricalfiction.wordpress.... I would really appreciate hearing your views on the basic questions about how to merge history and fiction, and where to draw the line between them.

Thanks

Hi Kurt, I like that hf keep as close to the true story as possible. Often what people thoguht is unknown. By looking at what happened and the actions taken, the author should then determine what he believes the main characters were thinking, what motivated them. This is what historical fiction is best at. It in fact gives you more than the dry facts.

For me a clear author's note is essential. I can even forgive changes in the known facts if they are explained by the author. Often an author is working with incomplete information. I want to know why he set the plot and drew the characters as he did, given the known facts.

This is what I like. In short I want historical fiction to get inside people's heads.

I agree with Chrissie. Sticking close to the facts is what I like. I usually prefer when the author follows a character in history that we never heard of (either made up or real) but include real characters and events that stick closely to the true history. I also like little tidbits of information about that time period that I would not have known or thought about...something to add to my weird facts in my head.

I like it either following a historical figure and sticking as close to the facts as possible, or having the story about fictional people but where the historical setting is accurate and plays a large part in the book.

Examples of the first would be things like Wolf Hall (haven't read it but know it's more accurate than say, Philippa Gregory). And for the second, The Crimson Petal and the White has fictional characters but the Victorian setting was incredible.

I'm all right with the author changing historical facts, names, etc. because it's, after all, fiction, made to entertain, and facts can and should be verified by readers.

I can't stand anachronisms however. They are silent traitors, destroying and undermining and falsifying the picture. If the author doesn't care for careful reconstruction of customs, religion and way of thinking, no amount of historical fact is going to save the book for me.

Tocotin wrote: "I'm all right with the author changing historical facts, names, etc. because it's, after all, fiction, made to entertain, and facts can and should be verified by readers.

I can't stand anachronism..."

I agree, the historical setting/culture needs to be accurate but events and persons can be altered slightly or interpreted differently as long as the changes make sense and the fundamental story is accurate.

I’ve always had this inclination to look beyond the historic event and, instead, to search for the person who was merely a witness and, from that person, to create a perspective that might not be in line with the intentions or notions of the historical figure. Perhaps it’s individual life experiences that provide varying perspectives. I find this interesting in that maybe – depending on the historical event itself – everyone is on the same page externally, but internal thoughts/beliefs could be miles apart. This could lead to a case of revisionism for many readers, thus challenging textbook thinking.

Tocotin wrote: "I'm all right with the author changing historical facts, names, etc. because it's, after all, fiction, made to entertain, and facts can and should be verified by readers."

If the facts should be verified by the reader, I would think that they should certainly be verified by the author. I would think he/she has the more responsibility in that. If we are talking about historical facts. Otherwise, I feel that they are doing what you think about anachronisms. Destroying, undermining and falsifying. My humble opinion.

Debra wrote: "Tocotin wrote: "I'm all right with the author changing historical facts, names, etc. because it's, after all, fiction, made to entertain, and facts can and should be verified by readers."

If the f..."

Yes, I realize my opinion isn't that popular (thank you, Robin! cheers!), and I understand why. Still, I think that it's not the factual accuracy that makes a story interesting, and I'd expect the readers who wish to read on a particular subject to be more or less acquainted with the historical facts (with history in general) - in other words, to be safe with their knowledge, and able to deal with artistic license.

Anachronisms however are trickier, because they are hard to spot and easily create a false picture of a whole period, as opposed to changing facts for the sake of the story when the feel of the period is intact. Researching customs, philosophy, religion, food, way of thinking, clothes and such requires more dedication, stubbornness, and yes, even imagination, than checking more or less well-known historical facts. Many historical authors pride themselves on being true to the facts, but ignore the more difficult research of the mundane stuff their characters have to deal with on a daily basis.

Moved this thread to the Discuss Amongst Yourselves folder as it is not a group read discussion.

