Making up characters...

[maestrowork]

I know, it's fiction! Still, I do wonder... what is the feeling about fictional characters in a historical setting, in a real organization. I mean, for example, a general in the Japanese army during WWII or a lover of Hitler who never existed. Would the readers say, "There is no such person in history" or would they accept that it's just a fictional character even if the story is set against a historical backdrop? Or does it depend on the character... the higher the position the less tolerant the readers could be? For example, you can't make up a different President of the US during WWII... Thoughts?

For something like Letters to Iwo Jima... must all the main characters be real "historical" figures?

[Sunkissed27f]

I have characters interacting with actual people of the era in many of my WIPs.
E.g., A woman coming into contact with an actual prince or king of the 18th century. She also comes into contact with a fictional prime minister of the same era. (I just replaced him with some one that suited the plot better.)

I like to read about real non-fictional characters and their roles, but I will gladly accept fictional ones in place of non-fictional ones throughout the story, also.

One of my favorite authors (Susan Johnson) loves to mix her MC's with non-fictional characters/events, though she adds footnotes, explaining who/what they are/were, and their role in history.

Hopes this makes sense.....little sleep and coherent thoughts don't mix too well with me.

BTW...go to bed!! :tongue

[David I]

As long as you stay out of top positions, I think you should be fine. Start fiddling with Hitler and FDR and you are off in Alternate-History land. But you can certainly put another airman on the Enola Gay or have another admiral or two in the Navy. People who are going to be offended by those transgression are probably going to be offended by anything that isn't verifiable; such folks are looking for dramatizations, not fiction.

[mscelina]

for me it would depend. As a 'scholar' I have specific eras of interest. Say...the Elizabethan age. Would I accept a ficitonal character as a lover of Queen Elizabeth? Perhaps. it would depend upon how it was handled. As long as the basic HISTORY was correct, I could deal with an additonal character or two. However, I find it very difficult sometimes to accept ficitonalized accounts of historical characters (The Other Boleyn Girl comes to mind at the moment) if I don't find them credibly done.

As a writer, on the other hand, go for it. :D

[Huxley Bard]

Yeah, I think the position of the person is important. I would say the simplest test would be whether an intelligent person with a general knowledge of history (but hasn't researched the period) could pick out which characters are added... if they can, you're maybe moving into alternate history.

Obviously, if the character you add isn't significant or famous enough to be known by historians today, go right ahead! :D

[Ken Schneider]

Historial precedents, I feel, should be maintained. i.e., known facts of history.
Beyond that, fiction takes over.

None of us can know everything about every born person.

[lkp]

Great question.
I'm pretty hardcore. I think that is because, while by night I am a novelist, by day I am a historian. I try to introduce as few totally unattested characters as possible into my historical fiction. But these are usually my main characters. And because I work on the Middle Ages, I have a lot of room to play with even non-fictional characters. Plus, using real people can help enormously with plotting!

I don't think I'd hesitate to invent a high ranking WWII officer if I needed him to play a particular fictional role that was otherwise unattested. Not sure I'd mess with the highest generals or admirals because they are pretty well known. But as a reader and a historian, I'd rather read a story with an invented character who behaves true to his role, plus whatever groovy plot the author adds, than read about a historical character who behaves contrary to known facts and generally accepted interpretations.

[WittyandorIronic]

I think that it is hard to find a middle ground, especially if your readers have more than a basic knowledge of the time period or event. Fictional characters that interact, but mainly react, to well know figures and events...Good. Alternate fiction that completely rewrites the fate of the world (I am thinking Eric flint and his masterful 1632) great! In between....eh. As a reader, I would be annoyed that you dabbled with changing events and creating a basic plotline contrary to history, but were too lazy redo the whole thing entirely.
And now that I think about 1632 with a writer's hat on....all I can say is wow. His entire premise is so ludicrous, it almost seems as if it was some bet, dare, or writer's prompt grown out of control. I really have to say though (for never previously having known alternate history books existed), while reading the book, I found myself more knowledgeable about the general time period, wholly engrossed in the story, and not realizing how absolutely weird the plot was. That's some good writing for you, right there.

[maestrowork]

Let me clarify: I'm not rewriting history or doing an alternate history. Basic historical facts are the same, but obviously, no one knows everything at the low level except for first-hand experience, so I think there's a lot of room for fiction. My concern was that if I had a fictional Lt. General, for example, would the readers go: "Hey, I know all the Lt. Generals and there was no such person whatsoever." But I guess that would have to be rather hardcore and those people probably won't be my target audience anyway... true?

