When historical facts stand in the way...

[rtilryarms]

I actually had a fair day of writing yesterday. Everything fell into place perfectly. I wrote about a trip, a sporting event, major news headlines, and inter-related them to a critical timeline crucial to my book.
The words just flowed, the emotions stood out and it was a rare first-pass chapter that I reread a dozen times making only minor changes.
Everything was perfect; except history.

It was the wrong sporting event, I missed the headline date by a year and the trip was therefore inconsequential.
Starting over, the chapter just seems wrong. It is not very good after putting the real facts in.

History writing is like that. Just when I think I ace an episode, facts get in the way of a good story.

Ah well, back to the drawing board..

[the1dsquared]

rtilryarms, what's the problem? "Historical Fiction," an oxymoron? I have always enjoyed the Shaara's books about the Civil War. They get the facts right, but their stuff (and stuff like their's) is only one part of the genre. More often than not, historical fiction could be better described "period fiction."

The word "fiction" is in the title.

I'm writing about the mid to late Nineteenth Century and using the events that occurred as background, but I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of the story. I'm not going to pass it off as history. It's a novel, a lie that would have gotten me in big trouble with the nuns in school. Now I write it, so it's okay. Go with what you've written. To hell with the facts.

The real kicker is when you do a whole lot of research and realize that many of the "legitimate" historical accounts probably should have been labeled Historical Fiction. It gives me great respect for real historians who have to wade through all the slanted accounts of the past.

[rtilryarms]

Thanks, the1.
That's the problem. I got my facts totally wrong. The rest of the story went around false facts and could not be salvaged when I fixed them.
I blew a whole day of writing. It was pretty good too.
Just wrong.

[pdr]

becomes a personal thing.

Is it a short story you've written or chapter one of a novel? Readers seem to be more forgiving of alterations to history in short stories.

Shakespeare altered facts in most of his historical plays. He had a story to tell and a censor to please. Most of his audience would have been aware of the changes.

If your story, rtilryarms, depends on altering the year to make it historically correct, then a note to the reader, explaining you knew this but needed to adapt the facts for the fiction, is acceptable for many readers. They hate it if you're plain wrong, but will forgive a genuine 'creative' error made in full awareness of the error.

There are modern historical novels where their authors have moved important historical days and dates. 'Captain Correlli's Mandolin' I think is one.

And as for Hollywood films! They never get it right. For example, the ex-WW11 men I know tell me 'Saving Private Ryan' is totally and utterly fiction.

[TheIT]

There's also a branch of speculative fiction for alternate histories. If the story you want to tell doesn't match real history, place it on an alternate Earth where events occurred differently. Use our world's history as a starting point and go for it. For the purists, you can add an appendix indicating which events are different.

[Puma]

I second pdr's suggestion to use the section and make a note to the reader about the deliberate error. However, my feeling is that if you do this, you probably ought to do it more than one place - make it more "creative" shall we say. Or, at a minimum, have a few more explanatory notes. Puma

[rekirts]

The real kicker is when you do a whole lot of research and realize that many of the "legitimate" historical accounts probably should have been labeled Historical Fiction. It gives me great respect for real historians who have to wade through all the slanted accounts of the past.Yah, that drives me crazy. My historical research is from the early Roman Empire. It's exciting to read stuff written by people at the time, but then the modern historians have to come along and say, "Yes, but it's mostly propaganda." Grrr. How do they know that for sure though? Then there are the things you learn that fit in perfectly with your plot only to discover later that modern historians have decided the earlier information was wrong. NOOoooooo!

[dclary]

The cinematic version of Searching for Bobby Fischer completely rewrote the final match between the kid and his rival, not only the moves themselves but the final result as well. No one viewing this movie, except rabid chess purists cared.

It's highly unlikely that William Wallace ever bedded the Princess of Wales, let alone seed her with an heir to the throne of England. As well, he lost the battle of Falkirk not due to Scottish treachery, but superior English tactics and weaponry (schiltrons were wonderful against cavalry, but quite useless when pitted against the Welsh longbow). Yet none of that is truly compelling drama.

For me, the story comes first, and then you find the bits of history that support the story, and then, when all else fails, you make the rest up.

[rekirts]

It's highly unlikely that William Wallace ever bedded the Princess of Wales, let alone seed her with an heir to the throne of England.I have to admit that sort of thing drives me crazy, mostly because there are a lot of people out there who will take it as the truth. Years ago I started looking stuff up after every historical movie to find out what really happened--or at least the historians' best guess as to what really happened.

[the1dsquared]

I heard an author speak at a conference a couple of years ago. He didn't write historical fiction. He wrote mainstream commercial stuff. He also wrote film scripts for other people's novels. He said that directors seldom if ever read the novel, and more often than not tell the script writer to add or change elements of the story. I was appalled at first, then realized the ugly truth. When you sell the film rights to your story, it's not your story anymore. The scary part is that a lot of people are going to judge your novel by the movie, not what is in print. Of course, it would be a great thing to have to worry about... you gotta sell the book first!

[Puma]

And be sure to sell the book before even thinking about selling film rights - or your book will never ever be your book. Puma

[Marlys]

My feeling is that if you're going to write historical fiction, you have an obligation to make it as accurate as possible. Mistakes will doubtless creep in, but dates and events should not be moved around arbitrarily. Otherwise, you're writing speculative fiction, not historical. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't the same thing.

rtilryarms, perhaps you can either find an appropriate sporting event and headlines from the year you want to write about, or move the action of your story to the year that these things did take place in. I did something similar in my first book--moved the action a few weeks to fix something I'd previously got wrong. It was a struggle at first to get everything in place, but when I did it actually worked much better than the original.

Good luck with it!

[rtilryarms]

Good stuff.

Thanks y'all

[maestrowork]

I sympathize, Mike. I wrote more than 10,000 thousand words on my WIP based on an understanding of the historical events during WWII. It worked. But I found out later that I was off -- the dates were fine but the locations(!) were off, and that made some of the traveling and timeframes all wrong. It's very frustrating and I had to start over, and I couldn't continue until I fixed it. However, since I chose to write a story with a historical background, I have to keep it accurate.

[Perks]

Yes, nothing yanks the legitimacy rug from under a good piece than finding out the context is wrong. I love feeling comfortable that I'm learning while enjoying.

You're a noble artiste not to shoehorn it, sir.

[pdr]

the1dsquared. If only films would simply run a notice saying that the events in the film are not historically correct! I wouldn't then spend my time snorting in disgust and making rude comments about the incorrect clothes, events, manners and stupidities.

[pdr]

The Conjuror's Bird by Martin Davies. He takes the life of Joseph Banks and weaves a story around some of the blanks in Banks' life. He tells us this and gives the facts he started off with but his novel is his own creation. It is called an historical mystery by the publisher.

[rtilryarms]

Thanks pdr et al.

[gwendy85]

Hey! I absolutely sympathize! I've been there and am still there! Still, those writing novels set 1800s and before tend to fare far better than those writing historicals set 1900s onwards. I myself am writing a World War II historical romance and let me tell you, it's damn hard! There are several facts that don't coincide and since it's a little more recent than other historical periods, there are people who have been through that and will be quick to see the errors of one's work. So, in short, it's hard to make things up! What's more, my novel's like a diary, with actual dates (month, day, year) and places (though I try to avoid this by saying *somewhere in XYZ...*). I've actually revised and or deleted WHOLE chapters because of historical inconsistencies. The only advantage I seem to see (technically) is that being more recent, more facts are available. As for other advantages, I'm writing what I love (WWII era and romance) so that's a plus! If you love the subject you're writing about esp. history, then, stick to it :) Good luck!

[gwendy85]

As for advice...well, don't have much except stick to it. And I'd just like to say thanks for this thread! I found it helpful too :)

[rtilryarms]

Good luck in your Historical Romance. I love those.

[Mayor of Moronia]

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.

One of my ancestors was in a duel back in 1836. There are 4 written accounts of the event by educated people who were there when it happened. They only agree about who the participants were. It could be 4 different gun-fights.

[JenNipps]

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.

One of my ancestors was in a duel back in 1836. There are 4 written accounts of the event by educated people who were there when it happened. They only agree about who the participants were. It could be 4 different gun-fights.

I think the phenomenon you're talking about is more individual interpretation than actual lying. The latter could be true, but everyone sees things differently even when viewing the exact same event, as you have mentioned.

[gwendy85]

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.


I can especially relate to this. Yes, people lie about their pasts in a futile attempt to change what cannot be changed, to put others or themselves on a pedestal, and for propaganda purposes. People get confused too, especially during the war. I've read books stating this hospital was bombed on March 29, and another, March 30, yet another, March 28 and April 1! Aggh! The confusion historians bring upon the researching writers! Even interviews are not as reliable!

The only thing historical novel writers like myself can hope is that what we imagine coincides a little with what happened. Then, there's also crossing your fingers and hoping to God no one would see the historical flaws.

And I'd like to share a recent experience of mine. I've been working with a wonderful historian who's helping me iron out the creases but I think I just got hit with the big wall to climb! 5 WHOLE CHAPTERS IN NEED OF REVISION BECAUSE OF DATE AND HISTORICAL INCONSISTENCIES! AAAARGHH! I need a Midol...

[BrianTubbs]

This is coming from a consumer of historical fiction as opposed to a practitioner of it, but my thought is that changing certain facts when writing a historical novel is probably inevitable. Sometimes, authors can stick to the original facts, like Jeff Shaara does, but changes are often necessary.

HOWEVER...I think ethics demand that, when the author must change the facts, that he or she do so with respect to the parties involved in that historical event.

I think the movie "Gladiator" crosses that line, by having Commodus murder his father Marcus Aerilius (sp?). That never happened. Granted, Commodus was not a nice fellow in real history, but he never killed his own father. And his own father never tried to keep the throne from him. Rather, they shared power the last years of Aerilius' life.

The same holds true in many of Oliver Stone's films - though thankfully not in his latest, "World Trade Center." Stone has a habit of changing events, facts, characters, etc. to advance an agenda. This should not be.

And, of course, there's the "DaVinci Code," which gets so many facts wrong, that I can't even list them all.

On the other side of the coin, the most recent "Alamo" film stays more or less true to the history as we know it. There's so much we don't know about what happened within the walls of the real Alamo in those 13 days, and there's controversy surrounding much of what we thought we did know. But the film makers stayed true to the nature of the participants and the overall facts of the event - as best they could.

In "Amistad," many facts were changed, including John Quincy Adams' speech to the Supreme Court at the end. The real speech was far more technical and lengthy - not nearly as eloquent. But the change was very consistent with what happened. The speech that the filmmakers gave Anthony Hopkins (who played Adams) was PERFECTLY consistent with the sentiments expressed by Adams all his political life, and summed up very well the case as Adams undoubtedly saw it. So...the changes were, in my opinion, appropriate and justified.

So....ETHICALLY, I believe the historical fiction author should stay true to at least the SPIRIT of history. If he or she has to change some things, those changes should be consistent with the story. Never should such changes impugn the character of the actual participants of the event or be made simply to undermine a particular philosophy, faith, or value system.

[BrianTubbs]

Following up....one more example....

In "The Last Refuge of Scoundrels," Paul Lussier essentially trashes all the Founding Fathers, making them out to be...well...scoundrels. As an American, he has the right to hold that view, but as a writer of historical fiction, he does NOT have the moral right to change history in order to advance that view. One case of his doing that is that he has John Hancock sleeping with and abusing prostitutes. I've never come across ANY evidence that Hancock did such things. Absent such evidence, it's appalling that a writer of historical fiction would conjure up such slander. The only Founder that Lussier remotely respects is George Washington, and even then, he inserts some things about GW that are made up out of whole cloth - designed to diminish the general's statuesque image in history. GW did much to earn and deserve that image. It's not for us to tear it down.

So...I think the historical fiction writer needs to approach his setting (including and especially the real-life historical figures within that setting) with care and RESPECT. Anything less is unethical.

[pdr]

you need to be careful here, Brian.

History is written by those in power or the winners of the battle. George Washington is far from a hero if you're Canadian or British.

Certainly some of those founding fathers had a bad reputation in their home towns.

What are Lussier's comments, his research, his reasons for writing the book as he did? Why did he write the book? Was he a 'naughty boy' writer who wanted to 'write rude words all down the street.' Or did he think that the American nation was a little smug in its assumptions re the founding fathers and want to make people think and discuss?

[BrianTubbs]

Whether America is "smug" or not is irrelevant to what I'm arguing. An author should still approach a historical setting with a healthy respect for the participants involved and the historic context.

For instance, if you want to show the negatives of the Founders, there's stuff there that you can work with -- slavery comes to mind (although most of the Declaration's signers and Constitution's signers did NOT own slaves - an oft overlooked fact, but I digress). The point is an author wishing to get Americans to reevaluate their "assumptions" about the Founders need not MAKE THINGS UP in order to do that. He can and should stick with actual history.

As for Washington....anyone who takes the time to objectively study GW (be they American, Canadian, British, French, or Egyptian) should come away with a respect for the man. And, by the way, Lussier himself admits some respect for him. But Lussier literally CHANGES things about his life and puts thoughts into GW's brain that are not at all consistent with who he was as a person. I think that crosses a line of ethics.

As for your more general comment that the winners write history, well, that's an overgeneralization that has gotten way too much mileage out of itself over the years. For one thing, the "losers" get far more input into history than people espousing your view give them credit for. Consider the controversy raging over the American Civil War. Not only that, but if the "winners" truly did write a lasting history that whitewashes all their flaws and sins, why do we still have endless debates over the U.S. internment camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II? That's just one example.

I'll grant that in ANCIENT history, the "winners" had a lot of power over recorded history. But that has diminished over the centuries. History is much more multi-dimensional now than, I think, you're giving it credit for.

But more important to this particular discussion, the idea that "winners write the history" does not justify the "losers" or those in common cause with the "losers" MAKING UP stuff to undermine the so-called "winners."

For example, the German people today would not be morally justified celebrating a novel that has Winston Churchill sleeping with little boys during World War II.

You see...there are lines that should NOT be crossed, even in historical fiction. That's all I'm trying to say.