Thanks so much for your responses, which I found thoughtful and at times hilarious. I compiled your responses in a new blog at www.mostlyhistoricalfiction.wordpress....

It made for an interesting blog post!

Debra wrote: "It made for an interesting blog post!"
Thanks, Debra!

In reading, I really don't mind (apart from lazy/sloppy anachronisms that stick out like sore thumbs); I'll demolish any book that is set faithfully against a real historical event and I'll often go off and read up on the factual history afterwards, On the other end of the spectrum, I love David Gemmell's fantasy worlds (Sword in the Storm, which I'm reading now, is set in a Roman/Celt like world and it doesn't grate at all with the historian in me).

When writing, I like to use a fictional character and pivot them around a real historical event or backdrop and include a few real historical characters. I tend to steer away from chronicling a real-life character meticulously, as I feel this handcuffs my writing a fair bit (in saying that I have a half-written novel about Emperor Heraclius that I hope to finish one of these days!).

That's my tuppence ;)
Gordon

The facts need to be as accurate as the author can manage, otherwise I feel that it is an injustice to the people who actually lived and inspired the fiction. Sometimes authors need to bend or twist the history (skipping an event, rearranging dates, and so on) in order for their books to make sense or fit within a reasonable page count. This I understand and can accept, but taking the bare bones of an historical person or event and then running (and running, and running...) with it is always a disappointment.

The little embellishments or subtractions can be done in such a way that they enhance the history without detracting from any of its merit, though. I recently read "Queen Hereafter" by Susan Fraser King, who did a marvelous job of bringing the early part of Saint Margaret's marriage to Malcolm III of Scotland to life. Apparently, the character Eva (who is a major POV character) was a fictional addition to the story that allowed King to reveal a different perspective of the pious queen and give the story more depth. It worked extremely well and the fictitious character did not hinder the facts of the story in any way. I was very impressed!

Sarah wrote: "The facts need to be as accurate as the author can manage, otherwise I feel that it is an injustice to the people who actually lived and inspired the fiction. Sometimes authors need to bend or twis..."

Sarah wrote: "The facts need to be as accurate as the author can manage, otherwise I feel that it is an injustice to the people who actually lived and inspired the fiction. Sometimes authors need to bend or twis..."

Lol, I was trying to find the Like button.

I hate when an author changes a known fact or event. I don't trust myself to know the difference so I would prefer that dates, settings, etc. were accurate so I don't confuse my fictional reading with my nonfictional reading!

If changing of facts MUST occur, I agree that a detailed author's note is essential!

However, now that I've looked at your blog - which is great by the way! - I saw the example of Inglourious Basterds, which I loved! I think the only reason why that worked for me was because the changes were obvious for me - and it was humorous, not serious. Another example in film - Watchmen, also an awesome movie that changed A LOT of historical facts to suit its purpose. Maybe it's different when it's a movie..

Debra wrote: "Sarah wrote: "The facts need to be as accurate as the author can manage, otherwise I feel that it is an injustice to the people who actually lived and inspired the fiction. Sometimes authors need t..."

I also 'Like' your response and feel the same way.

I was just on Elizabeth Chadwick's website (author of "The Greatest Knight") and read the following blurb:

"Readers often ask me how I go about my research, and comment that I must do massive amounts. Well yes, I do, but it is cumulative and much of it is fun and fascinating. It’s very seldom a chore ... No historical novelist, no matter how much research they do is ever going to get everything right. I’ve made my own collection of errors and gaffs, but I do try my best and I am always aware of respecting the people and times about whom I write."

This, to me, is the ideal attitude for an historical fiction author to take up! What do you all think?

http://www.elizabethchadwick.com/rese...

Elizabeth wrote: "However, now that I've looked at your blog - which is great by the way! - I saw the example of Inglourious Basterds, which I loved! I think the only reason why that worked for me was because the ch..."