Just trying to cover all grounds here.

[WittyandorIronic]

True. I don't think you can write fiction for historians, as that would sorely limit any historically set novel. I think as long as it was not ignoring/supplanting/unrealistically altering any well known figures...you could get away with insertions that could feel very natural.

[nevada]

I think if you're going to stick in an extra Lt. General that would probably be fine as long as he doesnt do things that people know a real person did. ie try the assassination attempt on Hitler as opposed to who really did it. Also, of course, there is the waiver in the front of the book. "This is a work of fiction, certain liberties were taken, etc." That covers a lot of things. :)

[Shadow_Ferret]

My only suggestion is to pick up a historical fiction sometime and name check to see if the people actually existed. I've read a few Naval novels, but not having a great historical knowledge of the Naval Chain of Command during WWII, I didn't know if the names were made up or not. Nor did I care. It was the story that mattered.




(This is so cool! I finally got to answer a question from Ray instead of it being vice versa!)

[miles]

Well, you could make it a secret nobody knew. I mean, it would be possible to write about Hitler's lover if he'd kept it secret, or a general in the Japanese army during WWII that was erased from the history books because he shamed the nation.

Anything's possible, as long as you spin it the right way.

[preyer]

hitler's mistress? not a problem. it wouldn't surprise me if he was banging half of berlin just because he could. i know i would.

a fictional lt. gen.? again, not a problem, though, as mentioned, i would make mention of that in the notes.

fictionalizing real characters? as long as it's not libelous, i don't think there's much to worry about. then again, 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' might help, lol.

obviously you can't screw around with actual events and dates, like lincoln's assassination.

by the same token, take a movie like '300.' pretty okay movie, not great. you certainly wouldn't want to use that as a basis for your history essay, that's for sure. they went way beyond the 'facts' on that one.

'titanic' was a great example of incorporating fiction and history. i'm sure that if someone ever decided to look up these characters they'd come up empty, but capt. smith, astor, molly brown, etc., you can't say they weren't there. duh, eh?

'braveheart' was hardly a shining example of history coming to life, either. neither was 'gladiator.' both played fairly fast and loose with history, making sure only certain historic facts were adhered to.

[scarletpeaches]

Philippa Gregory's novels are something like this. She writes about what is known to be true, then adds her own twist of what might be true.

[Shadow_Ferret]

fictionalizing real characters? as long as it's not libelous, i don't think there's much to worry about. then again, 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' might help, lol.


I thought you couldn't libel the dead.

[ishtar'sgate]

I know, it's fiction! Still, I do wonder... what is the feeling about fictional characters in a historical setting, in a real organization. I mean, for example, a general in the Japanese army during WWII or a lover of Hitler who never existed. Would the readers say, "There is no such person in history" or would they accept that it's just a fictional character even if the story is set against a historical backdrop? Or does it depend on the character... the higher the position the less tolerant the readers could be? For example, you can't make up a different President of the US during WWII... Thoughts?

For something like Letters to Iwo Jima... must all the main characters be real "historical" figures?
Good question. Probably as many answers as there are writers and readers, though. For myself I have no problem adding fictional characters to history. The more research you do the more you find 'factual' discrepancies. Besides, no one is going to know the names of ALL the generals in the Japanese army. I'm sure men were killed and others hastily thrust into their positions. Most people are familiar with only ONE of Hitler's lovers. There could easily have been more. As long as you're not trying to make people believe Hitler never existed or a US President never existed, there is a lot of latitude for introducing fictional characters.
Linnea

[JimmyB27]

I'm just reading Master and Commander. At the beginning is a note from Patrick O'Brian stating that most of the characters are fictional, and that he even changed some historical events around to suit his story better. Nothing major, just a few battles fought at different times and suchlike. Bernard Cornwell has done the same with his Sharpe books.
Seems to have worked ok for them.

[brokenfingers]

I think that as long as the characters are presented in such a way as to create the impression that they could’ve actually been there, it’s fine. Believeable and plausible characters raise the enjoyability of the story. The more plausible the character and situation, the better.

Of course, the more prominent a position, the less plausibility there will be due to their heightened status in history.

For instance, a secret lover of Hitler, close and intimate to the ruler, that nobody else knew about would be fine, but an Eva Braun clone, who fills her function in history etc. would not be. Even better would be if actual facts could be manipulated to make it seem as if it were entirely possible (like Dan Brown did.)

By this I mean, if for instance, there were actually records of Hitler going off to an unknown location in offical records etc. a writer could twist that into a premise that included a secret lover of Hitler and it would raise the story’s cachet. People would see it and enter reading already predisposed to believe it might be true or, at the least, plausible.