[pdr]

you still haven't said why the book was written as it was and what the author's reasons were.

Did he research and discover some unsavoury facts? Why did he alter things?

but if the "winners" truly did write a lasting history that whitewashes all their flaws and sins, why do we still have endless debates over the U.S. internment camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II?

No, I didn't say that winners write a lasting history. But they do write the history at that time. Now that the Japanese are not losers and have more influence of course there will be debate about the U.S. internment camps for Japanese-Americans in World War II. History changes all the time.

There's an amazing amount of folklore and even deliberate lies that have been turned into history to serve political purposes or suit whoever was in power at the time.


Fiction is fiction, not truth. Historical fiction very often allows readers to consider certain historical events from a new perspective.

No, I don't think a writer should be smashing down accepted facts for the hell of it, but if Paul Lussier had new facts then he is entitled to his point of view.

[BrianTubbs]

I can't put my hands on my copy of his book. We just moved from Virginia, so who knows what box it's in? :Shrug:

But I found this online interview with him, in which he speaks for himself...

http://www.thehighhat.com/Marginalia/004/lussier.html

I'll let you read it. When you do, you'll see he comes from the Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky school of thought in history. But that does not change the fundamental point I'm making here.

Even if you agree with him (and I do) that the little guy needs to be emphasized more in history, that does NOT justify tearing down the Big Guys.

You'll also see that Lussier holds up a lot of straw men in this interview. He's obsessed with tearing down and replacing the "Great Man Theory" of history, so he returns time and again to the need to decimate the "myth" that the Founders were "sweet visionaries." Well, of course, he's right about that. But showing the humanity, the flaws, the sins of the Founders is one thing. Making up stuff about them is quite another.

[BrianTubbs]

By the way, since Mel Gibson is in the news so much, the movie, "The Patriot" comes to mind. It's another example of crossing the line - in this case, by impugning the British.

In "The Patriot," the British are shown shooting wounded American prisoners, and most provocatively, burning down a church with women and children inside.

There is absolutely NO evidence that the British deliberately burned women and children in the American Revolution. None.

But this is a perfect example of the ABUSES of historical fiction.

Do you see my point?

[pdr]

Thank you for the link, Brian. I've spent some time thnking about this.

I sympathise as it's never pleasant to be asked to see people you admire from another, less complimentary, point of view.

However from what I've been reading it seems that Paul Lussier has done considerable research and has used letters, minutes, notes, diaries and newspaper comments from the people he writes about and their contemporaries to allow him to form his opinions and write his novel.

You may not like it but he can justify what he has written.

You claim he has made things up. What things and how do you know?
Neither you nor he were around at the time he writes about. Paul Lussier has researched and come up with his take on what happened. He is writing fiction which is just that, a made up story. He has chosen a very different way to tell a story about something many Americans feel they know all about. What is your knowledge base other than your school text books?

I don't think that Paul Lussier is deliberately lying or that he is an iconoclast for the sport of it. I think he is just a writer of historical fiction using what he discoverd to tell a story in a new way.

As for Hollywood's so called historical films I don't know about Americans but the rest of the world gets great fun from spotting all the mistakes, be they historical facts or incorrect costumes. I don't think many people take Hollywood historical films seriously do they?

We have to make things up if we write fiction, and if we write historical fiction there will always be this problem of writing about 'real' people and upsetting someone's point of view.

[BrianTubbs]

I appreciate your thought and time on this discussion. My beef w/ Lussier is that I myself am familiar with his research. I've written extensively on the American Revolution and the Founding Fathers - albeit he's done a novel and I haven't. My writing has been all articles.

However...I would venture to say that my research has been nearly as extensive as his, and I've come across nothing to suggest John Hancock was serviced by prostitutes - and abused them, in turn.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Hancock fan. He was arrogant, elitist, and manipulative. But I don't respect an author who takes that further than what the facts warrant.

Same goes true for the other side. Banastre Tarleton was a butcher. He slaughtered Americans who were unarmed and surrendering. He was ruthless and brutal, by all accounts. And Colonel Tavington in "The Patriot" was based on Tarleton. But not even Tarleton killed innocent women and children. So, why did the filmmakers put that in? It was unnecessary and slanderous.

I will allow that I hold America's Founding Fathers - collectively - in high regard. And I respect Washington in particular. But I can certainly handle their being criticized. So....it's not that I'm fixated on hero worship and can't handle negativity about my heroes. It's that I believe in fairness and respect.

[pdr]

Yes, infuriating isn't it when someone looks over the same facts that you have and comes up with an opposite point of view.

I specialise in the mid17thC British history and am constantly amazed how anyone can read the diaries and letters, newsheets and newspapers and still say Charles 1st was a good king and Cromwell an evil man! Yet they do!

[BrianTubbs]

Let's separate this out for a moment. We have two different dynamics here that I think are getting mixed together....

1) Two people, three people, ten people look at the same historical period and come away with 2, 3, or 10 different opinions. This is inevitable and makes history (and life) interesting. I understand and appreciate this dynamic.

and...

2) Some people, in advancing their points-of-view (their perspectives), create new "facts" or alter history in order to support that view.

For example...

Some people believe Santa Anna was justified in invading Texas and have a sympathetic view of him, pointing out that the Americans were the ones encroaching on Mexican territory, keeping their slaves against the law, and trying to destablize the region to the US advantage. Others point out that Santa Anna was a tyrant and a murderer - that he overturned the 1824 constitution and abused his power.

People can come down on both sides of Santa Anna -- and do so studying actual history.

But let's not ADD to history by showing Santa Anna doing things he NEVER did or would even CONSIDER doing - in order to make him evil or glorious.

Same with the atomic bomb. Some believe the U.S. was justified in dropping the atomic bomb, but would you tolerate an author who wrote a historical novel that had the U.S. drop the A-bomb out at sea instead of on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? ***Before you answer, I'm speaking of a historical novel that presents itself as being a story within a factual context, NOT an alternate history story - that's a different animal entirely.

Would you appreciate a historical novel - again, one that presents itself as being based on research and consistent with the facts (as Paul Lussier does, as Jeff Shaara does, as Dan Brown does, etc.) - would you appreciate such a novel that showed Charles I receiving visions from heaven affirming his glorious rule and Oliver Cromwell slaughtering little boys and girls for sport??

You see...there is a DIFFERENCE here. An important distinction.

It's fine for Paul Lussier to adopt a negative view of the Founding Fathers and to emphasize these things in his historical novel. I don't agree with him, and I probaby wouldn't enjoy the novel. But I would have nothing else to say about it. That's his right, and he would be within the bounds of ethics.

But for him to have Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and some of the other Founders in a fist-fight, wrestling match behind closed doors OR Hancock beating a prostitute out the door OR some other ahistorical, non-historical event -- well that's a different story. Now, we have a problem.

p.s. The history books I've read, by the way, usually portray Cromwell as the hero or at least the lesser of two evils.

[Peggy]

But for him to have Sam Adams, Paul Revere, and some of the other Founders in a fist-fight, wrestling match behind closed doors OR Hancock beating a prostitute out the door OR some other ahistorical, non-historical event -- well that's a different story. Now, we have a problem. I only partially agree with this. If it's a novel, the characters, even ones who were real historical figures, need to be fleshed out, so to speak, to make them interesting. The founding fathers did lots of things that were not recorded by history, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were in the occasional fist fight. They weren't saints, they were human beings, as flawed as the rest of us. I do agree that Hancock beating up prostitutes is pretty over-the-top unless there is some hint that he really did that sort of thing.

[BrianTubbs]

But when you "flesh out" a historical figure, shouldn't you make some effort to be CONSISTENT with what we DO know?

[Peggy]

But when you "flesh out" a historical figure, shouldn't you make some effort to be CONSISTENT with what we DO know? Sure. But there is a huge gap in what we know about the personal lives of historical figures. I think the standard should be whether the characters actions are INconsistent with what we know about them. That leaves more room for interesting characterization.

[BrianTubbs]

I agree w/ you insofar as ancient and early medieval history is concerned. In those cases, we do know very little. Thus, a writer must be given more leeway, although EVEN STILL....the writer should not assert as truth something that is known to be false -- or vice versa. Dan Brown did not respect any such ethical boundary in The Da Vinci Code. But, generally speaking, I agree with you when it comes to ancient history and (like I said) early medieval.

[pdr]

No, I'm not confused. We are talking about historical fiction, stories, things made up by a writer.

No matter how much you think an author has no right to invent incidents that might have happened to real people if s/he's writing a novel involving real people then s/he will have to make up incidents in order to tell the story.

Yes, I also would prefer a writer to be honest and make up things that fit in with the pattern of the real person's life. Alas, Paul Lussier believes that his research allows him to make up the incidents that distress you.

I think most readers of 'The Da Vinci Code' are aware that the book is simply a story and not factual. There's certainly been enough brouhaha in the press about it. It is popular because it is a straightforward, easy read, cocking a snook at a powerful establishment, and telling a story that many people wish were true.

[davidthompson]

No, I'm not confused. We are talking about historical fiction, stories, things made up by a writer.

No matter how much you think an author has no right to invent incidents that might have happened to real people if s/he's writing a novel involving real people then s/he will have to make up incidents in order to tell the story.

Yes, a writer can "just make things up." But there's also the issue of suspension of disbelief. If a writer makes things up that are so out of character or illogical that they destroy the illusion that the world of the novel is real, the reader is going to toss the book aside in disgust. Doesn't matter if the author is writing about vampires, the year 2055, or the Cleveland suburbs, there needs to be a logical consistency to keep the reader caring enough about the world of the book to want to believe it's real.

The average person probably doesn't know enough about the Founding Fathers' individual personalities to be catapulted out of a novel if one of them is portrayed acting vastly out of character compared to all the historical evidence available.

But someone who has studied them does.

A writer can certainly say, "Well, I don't care about people who've studied history that much. They can throw my book across the room if they want. I'm aiming for the average Joe, and it's close enough that he'll believe it."

If the writer does strike a chord with the average Joe, he'll be rich and famous, and the marginal sales lost to historians and a few bad reviews won't hurt his pocketbook or reputation.

But I also believe that it shows a certain amount of disrespect for the readers who care most deeply about the subject matter, not to mention disrespect for the real people the author has harnessed to serve his needs.

[BrianTubbs]

Yes, yes, to David, you listen.

Sorry, I have Yoda on my mind today.

[BrianTubbs]

I'm planning a novel about a chaplain in the Revolutionary War. I will probaby tackle it as soon as I'm done with the children's fantasy book I'm writing right now.

In the course of the novel, I plan to have a conversation between my main character and General Washington. One of the curiosities my main character will have - being a chaplain - is the nature of Washington's personal faith. The conversation, however, is ultimately going to be turned around on the chaplain, because it is HE - in my story - who will be having the crisis of faith. I intend to contrast that with Washington's peace of mind and security in what he believes.

Now, as I've presented Washington above, so far, I'm consistent with history. People WERE curious about the specifics of his religious faith, but he himself was very secure in it.

Now, many of my fellow Christians would like me to insert dialogue into that conversation that would have Washington openly expressing his faith in Jesus Christ and essentially "bucking up" the chaplain to reaffirm his Christian beliefs. Well, there's only one problem with that...

It would be INCONSISTENT with George Washington - the real GW.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do NOT agree with Joseph Ellis and others who assert Washington was a Deist. A far more in-depth, multi-dimensional and objective look at Washington's religion is the new book Washington's God, which was written with the full support of Mount Vernon. I believe Washington was a Christian. BUT...he was NOT an evangelical type Christian in the contemporary (meaning 21st century) sense. He was very reserved about the specifics of his faith. When he spoke publicly about religion, it was normally in very "Deist" terms.

So...IN SPITE OF MY PERSONAL BELIEF that GW was a Christian, it would be inconsistent with the real man and dishonest toward history for me to invent dialogue or incidents that portay him overtly as such.

Do you agree? Or shall I go ahead and have GW doing a Billy Sunday tent revival at Valley Forge? :)

[Puma]

Expletive deleted No! From my study of that period of history (and many periods of history prior to the current one), religion was a personal issue - not bantied about on every street corner, not discussed with those other than an individual's innermost circle of friends and family. To present Washington (or anyone else of that period) in the manner you're suggesting would be inaccurate and just plain wrong. Puma

[Peggy]

I intend to contrast that with Washington's peace of mind and security in what he believes.

Now, as I've presented Washington above, so far, I'm consistent with history. People WERE curious about the specifics of his religious faith, but he himself was very secure in it.Do we know that Washington was secure in his faith? That seems pretty speculative to me. My understanding is that Washington was at the least very very private about his beliefs, and was possibly a deist or agnostic. At least his lack of public pronouncement of his own religious beliefs made his contemporaries wonder what and if they were.Now, many of my fellow Christians would like me to insert dialogue into that conversation that would have Washington openly expressing his faith in Jesus Christ and essentially "bucking up" the chaplain to reaffirm his Christian beliefs. Well, there's only one problem with that... It would be INCONSISTENT with George Washington - the real GW. You are right, that would be completely out of character.
A far more in-depth, multi-dimensional and objective look at Washington's religion is the new book Washington's God, which was written with the full support of Mount Vernon. I believe Washington was a Christian. BUT...he was NOT an evangelical type Christian in the contemporary (meaning 21st century) sense. He was very reserved about the specifics of his faith. When he spoke publicly about religion, it was normally in very "Deist" terms. I'm wondering why you think that book is any more objective than the scholarly books that considered Washington a Deist. Support of Mount Vernon only tells you that the people who have a deep interest in maintaining the legacy of GW in a positive light found the conclusions acceptable, not that they are right.

The role you are having GW play seems no more historically accurate than having Paul Revere punch somebody in the nose.

[BrianTubbs]

Expletive deleted No! From my study of that period of history (and many periods of history prior to the current one), religion was a personal issue - not bantied about on every street corner, not discussed with those other than an individual's innermost circle of friends and family. To present Washington (or anyone else of that period) in the manner you're suggesting would be inaccurate and just plain wrong. Puma

Then you agree that a historical novelist has an obligation to the truth - an obligation to be consistent with historical facts about the context, culture, and people who are the subjects of his or her work.