Elizabeth, I agree that it seems to be different when it comes to movies. Personally, I find myself so caught up in the drama, humor, whatever of the visual story that I rarely trip over an inaccuracy, even if it is blatant. Usually, it is only after the movie is over that I'll think back and realize the alteration or suppression. Annoying!! I think that Russell Crowe's "Robin Hood" is an excellent example. I LOVE the movie and watch it over and over again, but it isn't as spot-on with the history as it could be. Yet, I find myself excusing it because it is such a fun and impressive story. Is it easier, do you think, to forgive filmmakers than it is to forgive authors for the bending of history in their work?

Personally, I think it's easier to take film as fiction being that we often go to the movies to escape reality. There is less of a sense of permanence of the story after we leave the theater. Though the same can be said for books, I think there is something about the written word that even when we know it is fictional, we want to believe it as the truth. The fact that it is printed is more permanent -so for me, the need for accuracy seems more prominent. Others could disagree of course... :)

What an interesting discussion topic! By chance, I was just reflecting on how to integrate historical context - without overpowering narrative drive - on my blog, www.the-reading-list.com
I feel that Toni Morrison's historical novels strike the perfect balance by never overwhelming the reader with a slew of historical facts or too much exposition. She lets the emotions of her characters give her novels momentum.

For me, the facts have to be as accurate as possible, or at least plausbile when the facts aren't known. I had to work with several legends that didn't agree when writing my book, and decided the best way to avoid complaints was to find a middle ground somewhere.

I don't like huge infodumps of historical facts. My copy editor got me out of that rut. A few details of setting and place are sufficient, and any other detail that's relevant to the current scene taking place are all one really needs. I ended up with a lot of unused material, but still have two more books to write, so some of it will probably get in there eventually.

My 2 cents worth - above and beyond my website quote - LOL!

My modus operandi is to research intensively across many disciplines - primary source, secondary source, location visits, re-enactment, psychic time travel. I believe that the more the author knows about his or her period, the closer and more realistic the story will be both in terms of setting and of mindset. Should all that research go in the novel? No. It should be used to enable the author to walk through the life and times of his or her novel as a native speaker. It should be used so that the history is seen organically through the senses and emotions of the characters. When the characters themselves are processing the information for the reader as part of their personality and part of the story, then there's no need to info-dump. If you are info dumping, then back to the drawing board as a writer.

When writing Middle Time, I had to wrestle with the same question. I had the modern character do research to bring out the facts, put it in conversations, etc. I think it worked as I have not been accused of info-dumping as yet.

If the book cover states that the story is a blend of fact and fiction it's impossible to separate one from another unless you know the historical facts of the time. A list of Facts at the back of the book could be useful.

@Elizabeth "Maybe it's different when it's a movie.. "
It's NOT. It's why I hated Kindgom of Heven and will never watch another historical movie by Ridley Scott (namely Robin Hood)
@ Sarah "Is it easier, do you think, to forgive filmmakers than it is to forgive authors for the bending of history in their work? "
not for me, not anymore. I used to watch historical movies in blissful ignorance... then I tried to write one that was truly historical. I won't bore you with the reactions, but I decided to write the novel instead. Hollywood has no history buffs among their readers... and their sense of history is non-existent.
So I'm off with this new adventure of researching and writing an historical novel (fictional characters interacting with historical ones in historical events). Now historical novel readers might tear me apart whenever I finish the damn thing, but at least I'd have stayed true to history and my own vision! :-)

Barbara wrote: "@Elizabeth "Maybe it's different when it's a movie.. "
It's NOT. It's why I hated Kindgom of Heven and will never watch another historical movie by Ridley Scott (namely Robin Hood)
@ Sarah "Is it e..."
Barbara, if you find HF readers tearing you apart, God Bless you--that means you're being read. But back to the central issue, I think that if the history is being twisted to accommodate a story, that story simply ceases to be historical fiction. I wish we had another label for it that connotes that this is simply fiction against an historical backdrop, the facts of which are utterly undependable.
That said, I don't know how far to take this. I was just given some considerable grief for accelerating Stephen Crane's arrival to Havana by 6 weeks. When I have him there, happily chatting with my central character, he was actually stateside, recovering from his latest ailment. It seemed forgivable to me, but clearly not to everyone!