As far as Lt. Generals – this is a kinda iffy case, depending on the treatment. I’m not sure of the situation during WW2 but Lt. General is a pretty rarified rank. Also keep in mind that Lt. Generals are usually in charge of extremely large theatres of operations and so are far removed from the nitty gritty of day-to-day wartime/frontline operations. And they’re usually much older gentlemen.

Of course, the final solution is up to you, but it might be better to use a Watson solution. What I mean is - use a narrator of a lower, more common rank to show the higher ranked character – the way Doyle uses Watson to showcase Holmes. (Of course this may not be possible due to your story but it’s just a suggestion.)


I only say this because one of the allures of historical fiction is the realism. Readers like the sense of being in the shoes of someone who MIGHT’Ve actually been there and so they get an insider’s glimpse into actual events.

I think the closer a historical’s story is to real life, the more intriguing people will find it. The story in Titanic was obviously fiction but it fit perfectly within the structure of actual events. You were drawn into the fictive dream and could believe that it might’ve happened. You witnessed an actual historic event through the eyes of two people who might’ve really been there. If the writer's had used the Captain as the protagonist, I don't think it would have been as successful.

Another example of how a good blend of fact and fiction raises the intrigue factor of a story is The DaVinci Code. Actual facts and historical figures were used but distorted to fit within the frameowrk of the story. This made it seem so “possible” that some came to believe it might be true etc.

Ok, I'm rambling. :D

Good luck with your story, Ray. :)

[J. R. Tomlin]

'braveheart' was hardly a shining example of history coming to life, either. neither was 'gladiator.' both played fairly fast and loose with history

Braveheart annoyed the hell out of me. It was a well-done movie and made lots of money, but there was no real reason to totally screw up the history it seemed like except for a total lack of respect for the view and for history. Wallace had a child with Isabella of France? I BEG your pardon?

But I think (my own opinion) that movie goers will accept this kind of thing more than book readers will. I am WAY too likely to fire up the internet and check on characters in a book and varify its accuracy. But that's me.

I would hesitate to play too very fast and loose with REAL characters in a novel. Minor changes, such as changing the date of a battle unless it's a major on in WWII which is after all only somewhat out of living memory for older people, won't get any argument. If you say someone other than Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Abwehr were involved in the attempted Hitler assassination, you'll run into more trouble. We book readers can be a picky lot. :D

[Inky]

I've read stories where there exists characters so bloody real, that I've actually looked up the person only to find they were completely fictional.
THIS is fantastic writing/creating.
Study your era. Know every aspect of the non-fictional person you'll have in your story so that when you introduce your fictional character, it will be such a natural blend, readers won't 'hiccup', but more than likely do what I've caught myself doing: Google this fascinating person....only to find out...it was nothing more than fabulous imagry.

[maestrowork]

Thanks for the comments. This is the first time I write fiction set against historical events (but not strictly a "historical"). This is helpful, especially from the readers' point of view.

Titanic is a great example. If you look through records, you won't find Jack and Rose Dawson. The movie sort of explained why Jack wouldn't exist, but what about Rose (or her fiance, or her mother, etc. etc.)? But once you're in that fictive dream, you forget that you're witnessing fiction because it's enveloped by historic events -- and much of it is still, to this day, rather mythical, despite [conflicting] eyewitness accounts. As much as people may hate the romantic story, you have to give James Cameron kudos for researching the actual events and inserting his fictional characters and stories rather seamlessly.

[Inky]

My point, exactly.

[preyer]

'I thought you couldn't libel the dead.' ~ you can speak ill of the dead. :) seriously, though, i think you can run into some legal problems with descendants, no? too, don't forget that not all historic figures are actually dead.

i did a thing where i used actual people (minour historic people few people would otherwise ever hear spoken of) as characters, some not too long dead. and while i think those people's historic contributions are up for interpretation to the extent that you don't make them out to be something they weren't, i made them out to be good guys. i had a bit of research indicating their basic personalities and extrapolated from that certain mannerisms. in short, i didn't pilfer his memory in order to bastardize the real person. were i do make a congressional medal of honor winner out to be a psycho child molestor and he wasn't, his children might, and rightfully so, burn my ass over that.

[maestrowork]

THIS is fantastic writing/creating.


So, in other words, you wouldn't be pissed because what you thought was real were actually fictional....