[BrianTubbs]

Well....we are veering off a topic a bit here. I was merely providing an example to illustrate a point. A historical novelist should stick close to the FACTS of history - to the extent that is possible. The exception to this is alternate history, which is sometimes fun to read.

In Washington's case, I agree with biographer Richard Brookhiser that people tend to project ONTO Washington what they want his beliefs to be, not what Washington's beliefs actually were. However, I think those arguing for Washington being an agnostic or Deist are more guilty than those who say he was a Christian.

There is not a SHRED of evidence that George Washington was agnostic. An agnostic, as I define the term, is one who questions whether God exists. Washington was absolutely steadfast in his belief in the existence of God, and refers to God repeatedly in his speeches and writings.

Read the references to God and Christian conduct in his General Orders, in his Thanksgiving Day proclamation, and to religion in his Farewell Address -- and that's just for starters.

When it comes to whether or not Washington accepted the divinity of Jesus Christ....THAT is where it gets murky. He was Anglican / Episcopalian, but declined Communion and rarely spoke publicly or even privately (at least in letters) about Jesus.

As to whether Washington was a "Deist," a lot depends on how you define the term "Deist." If you tend toward the clockmaker theory -- i.e., there is probably a God, but that Supreme Being plays little-to-no active role in human affairs - well, then, Washington was certainly NOT a Deist.

But there are some who claim different definitions of "Deist," which makes it really difficult to even debate that interpretation.

Again...the whole point is that, when I write my historical novel, I plan to present Washington as guarded, but secure about his religious faith. He was very open and comfortable talking about God and Providence, and very clearly stated - on several occasions - that the Americans owed the success of their arms in the Revolution to Divine Providence. So, I think it's VERY consistent with history to show this side of him in the novel.

But to have him being the strong, dynamic evangelical that D. James Kennedy and some other Christian leaders of today portray him as - well, I don't think that would be ethically right for me to do.

[Puma]

Thank you, Brian. You had me worried. Yes, a historical novelist definitely has an obligation to be true to the facts as they are known and have been presented (and I am not one for alternate history - especially since I was a history major and have done a lot of work in the field.) Accuracy is crucial, especially when dealing with historical figures who were real (whether they were the president or the president's stable boy). Puma

[BrianTubbs]

It's nice to chat with a fellow history buff. I see you're a resident of Ohio as well. My wife and I just moved to Ohio (Wilmington specifically).

I do like alternate history, if it's clearly stated as such, and if it's done respectfully. For example, I read Thomas Fleming's The Secret Trial of Robert E. Lee. It was interesting and enjoyable. I also liked the Newt Gingrich / William Forstchen alternate Civil War history series: Gettysburg, Grant Comes East, and Never Call Retreat.

But I prefer straight-forward, respectful historical fiction like Jeff Shaara's books (I've read them all) and of course his father's classic The Killer Angels.

[the1dsquared]

As a Freemason, George Washington was certainly NOT agnostic.

[henriette]

Again...the whole point is that, when I write my historical novel, I plan to present Washington as guarded, but secure about his religious faith. He was very open and comfortable talking about God and Providence, and very clearly stated - on several occasions - that the Americans owed the success of their arms in the Revolution to Divine Providence. So, I think it's VERY consistent with history to show this side of him in the novel.

i don't know much about washington's private life, but it seems to me that most leaders throughout history have claimed "divine providence" as the reason for success.

it's the whole "my god is bigger, greater and truer than your god" attitude, which in my opinion can be more correctly termed as, "my member is bigger than your member". :)

[BrianTubbs]

As a Freemason, George Washington was certainly NOT agnostic.

Very true. GW was DEFINITELY not an agnostic. One only needs to take a cursory glance at his writings, affiliations, speeches, etc to see that.

[BrianTubbs]

i don't know much about washington's private life, but it seems to me that most leaders throughout history have claimed "divine providence" as the reason for success.

it's the whole "my god is bigger, greater and truer than your god" attitude, which in my opinion can be more correctly termed as, "my member is bigger than your member". :)

That is almost certainly true in some cases. But I think many leaders throughout history were quite sincere in their appeals to a Higher Power.

[pdr]

for a long and interesting discussion.

You would allow that you think George Washington is a hero? That you have an emotional attachment to him, and need, because of your faith, to see him as a good Christian? That he is (in the correct and polite use of the term) one of your sacred cows and a person about whom you have strong feelings?

Ditto for the Founding Fathers?

Then it doesn't matter what I or anyone else say about how we believe that a writer of historical fiction should stick within the truth of a real character as they see it, you are never going to accept the right of another historical writer to use their version of the truth as they see it when it differs from yours in interpretation.

How are we ever to know the truth about GW's religious beliefs? He was a shrewd politician, a public figure. Of course he would refer to God in all his speeches. That was the correct and politically sensible thing to do at that time. Of course he would keep quiet about his personal doubts or slightly different from the norm beliefs. He wanted political power.

One of the things a good writer of historical fiction will do is make readers look at well know historical personalities and historical situations and think about what happened and why. You must allow other writers of historical fiction the right to do so even if they disagree with your opinions.

[BrianTubbs]

for a long and interesting discussion.

You would allow that you think George Washington is a hero? That you have an emotional attachment to him, and need, because of your faith, to see him as a good Christian? That he is (in the correct and polite use of the term) one of your sacred cows and a person about whom you have strong feelings?

Ditto for the Founding Fathers?

Yes, I have strong feelings about the Founding Fathers. Yes, I admire them. But I am more than willing to confront their bad side - and have done so myself on numerous occasions - both in writing and in the classroom.

You are very mistaken if you think that I am insisting everyone adopt some kind of superficial "Pollyanna" view of the Founders. I myself don't do that.

Also....I do not represent GW as a 'good Christian,' nor do I need to do so in order to appease my religious convictions. I am a Christian regardless of whether GW was or wasn't.

My passion stems more in response to the OTHER side. In other words, I'm content to portray Washington's faith as somewhat ambiguous, but I strongly resist those who paint GW as an agnostic or "clockmaker" Deist. These images of GW are simply NOT accurate. They are concocted to service an agenda.

I realize that you are going to turn that back on me, and argue that I'm doing the same thing. I don't know how you can say that, though, considering that I have pointedly said that I do NOT see GW as a Bible-thumping, evangelical Christian. I think it would be WRONG to portray him as such. I've said that already several times, so I don't know what "agenda" you think I'm servicing - other than a desire to see GW portrayed as close to real history as possible. To that, I plead guilty.

[pdr]

'...other than a desire to see GW portrayed as close to real history as possible.'

real history?

Whose version of real history?

That is the problem, Brian.
You live in America, a country which makes loud noises about free spreech and freedom to express opinions. It's easy to say that looking back we can see that xyz = abc. But we don't know and therefore have to give allowance to other opinions even if we feel strongly they are wrong.

Be comforted by the fact that those historians/writers of hist fic servicing an agenda are easy to spot!

[BrianTubbs]

I think the key is to acknowledge that there IS such a thing as "real history" or "actual history." The truth exists.

We as fallible human beings won't ever be able to perfectly represent the truth in history. There will always be mistakes, but we should strive to stay close to the facts as we know them.

Examples:

We know that Marcus Aerilius was not murdered by his son, Commodus. So, the scriptwriters for Gladiator were wrong to put that in - representing so graphically and provocatively an event that did not take place.

We have NO evidence that the British burned innocent women and children alive during the American Revolution, therefore it was wrong for Robert Rodat (I believe he was the scriptwriter) to put that church-burning scene in The Patriot.

We have NO evidence that John Hancock utilized the services of prostitutes and abused them, therefore Paul Lussier should NOT put that in The Last Refuge of Scoundrels.

We know that George Washington, whether he was a Christian or not, was NOT outspoken about Jesus Christ. Therefore, we should not craft a novel or movie that has him being so.

We know that GW did not take Communion after the RevWar. Therefore, a novelist should not portray Washington doing so.

Do you see my point? There are some things we do know. And the historical novelist shouldn't change those facts, unless he or she is writing alternative history. The only exception to this would be to collapse certain events or modify things slightly for a fuller, more compelling effect - but it must still be CONSISTENT with the way things actually happened.

Example: In the current hit movie Invincible, the main character apparently met his future wife AFTER his football-playing days. But the filmmakers wanted a love interest - for dramatic sake and also to show that side of the hero. So, they made a change - a departure from real history. But they did it with respect to the parties involved and stayed more or less consistent with what actually happened overall.

Does all that make sense?

[rekirts]

Does all that make sense?It does to me.

[dclary]

I think the bottom line has to be what you're writing. Fiction? Or Non-Fiction.

In Fiction, history is subservient to the story.

In Nonfiction, story is subservient to the facts.

[BrianTubbs]

For fiction-writing, history is "subservient to the story" insofar as that example I gave in Invincible, where the filmmakers changed history - but still stayed true to the spirit of what actually happened in the character's real life. (I'm drawing a blank on his name).

But when you start changing history in order to service an agenda, defame a historical figure, etc. - then, I think an ethical line has been crossed.

For example, John Wayne's The Alamo was not very historically accurate, and was written and produced primarily as a Cold War metaphor. In other words, John Wayne changed certain things about history (including having Jim Bowie liberate his slave - just one example of sugar-coating and glossing over things - changing them) in order to advance an agenda. Now, I happen to agree with John Wayne's perspective of the Cold War, but that doesn't justify what he did with The Alamo.

[BrianTubbs]

Can we all agree that we live in a shallow, superficial, highly commercialized culture today?

People care more about who wears what to the Emmy Award ceremonies than children in Third World countries who don't even own clean clothes. People care more about Tom Cruise losing a movie studio than others who lose jobs and can't put food on the table. We'd rather hear what Britney Spears or George Clooney have to say about certain political issues, than what our senators or representatives have to say.

And in this shallow, visual, sound byte culture we live....

People get most of their knowledge of history from novels and movies!!!!

I know of numerous people who really believe Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code. Yeah, they know his principal characters were fictionalized - and that his overall plot was fictionalized. But they BELIEVE - really BELIEVE - that all the historical background, including all that he wrote about Constantine and the canonization process of the Bible, was painstakingly researched .... and true!

I know of people whose primary exposure to the American Revolution is the movie The Patriot.

At some point, we writers have to accept the responsibility that is on our shoulders ... ESPECIALLY those of you who are successfully published.

Published historical novelists and produced historical films INFLUENCE audiences. They impact society.

We cannot shirk our responsibility here, and jettison history as if it's nothing more than a stage that can be overhauled or a prop that can be thrown away.

History happened - it happened a certain way. It involved real people - people that were just as important and just as valuable as WE are today. We owe them - we owe history - our respect.

[dclary]

I honestly disagree here. You've heard the phrase "God writes lousy drama." No one going to watch The Patriot went expecting to get an accurate portrayal of how the Revolutionary War went down. They went expecting a moving, emotional story whose backdrop was the Revolutionary War.

The responsibility we have as historical writers is, as was mentioned earlier, to respect the past. Keep the context, the big picture. You obviously can't change something to the point of ludicrously ridiculous... But I think you have a LOT of leeway as to where that point is.

[henriette]

brian, i can totally understand your frustrations. we do live in a world where most people get their information through popular culture and are not as curious about history.

however, isn't history somewhat relative, especially when the only records are scrolls and books? in 100 years from now, no one will be able to get away with saying george bush had red hair; we have film, pictures, so many different ways of proving something as fact or fiction. but when it comes to the years before photographs, it really is a matter of perspective.

we know what people wrote to each other in letters, but were they telling the truth? we know what laws were passed, but do we really know why? we know what wars were fought, but do we really understand the truths behind them? not really. we can only make educated guesses.

check out this article, about new discoveries in regards to who built the sphynx: i saw the documentary mentioned and it was fascinating.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/14/wsphinx14.xml

[BrianTubbs]

If you want to write a captivating, fictionalized story with a historical background....that's great.

The writer(s) of Pearl Harbor attempted this. To my knowledge, they stayed pretty close to history. The big exception is they had Ben Affleck and Josh Hartnett getting into the air at Oahu and shooting down Japanese fighter-bombers. In reality, there were American flyboys who got in the air - but the filmmakers, of course, ignored them (the real guys - no one but the most extreme history buffs know their names), and went with their protaganists instead. But, other than that, the Pearl Harbor attack went down pretty much as is.

So....by and large...the filmmakers respected history, while putting a fictional "love triangle" story up front.

Contrast this with Tora, Tora, Tora - which had the background up-front. Personally, as a history buff, I prefer Tora, Tora, Tora, but as an aspiring historical novelist, I recognize Pearl Harbor is the type of story that sells.

But in The Patriot (a movie I admittedly like, by the way), the filmmakers made several errors - 1) they assigned particularly heinous and barbarous acts of violence to the British (trying to demonize them to the fullest extent), and 2) they gave no real substantive context for WHY the Revolution was taking place, aside from a few speeches about taxes.

In The Crossing (an A&E movie based on Howard Fast's novel), George Washington is portrayed as an angry, foul-mouthed general leading an all-but-defeated Continental Army that's fighting for a vague, self-centered cause ("profit" - as is explained at the end of the film).

Well, there are several historical problems with this. First, the American Revolution wasn't primarily about "profit," and GW was not a foul-mouthed general. I'm sure a few choice words came out now-and-then (like at Monmouth with General Charles Lee), but he issued orders forbidding curse words in the Continental Army. That's a historical fact - completely ignored by Fast.

Yet another historical error had Alexander Hamilton serving as Washington's aide-de-camp at Trenton, when in fact AH didn't join GW's staff until AFTER Trenton. But this is a bit more forgivable, in that Fast was using Hamilton to show GW's tender side - a well known fact of history is that GW regarded AH as a son. This was an important element to flesh out GW's character in the film, so I can understand this deviation from history. It still respects the characters and the spirit of actual history. (I don't want to be too critical of The Crossing, because Fast did an excellent job showing how desperate the situation was for GW and the Continentals in December 1776).

So....I have no ethical or moral problem with writers using history to support or advance their story - and even making minor changes to history in some cases (so long as they do so with care and respect). All the power to them.