Jane wrote: "If the book cover states that the story is a blend of fact and fiction it's impossible to separate one from another unless you know the historical facts of the time. A list of Facts at the back of ..."

I love this idea!

So do I, but I think you can achieve the same thing with an author's note at the back of the book. The most extreme example I've ever seen (and I liked it) was the "underbook" William Saphire wrote for his Civial War novel, _Freedom_, which was really 200 pages of endnotes describing, page by page, what was history and what was fiction.

Elizabeth wrote: "My modus operandi is to research intensively across many disciplines - primary source, secondary source, location visits, re-enactment, psychic time travel. "

Just curious... what exactly is psychic time travel and how do you use it in your writing?

Jackie, it's difficult to explain how it works but if you go to my website and look up The Akashic Record. http://www.elizabethchadwick.com/akas... it will give you some idea. I've been using it ever since the final draft of The Greatest Knight and all of the novels since then involve this form of research to get at the emotions and motivations of the biographical characters and what happened in their lives. I respect that there are going to be people who believe in it, and others who think it's a load of tosh - I leave it to individual judgement calls. I now have a couple of thousand pages of transcriptions and numerous hours of digital recordings. I get the work checked out by a doctor of medieval history specialising in 12th and 13th century culture and she tells me it is medieval mindset that's coming through. I'm happy to accept it's the real deal, but as I say, I don't expect everyone else to do so. I have a blog with sime transcriptions of some of the research I conducted for To Defy A King - here. http://todefyakingakashics.blogspot.com/ Of course you have to factor in room for error. Occasionally Alison's tuning is off if she is unwell or tired. Sometimes there are anomalies perhaps caused by Alison's subconscious interfering or by something we don't yet understand. I would say about 95% of what we do can either be corroborated, or feels right to my in-build crap detector. Of the anomalous material, at least half of that will be explained at a later date, either in another session that shows the sense we were missing before, or by post event conventional research that corroborates that Alison was right after all. For example, when we were doing the research on Lady of the English, Alison kept describing a tunnel and room to me at Lincoln Castle. I was unaware of any tunnels existing there and decided I wouldn't mention such in the novel. Then, just as I handed the novel in, this turned up. http://www.thisislincolnshire.co.uk/T... We had no idea about it at the time we did the original session.
Bottom line. I've done enough of this sort of research with Alison and know her well enough as a person to be comfortable with the results that are coming through, and I use them judiciously with my other research to create the novel as a whole.

It's a fascinating discussion!

I agree with those who prefer fictional characters on an actual historical setting that is researched as accurately as possible.
I prefer it as a reader and as a writer, as this way a writer have much more liberty to develop a plot to be of a real interest.
(I've made this mistake with my first (unpublished and safely tacked in the drawer) novel, going for a real historical figure I admired very much. It came up to a poorly developed plot, as I had had no liberty and too much admiration to "play" with such a main character.)

I also agree that, beside the obvious, historical facts, the customs, traditions and the "small ways" of the period should not be neglected.

Loved reading all responses of this thread :)

Elizabeth, psychic time travel sounds fascinating! I'll definitely read your article!

I'm not sure if there's a definitive answer for this question. I do know that it is as contentiously debated as a writer as it is for readers. As an author, I like to have more 'play' in my plot, more room for my imagination to explore. I surround my fictional main characters with historical characters, but often times, I allow my research to merge with my psychology training to unearth the possible motivations in personalities that would seem, at first glance, to be well-known factual characters. I enjoy delving into the presumptive person to figure out why they became the historic individual we know, to peel back their layers. But any theories I propose are just that, my theories. And in my authors note, I make explanations for any divergence from more popular theory and for any tweaks I may make in actual history to serve my story. For me, herein lies the joy of the fiction, in historical fiction.