But there are right ways to do that - and wrong ways.

[rekirts]

I think a lot of people who go to see movies based on historical events believe everything they see on the screen in regard to the real historical characters. Movies are great at spreading misinformation. For example, I've met a few people who think Commodus died in the arena at the hands of a gladiator.

[veinglory]

True... even of graduate history students who tended to go with 'Elizabeth' (the year the movie came out) rather than the events as laid out in the textbook. [sound of gnashing teeth]

[pdr]

it's amazing isn't it if you hang around AW long enough you will see that a topic comes up in discussion again and everyone takes the opposite point of view.

I remember a long debate on some thread with people denying vigorously that films or TV affected the viewers.

Brian, I am actually a great hater of the half lies, dishonest reporting and the just plain ignorance of writers, TV programme and film makers. I don't have a TV, never did. I can pick up the good programmes like drama series or excellent documentaries as videos or DVDs.

The dishonesty of film makers is legend but people still fall for their incorrect versions of history. I watch the occasional film, rarely of Hollywood make.

I review historical fiction and come down hard on writers who do not explain why they deviated from the facts.


My point simply was that interpretation of the facts, when these facts come from another century, is bound to differ according to who is doing the interpretations. If the person can point to letters or documents and say 'I think it means xyz.' they have that right even though it is often clear to the outsider that their reasoning is clouded by emotions, politics, upbringing or plain 'to point make' misinterpretation.

I'd prefer honesty too, but whose version of the truth is the right truth? Sometimes it is easy to see, but if Shakespeare had stuck to the historical truth he would never have written Macbeth or Henry V or many of the other plays we revere today. He was altering history to make a point that was valid in his time. I can't condemn him for that. What he had to say about Kingship and ruling in Macbeth seems to me to be of far greater importance than the fact that he maligned the characters of Macbeth and his lady who were, in fact, quite harmless people and known to be so.

[rekirts]

I'd prefer honesty too, but whose version of the truth is the right truth? Sometimes it is easy to see, but if Shakespeare had stuck to the historical truth he would never have written Macbeth or Henry V or many of the other plays we revere today. He was altering history to make a point that was valid in his time. I can't condemn him for that. What he had to say about Kingship and ruling in Macbeth seems to me to be of far greater importance than the fact that he maligned the characters of Macbeth and his lady who were, in fact, quite harmless people and known to be so.Macbeth might disagree with you. Are you ok with someone making up horrible, nasty things about you for a more interesting portrayal in a book or movie in a couple of hundred years? How about your descendants? Would they be ok with it? How much time has to pass before it's ok to malign somebody's character?

[davidthompson]

My point simply was that interpretation of the facts, when these facts come from another century, is bound to differ according to who is doing the interpretations. If the person can point to letters or documents and say 'I think it means xyz.' they have that right even though it is often clear to the outsider that their reasoning is clouded by emotions, politics, upbringing or plain 'to point make' misinterpretation.

I'd prefer honesty too, but whose version of the truth is the right truth?

Several posters have brought up the point about the difficulty of extrapolating facts from scanty evidence centuries old, but I don't think there's as much difference between history and contemporary fiction on that score, unless you're writing about things you experienced first-hand.

Let's take the story of Jon Benet Ramsey. Given unlimited access to evidence at the murder scene and a chance to question living people first-hand, we (as a society) still have not been able to prove what happened the night she was killed. And I mean "prove" up to current legal standards, which still allow for possible error.

A strong case could be made in a novel for some versions of what happened, based on the evidence. A weaker case could be made for other versions. A case could even be made for a few carefully created wild scenarios (ninjas, spies, vampires) if the only rule was that nothing about them could contradict available evidence. If one can omit some of the evidence or change it or interpret it in truly bizarre ways, one could make a case that almost anyone was the murderer.

But why? If a writer has a cool idea about ninjas, or a theme about innocence lost, and that's more important than following the evidence about Jon Benet Ramsey, then why not just write a story about a fictional girl like Jon Benet, keeping the elements that are important, changing all the rest?

Most authors do. But others do riff off of actual people and events, for any number of reasons, including the name recognition factor. Fans of Abraham Lincoln will be more apt to care about a novel starring Abe himself than a novel about some anonymous 19th century attorney. Plus it's easier for both reader and writer not to have to start from scratch building a character and situation; they already know the basics from the news or history class.

Is it tasteless to even talk about fictionalizing or distorting a tragedy like Jon Benet Ramsey's death, in the same way we might add vampires or fictional dramatic twists to events 100 or 500 years ago? I think that question illustrates the point Rekirts is making. Personally, I'd rather be forgotten in 100 years, than to have my memory evoked deliberately wrong, just so someone can elaborate on a theme to people in the future.

[dclary]

Macbeth might disagree with you. Are you ok with someone making up horrible, nasty things about you for a more interesting portrayal in a book or movie in a couple of hundred years? How about your descendants? Would they be ok with it? How much time has to pass before it's ok to malign somebody's character?

CBS waited about 3 weeks after Reagan died.

[pdr]

isn't it? What are we talking about? Freedom of speech, freedom of thought?

History is always changed by those who want to use it.

Japanese High School history textbooks discuss the Japanese role in the Pacific part of WW11 in one four or five sentence paragraph. Students do not learn what happened and visit Pearl Harbour to see where they defeated the Americans. Many do not know why Hiroshima happened. Most Japanese are deeply aggrieved about Hiroshima and don't admit to any fault on the part of their government.

That 19thC Hitler, Napoleon Bonaparte, is revered by many people especially in France.

Henry Tudor legitimised his reign by creating a monster in Richard 111.

Alexander is called Great and revered because he conquered his world and made life a misery for many conquered peoples!

The stories about TonyPandy, Bunker Hill and that Cherry tree of George Washington are just that, stories.

The ideas for Shakespeare's history plays were taken from stories, then used to create something I wouldn't want to be without.

I cheer rekirts' wish for honesty and agree with her. (You put your money where your mouth is rekirts and never ever gossip or tell stories about your neighbours or friends?)

david thompson makes a good point about truth with the case of Jon Benet Ramsey. So I'll ask again what is the historical truth?

We don't know.

As historical writers I do think we ought to be mindful of the truth as the general population see it, but if we choose to interpret it in a different way based on evidence we should be allowed that right.

I must add, as a polite aside, that it seems strange to be defending a freedom to Americans that America claims is a vital part of the Constitution.

[rekirts]

I cheer rekirts' wish for honesty and agree with her. (You put your money where your mouth is rekirts and never ever gossip or tell stories about your neighbours or friends?)
I rarely talk about other people unless it's to say something good about them. And I'm not an American.

[davidthompson]

isn't it? What are we talking about? Freedom of speech, freedom of thought? (snip)

As historical writers I do think we ought to be mindful of the truth as the general population see it, but if we choose to interpret it in a different way based on evidence we should be allowed that right.

I must add, as a polite aside, that it seems strange to be defending a freedom to Americans that America claims is a vital part of the Constitution.

Important distinctions. There's legal freedom. I dunno, but I'd guess most of the posters here aren't suggesting that some interpretations of history be legally prevented from being published, no matter how much they disagree with them.

Then there's ethics. Very subjective, almost always impossible to enforce except through peer pressure, but fun to discuss, in any field. What's the best way or the right way or the most responsible way to do something? Why? Why not? I think that's more what's going on here.

I think everyone should have the legal "right" to interpret history however they want, in the sense that everyone should have the right to freedom of speech and thought. Just as I think they should have the right to buy a 200-year-old artifact and destroy it if they want, because everyone should have the right to control their own personal property.

But that doesn't mean I think they should.

[Anthony Ravenscroft]

BrianTubbs, you're doing a better job than most, but never lose track of the fact than there's no definable group that owns a monopoly on Truth.

Remember, a couple years ago, when the movie Alamo was about to be released?

Remember all the wailing & rending of garments over how "inaccurate" it was?

Remember who the biggest leather-lunged blowhards were?

Remember who they blamed for this (& I quote) "conspiracy"?

I don't happen to judge historians by their biases -- in fact, those who freely admit their biases allow the reader to "adjust focus" to correct course toward Truth.

But the ones who insist endlessly "I am telling you nothing but the plain, obvious Truth!!" should be watched carefully, especially when they implicitly demand slavish unquestioning acceptance, & denounce anyone who so much as balks as "disloyal."

[rekirts]

There's quite a difference between having a bias and making stuff up out of whole cloth. If there is not a single shred of evidence that points to some historical figure being, say, a murderer or a rapist or a wife beater--if, in fact, the evidence seems to indicate the contrary, then it is irresponsible (and, yes, unethical) to portray the person as such.

[pdr]

There's quite a difference between having a bias and making stuff up out of whole cloth. If there is not a single shred of evidence that points to some historical figure being, say, a murderer or a rapist or a wife beater--if, in fact, the evidence seems to indicate the contrary, then it is irresponsible (and, yes, unethical) to portray the person as such.

And there are very few governments we can't point a finger at who haven't, for the sake of political expediency, done just that and without a shred of evidence turned some person or country into a 'monster'.

It happens!

My apologies Rekirts for thinking you were American. I hope you weren't insulted! :) Lots of :) to the Americans in case they now feel insulted!

It would be nice if we writers of historical fiction actually were honest, but people have their own agendas and will always do so if they can get away with thinking 'mine is pure and unsullied, yours is not.'

Let's agree that we should stick to the truth as we see it based on the historical knowledge we have.

[rekirts]

No worries, pdr. I thought you were an American. ;)

[BrianTubbs]

[The historians] who insist endlessly "I am telling you nothing but the plain, obvious Truth!!" should be watched carefully, especially when they implicitly demand slavish unquestioning acceptance, & denounce anyone who so much as balks as "disloyal."

I agree. We as human beings are imperfect and fallible - and that includes historians. But there are some things that we DO know. There are some facts that we DO know. Our fallibility should make us humble and aware of our limitations - but it should NOT compel us to surrender all our efforts at remaining truthful and honest.

[BrianTubbs]

Let's agree that we should stick to the truth as we see it based on the historical knowledge we have.

That's what I've been saying from the very beginning of this discussion. So, if in fact, we are all in agreement with that, then I'm a :) camper.

[BrianTubbs]

Several people in this great discussion have made an argument along the lines of "We can't know the full truth of history" because people are limited in their knowledge, biased in their analysis, faulty in their logic, dishonest, etc., etc., etc.

Essentially, this opens the door for historical novelists to write whatever they want to - regardless of historical facts. If it's not possible to really know the truth, after all, why be bound by it?

Well, let's take that line of reasoning to its logical end and apply it to other situations in life...

We're never going to be able to end world hunger, so why try?

We're not going to be able to stop teenagers from committing suicide, so why bother?

Some people are never going to learn to read or write, so let's stop wasting money trying to offer and encourage education to those who don't want it.

We're never going to stop murder, so our law enforcement agencies around the world should focus on other priorities. In fact, people are going to break the law (even some cops break the law), so what's the point of having law enforcement agencies?

I could go on-and-on-and-on.

We live in a fallen world with imperfect and flawed people. None of us is perfect. All of us have biases, idiosyncracies, flaws, etc.

But these realities should not cause us to jettison our efforts at doing what we CAN to make the world a better place - or, in the context of our discussion, make historical fiction more consistent with actual history, to the extent we can.

A closing quote...

Mother Teresa was asked once how she could continue to help the poor and downtrodden in the face of staggering poverty and hunger - knowing that the odds were against her and she would NEVER be able to fully succeed. She responded: "God has not called me to be successful. He has called me to be faithful."

Historical novelists (and historical nonfiction writers too, for that matter) won't be fully and completely successful in staying true to actual history. But they can and should make it their goal to do so to the best of their ability - staying faithful in attitude, principle, and spirit to the actual content of history that they DO know.

[davidthompson]

Interesting news story about these very same issues, in a piece of "historical fiction" about something that happened five years ago.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_re_us/911_film_clinton_officials


"For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes, composite and representative characters and dialogue, and time compression," ABC said...

Berger objected to a scene that he was told showed him refusing to authorize an attack on Osama bin Laden despite the request from CIA officials. "The fabrication of this scene (of such apparent magnitude) cannot be justified under any reasonable definition of dramatic license," he wrote...

"While ABC is promoting "The Path to 9/11" as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans," they said.


Whether you agree or disagree that this miniseries is on the right or wrong side of the line (and personally, I don't know enough to form an opinion), it's interesting to watch living subjects respond to writers whom they feel are taking too much dramatic license in historic fiction.

[rekirts]

I would think if you took too much dramatic license with a living person and they felt it hurt their reputation, that person might sue.

[blackpen]

rtilryarms, what's the problem? "Historical Fiction," an oxymoron?

The word "fiction" is in the title.

The real kicker is when you do a whole lot of research and realize that many of the "legitimate" historical accounts probably should have been labeled Historical Fiction. It gives me great respect for real historians who have to wade through all the slanted accounts of the past.

i absolutely agree with the1. regardless i have the same problem with "facts" getting in the way of my plot but then, there are many versions of the truth. also, historical fiction would not be so interesting if we didn't tweak the history now and then.

[Captain Scarf]

Authors do have the freedom to write whatever they wish, except libel, and readers have the right not to like it or agree with it. Therefore, writers can mess about with the details of historical fiction. Sometimes this can be good.

I remember when (don't shoot me) Pearl Harbour came out. Personally I liked it. The inaccuracies did not bother me (even though I am a history student) because the plot was good.

However. I particularly like the work of Bernard Cornwell who's Sharpe novels are meticulously researched. So there are two sides to this one.

Personally I get around the problem by creating fictional countries. These countries can have more or less similar technology and happenings to real ones in the time in which they are set but the margin for difference is allowed to be fairly wide.

[thedrafthorse]

Authors do have the freedom to write whatever they wish, except libel, and readers have the right not to like it or agree with it. Therefore, writers can mess about with the details of historical fiction.

Yes. And legally-speaking, you can't libel the dead.

[Captain Scarf]

Good point.

[Amethyst]

This is something that's important to me. I'm a novelist; I'm not writing a doctoral thesis. While I try to be accurate within the confines of my story, it's the story that is ultimately paramount.

There's a great essay by the historian CV Wedgwood called "History and Imagination" in her book of essays Truth and Opinion on this very subject. If your local library has it, I highly recommend it. (It's from the early 1960s.)

In it, she basically says it's the historian's job to stick to "truth" while it's the creative writer's job to write of greater Truths. Otherwise, we wouldn't have many of our great epics, such as the Iliad, the Chanson de Roland, or much of the folk literature of the world. (That's paraphrasing her, but I hope you get the idea.)

She goes on to say how not only Shakespeare, but Goethe, Corneille, Schiller, even Victor Hugo "use historical names as empty vials into which they could pour their own conceptions and so illuminate the passions, the weaknesses or the virtues of man."

Her belief, then, is that "it has been from very ancient times a natural and healthy habit of mankind to poeticize and to simplify the most striking events of history: to modify individual historic truth into simple permanent forms. The creative artist may within the conventions of his epoch as legitimately use historical material in the same way. ... The poet, the dramatist, the novelist is free to exercise their imagination as widely as they choose."

[Parkinsonsd]

She stole that straight from Aristotle. I ought to sue her.

[pdr]

talking of facts and writing historical fiction, I think you will find that today, altering a major, known, historical fact is frowned upon. Moving minor facts around is not.

You will notice in many historical novels that the author freely admits to having moved certain minor known details like inconvenient brothers and sisters or the actual date the MC moved to Verona/London/Paris in 'A Note to Readers'.

Most historical readers are well educated in the areas of history they read about. They will squawk loudly if the writer radically alters major known facts.

And I feel that if you are a writer of fiction you can create something satisfactory from the facts. Haven't we all been told that truth is stranger than fiction and that although an episode did actually happen in real life no one would believe it in a novel!

[Amethyst]

I'm not saying you can't do immaculate research, I'm saying that, as historical novelists, we can choose what and how to present history as we see it. Imo, that's the nature of historical fiction.

Here's a quote from an intro article to a recorded interview with Edward P. Jones, who won a Pulitzer-prize for his novel, The Known World:

Jones had a whole shelf of books about slavery but never read more than a couple of chapters. “Were you worried about getting the history right?” asks Edwards of the details and census records. “Well, it's my own place,” laughs Jones. “I can say whatever I want.”

The article (and audio of the full interview; there are other historical novelists featured as well) can be found at Writers - Historical Fiction (http://www.mpbonline.org/television/series/writers/107/index.htm).

I will only add that there are a great many 'facts' out there that aren't. Part of the fun of researching for a novel is discovering what really happened. Or as close as we can ever know - a great many things are never recorded, or if they are, they are written down twenty, thirty years later when memory is wobbly or so codified by repetition that the truth becomes belief, not fact. Modern politicians and press aren't the only ones who could put their own spin on events.

This is all just my take on things. The beauty of it is that you can write your novel your way and I can write mine my way. (And no doubt we will both end up with great novels! :D )

I'm not trying to be confrontational here. I just wanted to say that I believe there are many ways to approach writing a historical novel and that most of them are just fine.

(NB: Yeah, I know the 'laughs' is just so wrong, but that's the way it was in the article so I left it alone. And no more quotes... at least for a while. ;) )

[Kentuk]

You could like challenge your readers on the back cover to identify the three historical facts you altered to make them fit your story.

[Puma]

Of all the academic disciplines, is any one more "fact" than history? It happened, it is actual, it is not a theory, it is not changed by modern usage like languages, and rarely is it changed by new discoveries.

In my opinion, moving inconvenient brothers and sisters or dates to fit the story is lying. If I discover something like that in an historical novel you can be D sure I'll never pick up a book by that author again.

On the other hand, if an issue is in a gray area and no one is sure exactly what happened, I'll entertain anyone's speculation. Puma

[pdr]

moving inconvenient brothers and sisters

Nope, Puma, ignoring them after a brief mention!

Shan't give you a list of well known novelists who do slide minor details around!

We are fortunate that there are so many grey areas we can write about.

[donroc]

Interesting discussion. Having been a history buff from first memory, as a moderately precocious cihld, I would hit the History books after viewing any Hollywood film set an historic period and enjoyed playing "gotcha!" when I saw the supposed true story. The most egregious massacre of facts, in my opinion, until GLADIATOR, was THE SATA FE TRAIL. Yet films/plays in which Elizabeth I confronts Mary stuart (General Gordon and the Mahdi less so) do make entertaining drama.

I look forward to being castigated and scorned by some among you when my magnum opus historical novel appears next year.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Doogs]

Hi, donroc. I hear you re: Gladiator (even though its story was stolen basically whole cloth from Fall of the Roman Empire). Roman history is fascinating enough as it is. Why go to the effort of making up a story with the most inaccurate ending possible (restoring the Republic...please) when there is so much material that could have been tapped?

It's sad to say, but for all its indulgences, I think 300 was far truer to the actual history. After all, Thermopylae did happen. Ephialtes did lead the Persians around to the Spartan rear. Leonidas did die. Hell, they even got the rough number of soldiers on the field at Plataea right.

[Teena]

OK, I've read some of this thread because I'm in the middle of a novel that takes place in the past and BTW mentions some relevant things that happened; i.e. Bloody Mary did burn heretics..... but I'm not writing a documentary of British history, I'm not writing for history scholars, and the "facts" are not the point of my story. I'm writing fiction in hopes of entertaining readers. While I would never tell readers that heretics weren't burned at the stake, there has to be some author's license for the little things in order to further the story.

For instance, I know that tea was not around in 1500s England but how many readers do? If I don't stretch its introduction by a few decades and have the ladies sit down and discuss whatever over tea (which everyone recognizes, even historical ignoramuses like me) then I'm left with what?....a discussion over mead?? Readers relate to tea AND it's a convenient way for me to get my characters to talk and further the story. It could be distracting if I tried to use something less recognizable that is true to the period. Also, someone critted me on the fact that the names of my characters weren't used in that period (or any period). I really appreciate that, but yeah, I know. Another "Jane" or "Anne" isn't memorable, so I made up something very unique. How else does my book stand out from others?

I appreciate those of you who run to look up facts, but when I read I just want an entertaining, memorable story. Have I missed the point here? Maybe I'm in the wrong genre? If so, oops, sorry, wrong door. :gone:

[pdr]

Have I missed the point here? Maybe I'm in the wrong genre? If so, oops, sorry, wrong door...

Try fantasy. Where you can go off on your little entertaining flights and not upset the readers.

Readers of historicals certainly would know when tea was introduced. They'd be amazed that you, the author, didn't know about cakes and ale.

An entertaining story is only one part of the historical novel. The readers want to feel they've been transported back in history. If you don't get the basics right they won't trust you in any of your story's details, and won't read another of your books.

[lkp]

I'm not terribly hard line about some things, but I do think pdr is right here. Readers of historical fiction (and fantasy) read those genres primarily to be transported into a new and convincing world. It has to feel right for the reader to be willing to make that leap back in time with you. The details are what do that.

Moreover, there have been so many best-selling novels about England in the sixteenth century (Phillippa Gregory?) that I think even your not terribly well-educated reader is going to have a decent sense for what feels real and what feels --- off. And women named Charlene drinking tea are going to feel very off.

[waylander]

For instance, I know that tea was not around in 1500s England but how many readers do? If I don't stretch its introduction by a few decades and have the ladies sit down and discuss whatever over tea (which everyone recognizes, even historical ignoramuses like me) then I'm left with what?....a discussion over mead?? Readers relate to tea AND it's a convenient way for me to get my characters to talk and further the story. It could be distracting if I tried to use something less recognizable that is true to the period. Also, someone critted me on the fact that the names of my characters weren't used in that period (or any period). I really appreciate that, but yeah, I know. Another "Jane" or "Anne" isn't memorable, so I made up something very unique. How else does my book stand out from others?

I appreciate those of you who run to look up facts, but when I read I just want an entertaining, memorable story. Have I missed the point here? Maybe I'm in the wrong genre? If so, oops, sorry, wrong door. :gone:

Some of your readers will know, but more to the point you have to convince the editors and agents first and they will know.

[donroc]

A sub-lit (associate?) agent who claimed to have a PhD on my subject agency took this attitude towards my historical. "Those who know the subject well will find nothing new; those who know nothing will not be interested; and I disagree with your take on the historical characters (whom I based on my research)."

However, my work was accepted by an independent royalty paying publisher who will release all 150,000+ words of it in hard cover late spring/early summer of 2008.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[c.e.lawson]

OK, I've read some of this thread because I'm in the middle of a novel that takes place in the past and BTW mentions some relevant things that happened; i.e. Bloody Mary did burn heretics..... but I'm not writing a documentary of British history, I'm not writing for history scholars, and the "facts" are not the point of my story.

For instance, I know that tea was not around in 1500s England but how many readers do? If I don't stretch its introduction by a few decades and have the ladies sit down and discuss whatever over tea (which everyone recognizes, even historical ignoramuses like me) then I'm left with what?....a discussion over mead?? Readers relate to tea AND it's a convenient way for me to get my characters to talk and further the story. It could be distracting if I tried to use something less recognizable that is true to the period.

I appreciate those of you who run to look up facts, but when I read I just want an entertaining, memorable story. Have I missed the point here? Maybe I'm in the wrong genre? If so, oops, sorry, wrong door. :gone:

I agree with pdr as well. I would venture to guess that most who invest in a book of historical fiction about a certain era are interested in that era and are looking for a realistic presentation of that period of history as well as an entertaining story. The two go hand in hand, otherwise why not just buy fantasy? Or contemporary? People are drawn to the history. I see no problem with mead. Or ale. I actually would prefer them over tea, for the exact reason of authenticity. Getting small details right is so very important for that. And besides - discussing something over tea is SO overdone - I think it's approaching cliche' status. I wouldn't trade in my credentials for being a well-researched, accurate writer for something like a beverage.

c.e.

[girlyswot]

OK, I've read some of this thread because I'm in the middle of a novel that takes place in the past and BTW mentions some relevant things that happened; i.e. Bloody Mary did burn heretics..... but I'm not writing a documentary of British history, I'm not writing for history scholars, and the "facts" are not the point of my story. I'm writing fiction in hopes of entertaining readers. While I would never tell readers that heretics weren't burned at the stake, there has to be some author's license for the little things in order to further the story.

For instance, I know that tea was not around in 1500s England but how many readers do? If I don't stretch its introduction by a few decades and have the ladies sit down and discuss whatever over tea (which everyone recognizes, even historical ignoramuses like me) then I'm left with what?....a discussion over mead?? Readers relate to tea AND it's a convenient way for me to get my characters to talk and further the story. It could be distracting if I tried to use something less recognizable that is true to the period. Also, someone critted me on the fact that the names of my characters weren't used in that period (or any period). I really appreciate that, but yeah, I know. Another "Jane" or "Anne" isn't memorable, so I made up something very unique. How else does my book stand out from others?

I appreciate those of you who run to look up facts, but when I read I just want an entertaining, memorable story. Have I missed the point here? Maybe I'm in the wrong genre? If so, oops, sorry, wrong door. :gone:


I think you're right that the story is what counts. And, yes, do whatever it takes to make it entertaining and memorable. The problem is, of course, that for many, many readers - especially those who've chosen to pick up your book because they're interested in historical novels - getting these sorts of things wrong will make the story immediately forgettable. I'm not of the "100% accuracy at all costs" school of thought, but I do think that your story needs to be plausible in order to be entertaining.

I'd say it's fine to change 'facts' if by that you mean specifics of individual incidents or characters (number of siblings, precise dates etc.) - though you might want to have author's notes to keep some readers happy. There's nothing inherently implausible about this kind of thing that will make a reader stumble in their tracks.

But I don't think it's okay to change the generalities of the period. You need to establish a general feel for the setting. How did people spend their day? What was the general etiquette between the sexes? How were the classes distinguished? What were the religious and political beliefs that were prevalent? Manners and syntax will do a lot for you here. And there are certain things that can be used as loaded signals of the era. Names being one such.

So, by all means, choose names that weren't actually that popular until the seventeenth century, or names that were more in vogue in the fifteenth century - I'll buy that. But don't choose names that sound like they'd fit in an American high school in the 21st century - not if you want me to read your book anyway! Because above all else, your readers have to believe in your characters and their story.

What will make your book stand out is a well-told story with characters that are real and true. That way, your readers will be engaged, because they'll recognise what's common to humanity.

Here (http://www.sugarquill.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=1488&st=320&p=375866&#entry375866)is a list of names popularly used in England by century. Not all of them are Jane or Anne. Maybe this will give you some suggestions you like better. But, you know, your book, your characters, your names, your choice!

[donroc]

When the pedant patrol strikes, all I'll care about is that they spell my name correctly.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[pdr]

When the pedant patrol strikes...

No, that's not what these readers and writers are.

Have you written an author's note explaining what you changed from factual history and why you changed it?

Because readers will happily forgive you if you are up front and honest about what you did.

It's if you don't explain what facts you altered, and why, that you are then seen as deceiving the reader, tricking them, being dishonest.

Readers then apply the being dishonest about historical facts to the rest of your book. That must be dishonest too, and not worth reading.

May I politely ask why Teena wants to write her novel as history when she doesn't want to bother about basic daily facts which the reader so enjoys?
Why call it history and not fantasy or alternate history?
Don't forget that, for the reader, the history is a major character in the historical novel.

[Teena]

May I politely ask why Teena wants to write her novel as history when she doesn't want to bother about basic daily facts which the reader so enjoys?
Why call it history and not fantasy or alternate history?
Don't forget that, for the reader, the history is a major character in the historical novel.

You may certainly ask, pdr, and after all this feedback I'm asking the same question. It appears I do indeed have the wrong door. :) I'm not so sure the book is 'historical' except it just happens to be set in 1500s England. I didn't set off to write a "historical novel." It will likely fall much more comfortably into another genre because history is NOT the relevant focus of the book. The story could be told in an earlier or somewhat later time. It is a love story of sorts, but not really; more of a tragedy. There is a fantasy scene in the epilogue, but no where else in the story. Perhaps that hint of fantasy should be included throughout and then it would fit well into that niche. Thanks for the input, y'all. I do appreciate it.