As a reader, I do become a bit irate if an author makes drastic changes without stating that they did so. I'm reading just such a book now, one that changed the time of a very well known person's death by more than three decades. There wasn't an authors note, on anything, to be found. I was very disappointed by this very talented author for it.

This is a perennial problem - which I addressed partly in a previous blog post.

http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_...

And, although readers often *think* they want HF to contain as much history as possible, they may be put off by the violence - or the lack of a happy end - or may be confused by the names and the characters. If you're writing HF you don't always have a choice in these details.

Such a wonderful discussion and one I've just opened on my blog. In addition, I think we also had an enlivening discussion elsewhere on Hist. Fictionistas about how much detail, where's the truth etc.

I would really appreciate any or all of the commenters going over and make their points because the readers and commenters so far aren't hist.fict writers and as far as I can tell, only one is a hist.fict reader. It will add wonderful guts and garters to the comment for reader and writer alike if some varied comment is made. Rather like a good hist.fict book!

http://mesmered.wordpress.com/2011/08...

And apologies if I've broken an accepted rule of etiquette by mentioning my blog!

Sarah wrote: "Elizabeth wrote: "However, now that I've looked at your blog - which is great by the way! - I saw the example of Inglourious Basterds, which I loved! I think the only reason why that worked for me ..."

I think the Robin Hood example is an interesting one from my POV because Robin Hood is generally considered a legend placed within a historic timeframe. Does that give a writer more liberties with their 'fictional' characters? Are we perhaps more lenient in that instance?

I'm writing about Guy of Gisborne and assuming from the get-go that he is the creature of legend created in poems of the past. I choose to take my Guy out of the Robin Hood legend but to allow him to remain within the timeframe. Is one condemned because one changes a historical/legendary character?

I'm also thinking of those who are trying to change the status of Richard III as history relates. That he was a villain is history, that he may not have been is the outlook of quite a few. How do people perceive such changes?

In the afterword to The Gallows in the Greenwood by Phyllis Ann Karr, a Robin Hood novel that I just read, Karr discussed the early Robin Hood ballads. She believes that Gisborne was originally an outlaw rival of Robin Hood, and she thought it possible that he had his own set of ballads separate from Robin Hood. If so, they don't seem to have survived.

Regarding Richard III, Josephine Tey was very convincing in her alternate view of him in her famous mystery, The Daughter of Time. If you are going to provide an alternate view of a historical personage, you do need to be convincing. Since it's easy to argue that William Shakespeare's portrayal of Richard III as a villain was probably political propaganda, you probably won't find this as problematic as arguing that King John (for example) was really quite a good monarch. There may be valid arguments to be made in favor of King John, but you would have an uphill battle convincing readers.

I look forward to the publication of Mark William's version of King John as I would look forward to Richard Armitage's version of Richard III if he produces it on stage or in film/TV. I think I'm open to quite a bit of interpretative work. I could argue that it is exactly what fiction is about.
As to the Gisborne ballads, I had also read that and thought what a shame it is that some things don't survive. But in many ways it's a bonus for me as it does perhaps allow me to take the legend where I want.

When one is dealing with an historical event, I believe the people and sequence must be accurate. I really dislike stories that take too much dramatic license and obscure or alter the facts to suit their personal liking.

Now, when dealing with an historical "time period" without dramatizing the events and most - if not all - of the characters are fictional, I still believe in accuracy of the setting, language, etc. How they reaction to 'current events' is up to the author, but it should still fit into how the people behaved in that time. Don't give me 21st century morals, language or attitude in Tudor or Merlin's England.

I know. That's the toughest part getting your character to sound real but keeping to the time frame in her viewpoint and opinions. Since I would like my main character to question some assumptions, I try to make her as much of a rule breaker as possible. But first I do my research to find out how rule breakers were dealt with. This is what I did with Achale the courtesan in Middle Time. I love this thread.