[donroc]

pdr, of course I did, and it is not all that extreme as you make it. My bibiliography can take up to ten pages were I to put it in the book.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[PastMidnight]

You may certainly ask, pdr, and after all this feedback I'm asking the same question. It appears I do indeed have the wrong door. :) I'm not so sure the book is 'historical' except it just happens to be set in 1500s England. I didn't set off to write a "historical novel." It will likely fall much more comfortably into another genre because history is NOT the relevant focus of the book. The story could be told in an earlier or somewhat later time. It is a love story of sorts, but not really; more of a tragedy. There is a fantasy scene in the epilogue, but no where else in the story. Perhaps that hint of fantasy should be included throughout and then it would fit well into that niche. Thanks for the input, y'all. I do appreciate it.

I'm glad that you've found a better fit, Teena! :)

[BardSkye]

And you're still welcome to sit around and chat, too. (I was going to say join us for a coffee, then realized it hasn't made an appearance in many of our time-periods.)

[wee]

You may certainly ask, pdr, and after all this feedback I'm asking the same question. It appears I do indeed have the wrong door. :) I'm not so sure the book is 'historical' except it just happens to be set in 1500s England. I didn't set off to write a "historical novel." It will likely fall much more comfortably into another genre because history is NOT the relevant focus of the book. The story could be told in an earlier or somewhat later time. It is a love story of sorts, but not really; more of a tragedy. There is a fantasy scene in the epilogue, but no where else in the story. Perhaps that hint of fantasy should be included throughout and then it would fit well into that niche. Thanks for the input, y'all. I do appreciate it.



Here is my question, for Teena & for others more experienced with publishing -- can you write a book set in 1500s England without putting it into its historical setting, or will you just confuse agents/editors? Will an agent or editor say, "Oh, this must be alternative history," or will he/she say, "This person didn't do any research!"

I'm asking because I remember seeing on Rejection Collection once a lady who got rejected on a romance & she was told that too many of her historical details were wrong. No offer to publish it as "alternative" (I don't really know what alternative history is, so if someone has a good example of books in this genre I would appreciate it. I don't see how it would work beyond a tongue-in-cheek comedy like the movie Knight's Tale, but this might just be my lack of imagination).

NOT being snarky -- I'm just curious.



wee

[girlyswot]

Here is my question, for Teena & for others more experienced with publishing -- can you write a book set in 1500s England without putting it into its historical setting, or will you just confuse agents/editors? Will an agent or editor say, "Oh, this must be alternative history," or will he/she say, "This person didn't do any research!"

I'm asking because I remember seeing on Rejection Collection once a lady who got rejected on a romance & she was told that too many of her historical details were wrong. No offer to publish it as "alternative" (I don't really know what alternative history is, so if someone has a good example of books in this genre I would appreciate it. I don't see how it would work beyond a tongue-in-cheek comedy like the movie Knight's Tale, but this might just be my lack of imagination).

NOT being snarky -- I'm just curious.



wee


I have no experience with publishing so I may be talking nonsense, but it seems to me that there are a number of different kinds of 'alternative' history.

First is, as you point out, the comedic history. You might be better marketing this as humorous rather than historical?

Second is the 'vaguely' historical (for want of a better term) - the only way I can think you might be able to market these is under some other genre. Historical romance, perhaps. Or historical fantasy. Or something?

Third is the counter-factual history. Where you take one event, change the outcome and then plot through what might have happened next, given all that we know about what did happen next. I'd say the only place for this is historical, but I've no idea what market, if any, there is for books like this. The point here is that the story is not badly researched and still must have historical plausibility. I wrote a story like this in which Mary Tudor got killed in the attempt to claim her crown, so Jane Grey became Queen properly. Not 'historically accurate' obviously, but nonetheless I tried to stick as far as possible with the sixteenth century manners and mores, and the characters as we know them.


But other than that, I think you're left with just the poorly researched, implausible and inaccurate story that I can't see anyone wanting to read.

[Teena]

Here is my question, for Teena & for others more experienced with publishing -- can you write a book set in 1500s England without putting it into its historical setting, or will you just confuse agents/editors? Will an agent or editor say, "Oh, this must be alternative history," or will he/she say, "This person didn't do any research!"

NOT being snarky -- I'm just curious.

Wee, I'm now curious as well. As you can tell, I'm unprepared for this whole thing and uncertain where to put my story. That's why I said maybe I'd bring a fantasy strand through it and it would fit there. I'll be watching this space for answers from those who have experience in this line and have published -- or nearly so.

[pdr]

I think I'm correct in saying that if Teena presented her book as is, with a seemingly straight forward story line, but inaccurate details like tea, it would be rejected as a poorly researched historical novel.

If Girlyswot presented her book as an alternate history where Mary Tudor dies and Jane Grey becomes queen it would be accepted or rejected on the value of the story and writing as an alternate history. However as an alternate Tudor history your research into things Tudor would have to be as good as if it were a pure historical novel and changes like tea and tobacco you'd have to show in the story, i.e. Jane Grey's creation and support of a Merchant navy with battleship support which beat off the Spanish and Portuguese to allow trade in the New World and India!

Historical romance usually uses a period in history as a pretty setting for a 21stC couple to have a torrid romance!!!

Fantasy using history is difficult. I would recommend you read Lois Bujold McMaster's 'The Curse of Challion' and the other books in that series of hers. She uses Spanish history to create another world, and make a fantasy. Her details are accurate as far as Mediaeval Spain but she adds the history of Challion and her created world to them. Still means a lot of research but she shows how well it can be done.

Comic history is usually satire as in 'Blackadder' or 'Rotten History...' or '1066 and all that.' And market it to the publisher as satire or a comic view of XPeriod history.

Do join the HNS and read their definitions. It's helpful.

[lkp]

I think with alternate historical fiction, your history needs to be even better than with traight historical fiction. The best alternate history takes the world as we know it and then changes one crucial detail (like Mary dying and Lady Jane Grey becoming queen) and then imagines all the other consequences that would fall from it. You have to be a *really* good historian to pull that off.
Teena, with your story, I might just go a little wacky with it. Bring in the fantasy element, as you say, and change other things too --- have them eating nachos at the burning as well as the corn on the cob and don't explain it, that kind of thing.

Probably the best and most successful recent novel that combines alternate history with fantasy is Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell. Loved that book.

[girlyswot]

Do join the HNS and read their definitions. It's helpful.

HNS?

[ishtar'sgate]

For instance, I know that tea was not around in 1500s England but how many readers do? If I don't stretch its introduction by a few decades and have the ladies sit down and discuss whatever over tea (which everyone recognizes, even historical ignoramuses like me) then I'm left with what?....a discussion over mead?? :gone:
O-o-o, you're in for a big surprise. Readers of historical fiction expect you to do your research and KNOW pretty much everything about your time period. You lose a lot of credibility when you play fast and loose with facts. I did a TON of research for my medieval novel but wouldn't you know it one reader very tartly told me I had the wrong kind of robin in my 14th century English garden. I had the little critter PULLING worms and apparently English robins are smaller than those in North America and don't pull up worms from the ground - one bit of research I failed to do. Trust me, your readers will definitely notice if you introduce tea before its time.
Linnea

[lostintheweb]

No, I'm not confused. We are talking about historical fiction, stories, things made up by a writer.

No matter how much you think an author has no right to invent incidents that might have happened to real people if s/he's writing a novel involving real people then s/he will have to make up incidents in order to tell the story.

Yes, I also would prefer a writer to be honest and make up things that fit in with the pattern of the real person's life. Alas, Paul Lussier believes that his research allows him to make up the incidents that distress you.

I think most readers of 'The Da Vinci Code' are aware that the book is simply a story and not factual. There's certainly been enough brouhaha in the press about it. It is popular because it is a straightforward, easy read, cocking a snook at a powerful establishment, and telling a story that many people wish were true.

Guess it depends on how significant the history that you are making up, or being erroneous about, is to your story line and whether people will notice or care. King, in his On Writing, talks about those individuals who will castigate a writer for any and every minor misstatement within a book. Does it matter that the historical "transcript" (and even that term is a loose description, as they are more like "notes" from a clerk at the trials) from the 1741 New York slave uprising indicates that only white participants were hung whereas all of the black participants actually tried were burned at the stake really matter when you read Pete Hamill's Forever? Even what might be significant historical errors within the context of the story, like the discovery of a letter from an unknown father bearing a post mark date before a small rural community like Big Stone Gap would have been likely to have been assigned a zip code, ought not cause to much consternation except to the individuals described by King.

Then again, unless you are Harry Turtledove, wholesale rewriting of history can be a problem.

[Doogs]

(I don't really know what alternative history is, so if someone has a good example of books in this genre I would appreciate it. I don't see how it would work beyond a tongue-in-cheek comedy like the movie Knight's Tale, but this might just be my lack of imagination).

Alternate history is simply a history that could have/might have been. This usually involves a "departure point", a small detail that, when altered, radically changes the course of subsequent events. Sometimes it can be a matter of chance, or a sudden realization, and sometimes it can involve a sci-fi element like time travel.

A few examples:

How Few Remain by Harry Turtledove - Confederate soldiers pick up a cigar case concealing marching orders and troop dispositions. In our timeline, this was recovered by the Union and led directly to Antietam. In the alternate timeline, the Confederacy wins the Civil War.

Rivers of War by Eric Flint - A misstep saves Sam Houston from severe injury in the War of 1812, changing the course of the conflict.

1632 by Eric Flint - A piece of alien "artwork" (briefly explained in a foreword) hurtles the town of Grantville, West Virginia into the middle of Germany while the Thirty Years' War rages. The arrival of the 20th century Americans sends ripples across Europe.

[pdr]

The Historical Novel Society - 10 years old this year.

www.historicalnovelsociety.org

If you want to be noticed by the historical editors and publishers, join, and get your fiction published in 'Solander'.

If you want to find out what the editors and publishers and agents are thinking and reading, join, and get the quarterly Review.

If you want to find out what readers and writers of historicals are thinking, reading and doing, join and read both magazines as part of your membership fee.

If you're new to writing enter the annual short story comp and pay for a crit. They are worth having as they are done by historical novel writers and editors.

If you write historical novels and want a CV with credits, enter the short story comp and boast of your short list, or prizewinning status to publishers.

If you want to find out about things like 'What is an alternate history novel?' join and read the definitions in the magazines.

There is also a website group at Yahoo with lots of writers chatting away, a weekly e-zine of what is newly published and a small Conference in the USA and the UK. (See the HNS thread I've just bumped to find out how some of the AWers who went to the US Conference enjoyed themselves.)

[ishtar'sgate]

Thanks for the reminder, pdr. I've been meaning to join the Historical Novel Society for a while and did so today. Now I just have to find the back issue with my review!
Linnea

[donroc]

For Ishtar'sgate: Why did you include the robin pulling the worm?

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[ishtar'sgate]

For Ishtar'sgate: Why did you include the robin pulling the worm?

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com (http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com)
It was simply one line in a garden scene.
Linnea

[donroc]

Nothing to stress over then. And the typical reader won't care -- only those who play the gotcha game.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[PastMidnight]

only those who play the gotcha game.


Which I think would include most avid readers of historicals.

[Voyager]

I've find from looking at reviews of other authors' work that readers of historical novels (aside from Romance, perhaps) are as particular about 'canon' as readers of fan fiction. Most of what I write, fantasy/thriller sort of stuff, is written when I get fed up with working on my main project, an historical novel about the people involved in the Piso Conspiracy to assasinate Nero. The detail work can get so time consuming that I often have to set it aside, but I know if I get it wrong, I'll get picked to death. I once spent an entire day researching the history of doorknobs in order to write one sentence. History is teeming with fodder for the muses, but I'll never do it again...hehe, she said confidently. Ew, I dangled.

[Doogs]

The detail work can get so time consuming that I often have to set it aside, but I know if I get it wrong, I'll get picked to death.

You can't please everybody.

Personally, I could care less about a certain kind of doorknob or what kind of bird is digging up worms in a garden. I see them as superfluous details, and to be perfectly honest, debating which robin would be digging for worms put me in mind of the Holy Grail debate about European vs. African swallows.

If you try to play that game with every little detail, you'll go crazy. And, chances are, STILL have someone nitpick you for something. Which is one of the reasons I'm a fan of sparse detail unless otherwise called for.

[donroc]

I understand, for some pedants, errors of triva can be analogous to hearing a clinker during a concerto, and as I wrote earlier, egregious errors as in GLADIATOR deserve scorn. So do othr forms of dishonesty in HF. But an error of triva that does not alter superb character, plot, atmosphere, and everything else -- sheesh, be obsessive compulsive -- and miserable. And credit the author for everything else well done. I am reminded of people at writing conferences who never complete their manuscipts, attend every year, and always critique negatively.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Voyager]

With any other genre, I would agree with you 100%, but when you have someone using something that hasn't been invented yet and get called on it, it's kinda bothersome to me. That's why I like fantasy, you can just make stuff up. Working within the parameters of known history is such a pain. If I didn't love this story so much, I would have dropped it a long time ago.

[donroc]

Not invented yet? Of course that would be the product of sloppy or dishonest writing.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Voyager]

Yes, ergo my six hours spent trying to find information on doors in Rome.

[girlyswot]

You can't please everybody.

Personally, I could care less about a certain kind of doorknob or what kind of bird is digging up worms in a garden.

You mean you couldn't care less. ;)

[Doogs]

You mean you couldn't care less. ;)

Yes, of course. The dangers of posting before my morning coffee...:)

[lkp]

Maybe you don't mean to come across this way, but it sounds like what you're saying that an error that bothers you is bad, but an error that bothers someone else but does not annoy you is fine and the person who is annoyed is just being a pedant.

An error, for someone who recognizes it, does destroy atmosphere. The more you know about a period of history, the less you can read historical fiction set in that period. I read very little medieval historical fiction, though I write it, because I know too much about the period and errors that others wouldn't notice, both big and small, throw me out of the world the author is trying to create. I love books about pre-modern Asia because, though I am sure they are just as filled with flaws, I don't notice. But I'd never dismiss a specialist in the field who couldn't read a book I liked because he or she noticed mistakes that I didn't.

I understand, for some pedants, errors of triva can be analogous to hearing a clinker during a concerto, and as I wrote earlier, egregious errors as in GLADIATOR deserve scorn. So do othr forms of dishonesty in HF. But an error of triva that does not alter superb character, plot, atmosphere, and everything else -- sheesh, be obsessive compulsive -- and miserable. And credit the author for everything else well done. I am reminded of people at writing conferences who never complete their manuscipts, attend every year, and always critique negatively.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com (http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com)

[donroc]

No, I meant there are dishonest GLADIATOR and SANTA FE TRAIL levels of error and innocent robin-worm levels. I could live with the latter if it were not relevant to the thrust of character and plot and all the other atmospheric ducks are in order.

Just sharing opinios. No intent to convert. Nuff said.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[wee]

No, I meant there are dishonest GLADIATOR and SANTA FE TRAIL levels of error and innocent robin-worm levels. I could live with the latter if it were not relevant to the thrust of character and plot and all the other atmospheric ducks are in order.


Gladiator is one I took to be an "alternate history" because it took characters from history & did what it liked with them.

It took me a minute of pondering to figure out why I think this is okay for a movie & not for a book, but I got it. A movie like Gladiator is trying to appeal to the masses ... the largely historically ignorant masses who don't care who the real people were or what they did. Historical fiction, though, isn't marketed to the masses. It is marketed to people who love history. So you do have a higher standard than the movies will.

And if your book gets turned into a movie, chances are the historical part will become unrecognizable but the story will be more exciting. LOL

Wee, I'm now curious as well. As you can tell, I'm unprepared for this whole thing and uncertain where to put my story. That's why I said maybe I'd bring a fantasy strand through it and it would fit there. I'll be watching this space for answers from those who have experience in this line and have published -- or nearly so.

Teena, something you will need to figure out for yourself is the genre your book will fall into. You can write it & then decide, or decide before you write it, but it is an unfortunate part of this business, it seems -- if an agent or publisher can't figure out where to market it, they'll put it aside. That's based on what I have read & figured out, not my own experience. But if you want to be print-published and hope to make money at it, you'll want to know the business end, too. Miss Snark says a huge percentage of writers put their own books into the wrong categories, and that's okay. But you do need to have a good idea so that you can target the appropriate agents or editors.

Miss Snark also says: write really, really well ... and let your agent figure out how to market it!

wee

[donroc]

Wee, my book turned into a movie? From your keyboard to the producer's ear. Well, when it comes out -- and I will be tooting all sorts of horns late spring/early summer 2008 --- we shall see if it excites the masses AND passes successfully through the academic gauntlet.

Also, GLADIATOR was not alternate history as I understand that genre to be. Rome defeating the barbarians and surviving yes. Hitler winning WWII yes. The South winning the War Between the States yes. But mixing Caligula with Commodus and more? No way is it alternate. It is simply wrong and dishonest.

But, and I do not know what is going on in UK education, History seems to be a dirty word in our public school system and best left ignored or distorted for assorted agendas.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Doogs]

Also, GLADIATOR was not alternate history as I understand that genre to be. Rome defeating the barbarians and surviving yes. Hitler winning WWII yes. The South winning the War Between the States yes. But mixing Caligula with Commodus and more? No way is it alternate. It is simply wrong and dishonest.

Not to mention restoring the Republic. Umm, yeah.

I like Gladiator as a piece of entertainment...but I think it's willful disregard for and distortion of the real history is far worse, precisely BECAUSE it was meant for the masses. There's such an ignorance of history in this country (the high school where my mother-in-law taught until last year doesn't even teach the Civil War anymore), that a frightening number of people take such things as fact.

I'm a bit more lenient when it comes to something like Braveheart or HBO's Rome...the may be wildly inaccurate in places...but at least capture the spirit of what was going on.

[donroc]

Time for my teaching screed. History IS completely disrespected in the USA. As an example, U.S. History is still a year course in high school as it was back in 1947 when I took it and 1967-87 when I taught it. Worse, it is under the blanket of SOCIAL STUDIES, which means it can be taught by anyone with a degree in Economics, Sociology, and by coaches who took only the pre req history courses in college. I had to fight with counselors who discouraged qualified students from taking too many AP History courses. Too elitist they said.

But we may, with interesting well written historical fiction awaken those whose education has been retarded since the 1960s -- touchy-feely replacing continuity of culture and critical thinking. Even students with high GPAs and SAT scores exhibit unforgiveable ignorance regarding history (and geography) in our country. There are exceptions, but alas they are too few. Too many say what they know and too few know what they say.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[wee]

But, and I do not know what is going on in UK education, History seems to be a dirty word in our public school system and best left ignored or distorted for assorted agendas.


That has been going on since the beginning of time. Anytime a new Egyptian king came into power & didn't like the last guy, or last god, or whatever, he just obliterated it from history. History is written by the winners ... and the winner always has an agenda.

The historical changes to Gladiator ... I think they are not any worse, really, than Braveheart or most any other "historical" movie. And with all the research I've done recently, I've seen professional historians gloss over important details, draw strange conclusions, etc. Recently I tried to rewatch part of The Ten Commandments with Charlton Heston. Oy. Anyone who has done more than a basic read of Exodus or knows anything about history would know that hours of that movie are wasted on melodramatic bull-honk that adds nothing to the movie & is wildly inaccurate. Bleh. I gave up on it.

Hollywood messes up virtually all history. Hollywood doesn't agonize over whether the details are right -- they just put in whatever they think will sell movie tickets. I think this is why Kenneth Branaugh's Shakespeare movies were such a hit, along similar lines. He remained true to the sources? What? Who does that?


wee

[wee]

Time for my teaching screed. History IS completely disrespected in the USA. As an example, U.S. History is still a year course in high school as it was back in 1947 when I took it and 1967-87 when I taught it. Worse, it is under the blanket of SOCIAL STUDIES, which means it can be taught by anyone with a degree in Economics, Sociology, and by coaches who took only the pre req history courses in college. I had to fight with counselors who discouraged qualified students from taking too many AP History courses. Too elitist they said.

But we may, with interesting well written historical fiction awaken those whose education has been retarded since the 1960s -- touchy-feely replacing continuity of culture and critical thinking. Even students with high GPAs and SAT scores exhibit unforgiveable ignorance regarding history (and geography) in our country. There are exceptions, but alas they are too few. Too many say what they know and too few know what they say.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com (http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com)


I completely agree with this. My history in high school was variously taught by:

--a lady who was totally burned out & nearing retirement, who gave us open-book 10-question multiple-choice quizzes once a week & this constituted our entire grade. The rest of the time we read the history book out loud, each student taking a turn with one paragraph, going down rows. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz It shocks me now to look back & realize the number of students aged 16 who could barely read.

--a football coach who could best be described as socially retarded & sexually deviant, and unable to keep either of these personal flaws under wraps in the classroom. One year he actually assigned each student one chapter of the book to teach the class and spent the whole semester in the back of the room playing games on his computer & not paying attention.

I never knew history could be exciting until my freshman year of college when my American history through 1860 professor was arguably the best-looking man I had ever seen, and young and single to boot. I never missed a class & paid rapt attention, trying to get the highest grade so he would notice me, & always dressed very smartly for class. He never noticed me :D but I found that I loved history. I ended up taking enough courses in college that I could have declared a minor in it if I had chosen particular classes instead of just whatever sounded interesting each semester. Virtually ALL of my electives were history after that first year.


wee

[Teena]

Teena, with your story, I might just go a little wacky with it. Bring in the fantasy element, as you say, and change other things too --- have them eating nachos at the burning as well as the corn on the cob and don't explain it, that kind of thing.

Nachos at the burning...what a wild and provocative idea. I like it. My guess is this would either land it "fantasy," or me in the looney-bin, n'est-ce pas? ;)



------------------------------------
Trouble with life is, there's no background music.

[Doogs]

I completely agree with this. My history in high school was variously taught by:

--a lady who was totally burned out & nearing retirement

I was fortunate to be blessed with an outstanding history teacher in high school. But he was young (under thirty) and unorthodox. His approach was that history was a story, and that knowing WHY things happened was more important than memorizing dates. And he was right. Once you know WHY, once you get pulled into that story, the names, dates, and events all fall into place effortlessly.

[ishtar'sgate]

That has been going on since the beginning of time. Anytime a new Egyptian king came into power & didn't like the last guy, or last god, or whatever, he just obliterated it from history. History is written by the winners ... and the winner always has an agenda.


wee
I'm finding that too and it's annoying. It wasn't much of a problem when I wrote my medieval novel. Lots of back-up research material. But now that I'm into ancient Babylon I'm finding very little on Nabonidus, the king of Babylon when the Persians invaded. His own people hated him and so were quite willing to deface anything with his name on it or cut out any accounts of his exploits, etc. And the darned scribes lie like sidewalks!
Linnea

[donroc]

Ancient spin doctors.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[pdr]

Voyager, but have you read Lindsay Davies AD70 Roman series about Falco, the Emperor's private eye? Her research is bloody good and she is English with access to the sites and their experts.

Her first book in the series has a good description of doors when Falco is warning a Senator about his lack of security. That's the 'The Silver Pigs'.
She has a Falco website and lots of info.

Anyone want a SYW crit? I've 48 hours off before the next deadline and need a break.

Trying not to upset the locals but I have long had doubts about the teaching of geography and history in American schools. In the old days when I lived in Canada, occasionally stayed a few weeks in the US, and had to use a telephone operator to make a call from the US to Canada, I always had to fight with the operators who insisted I wanted the international operator and not the long distance operator as it was a transatlantic call to Canada.
Today I still find Americans who do not know where New Zealand is. As for general historical knowledge of anything not American, nope!

I am sad to hear that the UK has gone social studies too. In NZ we had a great influx of new immigrants to the teaching profession, Americans, who led a charge for teaching Social Studies. Since then we have totally ignorant kids whose general geog and hist knowledge is abysmal.

As for the knit picking robin plus worm reader, I wonder if you had been using the odd Americanism somewhere and got up hir nose as 'one of those bloody Americans who has the cheek to write our history.' I've met a lot of readers like that.

Meanwhile to get on topic :) I am pleased not to have fight donroc over details. They matter. And yes, films, because they are much viewed around the world, should darn well get it right. I've just been viewing Emma Thomson's film of 'Sense and Sensibility', she wrote the script from the book using all Austin's dialogue, and was also forced to view that new ghastly Mills and Boon Hollywood version of 'Pride and Prejudice'. One so honest to the writer's intent the other a 'what will the masses gawp at most, give 'em more' production. Sigh! I'd rather be an honest writer of historicals than a popular purveyor of incorrect mush.

[lkp]

I'm going to mitigate the doom and gloom here a little bit. I'm Canadian and live in the States. I know zero about American history, but I have to say I am awfully impressed with both my son's history textbook and his history teacher. The textbook really tries to teach the analytical tools of a historian --- how to take notes, how to reach conclusions, how to weigh primary and secondary sources and, most important, how to ask and answer interesting historical questions. And his history (yes, "social studies," but it's really just a history course) teacher has him very excited about the subject --- it's his favourite. He's in an urban public school.
I'm not saying the rest of you aren't right, just pointing out some glimmers of light in the dark.

[donroc]

Yes, there are islands of superb schooling the USA ( and great teachers in some of the worst schools). One cogent example is Lowell High School in San Francisco, the oldest public high school west of the Mississippi, which has resisted the yahoos who have tried to destroy it over the decades.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[Voyager]

Voyager, but have you read Lindsay Davies AD70 Roman series about Falco, the Emperor's private eye? Her research is bloody good and she is English with access to the sites and their experts.

Yes, I have read one of her books, but I don't rely on any other fictional author's research. I do the work myself. I have an extensive library. I never google information. I have access through e-mail to Bill Thayer and several other experts, but before I infringe on them, I research the classics and the history texts and I have the receipts from Amazon to prove it. :) And I am extremely conscientious about never, ever altering historical facts to fit my story, my story takes place within the parameters of history.

[ishtar'sgate]

[quote=pdr;1679832]

As for the knit picking robin plus worm reader, I wonder if you had been using the odd Americanism somewhere and got up hir nose as 'one of those bloody Americans who has the cheek to write our history.' I've met a lot of readers like that.

quote]
I'm a 'bloody' Canadian so maybe they're a bit more tolerant!:D
Linnea

[Manat]

The worst about the nitpicking is it's often done by wannabe experts who don't know what they're talking about. I was blasted for using a galley, white slaves, and chain armour in my story, and was told that no aristocrat would ever be a pirate in another. The person, who only coincidentally was from the UK, pontificated at length about this. I HAD done my research. Galleys were used in an auxiliary capacity in the Mediterranean until the advent of the steam engine, chain mail was common in North Africa until well into the 19th century, there were still about 300 European slaves in the bagnio of the Dey in Tripoli when the French took it over in the 1830's and the words of the marine anthem, to the shores of Tripoli refers to the first marine action to rescue Americans held as slaves. The person also had no clue regarding the number of aristocratic Huguenot’s who turned to buccaneering, privateering and piracy after the various expulsions of Protestants from France.

So what the heck do you do when some ignorant dolt starts mistakenly attacking your research, particularly in a review or on a blog? Is it worth it to try and educate, even if you end up in some foolish argument that just stresses you out, or do you just ignore it? Nitpickers are often righteous, but they aren't always right.

[girlyswot]

So what the heck do you do when some ignorant dolt starts mistakenly attacking your research, particularly in a review or on a blog? Is it worth it to try and educate, even if you end up in some foolish argument that just stresses you out, or do you just ignore it? Nitpickers are often righteous, but they aren't always right.

Definitely ignore! That kind of person doesn't actually want to be right, they just want to show off. If they care that much, let them go and do their own research and find out just how wrong they are.

[lkp]

Wow, Manat, that sounds like an amazing story!