As a historical fiction author mainly interested in the 19th century, I'm reluctant to put a real personality into a story as I don't wish to give a false impression of the character by putting words they may never have spoken into dialogue. There are times when I may introduce a name, even a short conversation, but I'm always aware I could be giving the impression that the character is somewhat colourless. Breaking away from the 19th century and writing a novel set in Norway in 800 AD I only had the pagan gods and giants conversations to juggle with.Perhaps my next book will be set in even a more distant past. Jean Mead

Priya wrote: "I know. That's the toughest part getting your character to sound real but keeping to the time frame in her viewpoint and opinions. Since I would like my main character to question some assumptions,..."


Oh, I agree, it is human nature to rebel and push against societal norms and/or restrictions. However, for me, it depends upon the nature of those restrictions. Are they hurtful, mean, unjust, etc, or are they for the benefit of that time and society? What is the character's motivation and catalyst? Is it noble or selfish? And if selfish do they learn from it?

Yes, well, as my woman characters rebel against social restrictions, some of which are relevant even in the present day,I'd say it was definitely for the benefit of society, that or this!
Having said that, I agree that putting words in the mouth of historical characters is tough, though Philippa Gregory and Philippa Carr manage just fine, so I worked round it by making them part of street talk. I did use a historical fact and changed the time period, which I mentioned in my afterword and no one has complained, so far. I hope these are not famous last words...

Those were rhetorical questions I listed, Priya, nothing personal. However, here is an example of what I consider to be modern thought interfering with history.

A woman in Regency England refuses to marry a good man chosen by her family purely because she doesn't want to. There is nothing wrong with the man. In fact, he is an upstanding man, nice and treats her well, but she plain refuses. Her refusal has no motivation, no catalyst. It doesn't help her family, it doesn't benefit her society, it is pure selfishness.

This is all too common in 'historical romance' as feminists who condemn the practice use the story to impose their own views. Like it or not arranged marriages were - and in some countries - still practiced today.

Shawn wrote:
A woman in Regency England refuses ..."

Is there not room for a fictionalised licence? I'm a reader of hist.romance and I'd stake my life on the fact that even in Regency times, many women cringed or sank into anxiety and depression at the thought of an arranged marriage.
I think a heroine who bucks the trend, who refuses to accept the mores of society at the time makes for an interesting read. A 'what if' scenario.
I can't imagine that all the writers are feminists. That seems to me to be rather a sweeping statement. Does that make me, the reader, a feminist as well? Because I think such independent thinking on the part of a female protagonist makes for good reading? Because I can assure you I am not a feminist in the purist sense of the word, merely a woman who has moved forward with the times.

Fictionalized license is one thing, imposing ideas onto a society because you don't like the way it is structured is another. That's my objection. And I've run into that quite often.

No, not every writer is feminist - nor is every reader. But as a reader, I want justification of why the female protagonist acts the way she does to feel genuine and believable to the time - not artificial by interjecting foreign ideals. Those can be easy to spot.

I have headstrong female characters in my stories. However, headstrong doesn't necessarily mean turning against family and tossing aside every convention for purely selfish means of seeking freedom and liberty. Duty, honor and acting for the betterment of others are also good motives and often overlooked for a heroine who bucks the system of her time.

What I strive for in my female leads is 'balance'.

Prue wrote: "Shawn wrote:
A woman in Regency England refuses ..."

Is there not room for a fictionalised licence? I'm a reader of hist.romance and I'd stake my life on the fact that even in Regency times, many..."

Yes, but some point bucking the trend can go too far and become anachronistic. I had to watch that in my own novel, Helen's Daughter. Hermione, my protagonist, doesn't want to marry the man her father chooses for her, but for her to make a scene about it or run away would be completely unbelievable for a princess of 1250 B.C. She understands her responsibilities as a future queen of Sparta, and knows that her needs come second. I don't think that makes her weak, but strong.