[donroc]

Also, some (if not most) academics cannot tolerate the commercial publishing (novels) of others -- or others treading upon their areas of expertise. One of my professors was in the process of publishing a bio of Stephen Crane when he received a hostile letter from the fellow who wrote the intro to the Modern Library Classic version. He told my prof that HE was the sole expert on Crane and had written THE definitive book on him and no other was necessary.

I have found info on my subject, which, so far, I have not seen published in any history or journal and which contradicts conventional wisdom regarding him. I am expecting the usual slings and arrows after my novel is published -- and as I wrote before, please spell my name correctly.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.comn

[pdr]

So what the heck do you do when some ignorant dolt starts mistakenly attacking your research, particularly in a review or on a blog? Is it worth it to try and educate, even if you end up in some foolish argument that just stresses you out, or do you just ignore it? Nitpickers are often righteous, but they aren't always right.

Writers I've interviewed, listened to or asked questions of fall into two schools.
There's the 'Ignore it' school
and
the very polite 'My research sources say yes' school
This however does not stop the wrangling, but you do show to your other readers that you have not been a sloppy writer an ddid do your research.

And it can be very difficult to convince someone who has cites for you which are opposite to yours and what you know.

job and I are still wrangling (politely, I hope!) about English people's names for their money in use as general currency in 1810. I stand by the use of, and can cite for, guineas because the sovereign (the pound coin) was not minted and introduced until 1816. job has court and official documents which quote pounds. What did the people say? Hard to find out when the average annual wages were less than five pounds!

[ishtar'sgate]

So what the heck do you do when some ignorant dolt starts mistakenly attacking your research, particularly in a review or on a blog? Is it worth it to try and educate, even if you end up in some foolish argument that just stresses you out, or do you just ignore it? Nitpickers are often righteous, but they aren't always right.

Nitpickers can't always be ignored. I don't argue. I just quote from my source and leave it at that.
Linnea

[Marlys]

job and I are still wrangling (politely, I hope!) about English people's names for their money in use as general currency in 1810. I stand by the use of, and can cite for, guineas because the sovereign (the pound coin) was not minted and introduced until 1816. job has court and official documents which quote pounds. What did the people say? Hard to find out when the average annual wages were less than five pounds!

pdr--a good source for what common people called things is the searchable records of the Old Bailey (http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/search/). Search the first decade of the 1800s and you'll find many references to pounds--pound coins might not have been in circulation, but pound notes certainly were. For instance, from July 9, 1800:I am a cheesemonger, I live at No. 51, Rosomond-street, Clerkenwell: On Wednesday, the 2d of April, I remember selling a cheese...the cheese came to two pounds two shillings and nine-pence; I gave him [the customer was a tailor, and paid with a 10-pound note] five one-pound notes, (I don't mean to swear to the amount of the change I gave him) two guineas and a half in gold, and I believe four and sixpence in silver, and three penny-pieces
Unless I'm missing something specific about your context, I would use pounds, as the pound sterling was the standard currency of the day (literally, it equaled the value of a pound of silver). Guineas (and half-guinea) coins were in circulation, but the value of a guinea was greater than a pound (21 shillings rather than 20, at least from 1717 to when the guinea disappeared), and only luxury items were usually priced in guineas. It's clear that shop-keepers could convert between the two and use the guinea and half-guinea coins to make change for pound notes, but they were different.

Even if people didn't have pound notes in their possession, their understanding of the other money in the system would be based upon the pound--they would know that a penny was 1/240 of a pound the way an American who didn't have dollars in hand would know that a penny was 1/100 of a dollar.

Does that help at all, or am I so thoroughly missing your context that I'm way off?

[donroc]

It was the same in 17th century Spain. In the 1600s, Castile's basic monetary unit of accounting was the maravedí. The ducado or ducat also was a unit of accounting and not a coin and for that purpose worth 357 maravedís.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[pdr]

Yes, Marlys, I do know about the Old Bailey Records. My point is that they were official Govt records about criminals, often forgery cases, and therefore would be written in officialese.

Could I ask about the case you quoted? Was it about forged £10 pound notes?

And yes, you are missing my point. As job has.
This is where research can be so tricky.

The pound sterling was vital as the Govt's gold standard was tied to the pound sterling. The Bank of England (That's the govt Bank like Fort Knox) was the govt bank. The pound has always been important.

Yes? We all agree? We see it written down and used in Govt docs.
All official prices for things like land, which needed legal documents, govt employment with legal contracts would be given in pounds sterling.

And let me point up that I'm old, I was brought up with £.s.d. and remember farthings, ha'pennies, pennies, silver groats, thrupence, sixpence, half and full crowns and florins. And the snob use of the guinea and half guinea. All my school arithmetic was in base 12, base 20 as 12 pence made one shilling and twenty shillings made one pound. So I do understand how people made up the money from the small change.


Right
BUT

People in 1800 and until the reform in 1816, used the great mess of coinage that was in circulation and talked about them. There were no pound coins to use.
Most people dealt in farthings, ha'pennies, and pennies. Most people would never see a half guinea let alone a bank note. A shilling would be a large amount in 1800.
Their verbal expressions reflect this.
A half pennuth of tar! Don't give a groat for... Penny for your thoughts.
A farthing dip.

They would not casually talk of pounds. Pounds were govt, official and not part of most people's lives.

A young BBC researcher I asked the question of says 'guineas' is what people talked about. The films made of Bernard Cornwall's Sharpe books (1800-1815) have characters speaking of guineas. The books write about guineas.


donroc, interesting about Spanish currency. So the ducat was not a coin?


For anyone who is interested in the mess of British coinage in 1800 I've included the following:
By 1797 it was obvious that the British coinage system needed drastic overhaul. Although gold guineas and half guineas had been struck in most years of the reign and continued until 1799, the large silver coinage had ceased due to an acute shortage of the metal. Only the small silver denominations, 4d, 3d, 2d and 1d were produced, at irregular intervals until 1786 and only in 1792 and 1795 thereafter, with a final issue in 1800 possibly to mark the beginning of the new century.
In place of the crown piece, captured Spanish American dollars, and even some French ecus and United States dollars, were counter-marked and issued as an emergency currency. Smaller pieces were also counter-marked and served in place of the halfcrown. In 1804, because forgeries of the counter-marks were prevalent, the mint took to completely restriking the Spanish dollars into what are known as "Bank of England Dollars". In some cases the date of the original coin can still be detected on the restrikes, from which it is known that although they are all dated 1804, the practice continued for several years. By 1810 shortages of bronze coins brought another flurry of local penny and halfpenny token issues.

[Marlys]

pdr--the Old Bailey files record the testimony of average citizens, so I wouldn't say they're in legalese. That's why I go to them to check for words and phrases that might have been in use for my historicals (the OED is great for first recorded instance of a word, but reading testimony can give an idea of whether it was commonly used).

A quick check of the Old Bailey records for pound notes finds them in the possession of people such as a baker, a prostitute, a servant, a journeymen butcher, a bricklayer, a couple of sailors, etc. One sailor is asked where he got the money he had on him, and says it was paid to him as wages: Q. How came you by all this money? - A. It was wages that I had received at Somerset-house; on the 5th of December, I was discharged from his Majesty's service, on account of fits; I was in at Mr. Fisher's, in Clare-street, but I was insensible all the time that I was there, and do not recollect any thing that passed, and at that time I lost my money; when I came to my senses again, I missed my notes; there were three five pound notes, one two pound note, and two one pound notes
I am wary about using other fiction authors for sources, but Cornwell does use pounds as well as guineas in the Sharpe books--from Chapter 15 of Sharpe's Eagle:A man's washing cost him seventeen shillings and fourpence a year, his rations over eight pounds. Each private earned a shilling a day, seventeen pounds and sixteen shillings a year, but by the time [deductions were made] each man was left with the Three Sevens. Seven pounds, seven shillings, and seven pence…
Since you say that most people wouldn't have pounds on them, I don't know why you think they would have guineas (gold coins), or think in guineas. Yes, they'd more commonly use shillings and pence in everyday transactions, but I think you have it wrong about only major transactions such as lands being priced in pounds. For instance, the case I quoted in my earlier post (yes, the ten-pound note was forged) showed that cheese was priced in pounds.

Take a look at period newspapers: rewards were offered in pounds (also sometimes guineas), good were priced in pounds (from an 1809 newspaper: Sold at the Dispensary, 15, Soho Square, London, in small bottles of 5s. 6d. double bottles 10s. and large £1. 2s.), an agricultural society gave prizes of one and two pounds in their exhibition, rent was in pounds, scholarships were in pounds.

So it seems pretty clear to me that people would have understood the money they used in terms of pounds--if they had 19 shillings, I hold they'd think "Hmm, I'm one shilling short of a pound" not "two shillings short of a guinea." I don't see, in your answer, what period sources you used that made you think otherwise. Certainly guineas were also used and talked about, but not to the exclusion of pounds.

[Manat]

I think you both may be right with money and coins, at least for the period I'm currently writing about which is Restoration and post Restoration England. My favourite source is middleclass everyman and civil servant Sam Pepys and his diary, though both are mentioned in John Evelyn’s diary too. In the diary, Sam talks several times about borrowing 5 or ten pounds, lending ten pounds, and giving 5 pound notes as gifts to his wife and his valentine on Valentines Day. He also buries 1300 guineas in a sack in the garden when he fears a Dutch invasion and has a servant take another 1000 guineas to bury at his fathers, which he then stressed about as his father buried it in daylight when the neighbours might have seen, then forgot where it was. The sack also rotted and a few of the coins were lost when they went to dig it up. It seems, at least at that time, both guineas and pounds were used by middle class people, depending on which was most convenient for which purpose, paper or coin.

[pdr]

I'm stuck in Japan without my good reference sources, (books) and don't use the internet unless it's a known reliable source. Sorry Marlys, quote of currency mess in previous post is from Ken Elk's History of English Money.

I've sent a couple of SOSs off to researcher pals and period experts to come up with other sources for me re currency 1800-1816.

Of course everyone understood the pound. It was the govt monetary standard. I don't say that people in 1800 did not speak of or understand the pound just that it wasn't a usual part of their daily currency.

[pdr]

References:
“The Bank of England Note” by A D MacKenzie (Cambridge University
Press, 1953) is the book I have at home.

The Bank of England history fact sheet also recommend “Promises to Pay” by Derrick Byatt (Spink and Son, 1994).

Whilst waiting for help from my 'experts' I have been reduced to using the internet I managed to find the Bank of England and their potted history of the bank note. I think this will be fairly reputable!

My problem with writing about the use of the pound as every day currency until 1816 springs from way back. History at school taught that the guinea was the money used until 1816. My great uncles' coin collection which I was allowed to play with gave me a good idea of money through the ages, guineas I held, a bank note from then, no. My grandparents and great aunts and uncles, who were born in the 1870s and 1880s, talked in guineas and had an embarrassing dislike of paper money, unless it could be signed like a cheque.

I think that the notes used until 1816 were more like cheques than currency. This is how they were first used. The quotes below are from the Bank of England history.

'In 1694 the Bank of England was established in order to raise money for King William III’s war against the French. Almost immediately the Bank started to issue notes in return for deposits. Like the goldsmiths’ notes, the crucial feature that made Bank of England notes a means of exchange was the promise to pay the bearer the sum of the note on demand. This meant that the note could be redeemed at the Bank for gold or coinage by anyone presenting it for payment; if it was not redeemed in full, it was endorsed with the amount withdrawn. '

So these early notes were really cheques or banker's drafts.
I notice in several of the Old Bailey transcripts landladies and shopkeepers and inn keepers mention that they were asked by the forger or thief if they minded being given a £1 or £5 pound note.
I read this as meaning that the notes were not popular and not usual as ordinary currency.

I do not argue that the notes were present, just that they were regarded more as cheques than money.

The first £5 notes followed in 1793 at the start of the war against Revolutionary France. This remained the lowest denomination until 1797, when a series of runs on the Bank, caused by the uncertainty of the war, drained its bullion reserve to the point where it was forced to stop paying out gold for its notes.

Am I not reading this correctly when I interpret it as: In 1797 a note was brought to the bank for exchange into 'proper' money, just like a cheque? So as I see it guineas, and all the other plethora of coins around until 1816, were the money people dealt with, and talked about.

[Evaine]

English bank notes used to have the words "I promise to pay the bearer (x amount)" on them, because in theory you could go to the bank and exchange them for coinage if you wanted to.

[donroc]

Hay-on-Wye? Reads deliciously as if Miss Marple is solving cozies there.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[pdr]

"I promise to pay the bearer (x amount)" on them, because in theory you could go to the bank and exchange them for coinage if you wanted to.

This is where triangulating your research into another country's culture and history from three aspects is so important.

That sailor and Somerset House for example. Before Somerset House was used by the govt to register hatches, matches and dispatches, (What is it used for today, Evaine?) it was used by the govt as one of its ministries to pay off sailors who were given their cheque, the banknotes drawn on the govt bank, and sent off to the bank to get the cash.

[girlyswot]

That sailor and Somerset House for example. Before Somerset House was used by the govt to register hatches, matches and dispatches, (What is it used for today, Evaine?) it was used by the govt as one of its ministries to pay off sailors who were given their cheque, the banknotes drawn on the govt bank, and sent off to the bank to get the cash.


It's an art gallery housing the Courtauld collection and sometime skating rink. Pretty in winter. The public records office has moved to Kew.

[girlyswot]

Hay-on-Wye? Reads deliciously as if Miss Marple is solving cozies there.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com (http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com)

Hay on Wye is book lovers' paradise. Second hand bookshops every twenty yards or so. And yes, I'd have thought Miss Marple would be very much at home.

[donroc]

H-o-W appears to be a must-visit when I make my next trip to Jolly 'O.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[PeeDee]

I...have nothing useful to add to this thread. (I haven't the knowledge to contribute anything substantial). I just wanted to indicate with giddy happiness that reading this conversation was so cool! It was fun! :D

Okay, I'll go somewhere else where I know something. :)

[BardSkye]

:popcorn:Carry on.

[pdr]

is slowly - very slowly - trickling in re the 'call it a pound or call it a guinea before 1816' debate.

I will put it all together in a new thread, because there are research points involved which might (ought!) to be of interest to us all.