That's good to know. I'm always very uptight about people saying "this person didn't exist and they were never there and these didn't happen" and throwing the book across the room because it's considered "historical." That's why I'm trying hard not to label this historical, instead a "story based on historical events." ;)

[blacbird]

I think it depends on how important the actual known history is to the story. For instance, Hemingway's Robert Jordan is a purely fictional character interacting in the context of the Spanish Civil War. Ditto Graham Greene's Harry Lime in WWII. The dramas in which they are involved are relatively small and personal, and don't impinge on the big issues and big people (Franco, Hitler, Eisenhower) in any way that compromises the known history. But if you need to have Franco or Hitler or Eisenhower or Stalin as a part of your story, you get more closely tied to known and famous historical facts, and violation of those will annoy more readers.

Unless you're doing some kind of "alternate history", such as Philip K. Dick did with The Man in the High Castle; then it's wide open.

caw

[Kentuk]

Making a major change such as replacing FDR can buy you greater latitude in developing the fiction. I don't think a major change automatically takes your work out of the historical fiction genre and shunts it over to specultive SF/Fantasy. Much of the intense scruteny people give historical fiction is because they are trying to figure where you draw the line between fiction and history. A major change up front allows the reader to relax, they understand your story is just fiction with a semi historical setting.

[ishtar'sgate]

From personal experience, all you have to do is make the characters believable. Do they fit the time you're writing about and blend in, or not. Avid readers of historical fiction are ticked off when they think something doesn't fit. As I posted on another thread, I was corrected on my use of a worm-pulling English robin. They don't pull worms. I was also questioned on the freedom my MC enjoyed as a woman living in the middle ages. I quoted from my sources. There were also questions regarding medicine, the church, etc. Trust me, you'll get emails from readers and you need to be prepared with satisfactory answers. Should you continue to write accurate 'period' fiction you'll build a readership with each new book. If there are too many glaring departures you'll lose readers. Historical fiction or period fiction is a past age portrayed as accurately as possible, blended with characters who live on the page as believably as if they had lived in history.
Linnea

[preyer]

'But I think (my own opinion) that movie goers will accept this kind of thing more than book readers will. I am WAY too likely to fire up the internet and check on characters in a book and varify its accuracy. But that's me.' ~ no, it's not just you. indeed, we let a lot of things slide in movies.

which is funny, because with as much leniency that we give a movie, even big-budget epics where you've got professional researchers to verify stuff, they *still* make some pretty glaring errors. but, heaven forbid a single person writing a book make a little mistake.... omigawd, did you *really* just put an extra digit on that armory number for a pistol made in 1692? how dare thee, chicken-brains! then you could practically have put mel gibson in a space suit and few would complain... and when they did complain it would be because they couldn't see his nekkid legs.

'Study your era. Know every aspect of the non-fictional person you'll have in your story so that when you introduce your fictional character, it will be such a natural blend, readers won't 'hiccup', but more than likely do what I've caught myself doing: Google this fascinating person....only to find out...it was nothing more than fabulous imagry.' ~ i think there's also a caveat here. writers often write historic characters and give them our modern sensibilities and morals, knowing that were they 100% period accurate they might be distasteful for readers.

a good example of this is king arthur in mallory's 'le morte d'arthur.' he's actually pretty dispicable compared to modern day standards of heroism; however, for the time period, he's perfectly acceptable. the character has been so watered-down and made to fit whatever standard was around at the time that he now barely resembles the, ahem, 'original' character.

there was some minour controversy a few years back about the awful movie 'alexander''s portrayal of the man having homosexual liasons. i guess the greeks didn't like their greek hero being, uh, greek and (probably) historically accurate in that sense. regardless of modern day personal opinion, back in the day of alexander, it wasn't an issue (as much as i can recall about the subject, anyway).

'...you have to give James Cameron kudos for researching the actual events and inserting his fictional characters and stories rather seamlessly.' ~ absolutely. the man is obsessed with the subject (or at least is now). i can't pass up a documentary about the titanic, either, about the movie or the actual ship. what cameron did was study pictures for details. for example, there's a background shot of a father watching his son spin a top, which was based on an actual photo. almost in passing there's a bit about one of the crewmen misplacing the binoculars, which really happened. one scene was filmed but later cut about how the radiomen basically had to rebuild a piece of equipment. (man, i know entirely too much trivial bullshit.)

i really think it boils down to the writer's personal work ethic, target audience and knowing what he would like to read.

[preyer]

ishtar hit on a quirk people have ~ they believe something and it's fact regardless of that 'fact''s merit. for example, the layman just *knows* that the church did everything in their power to destroy ye olde scientific community. and while there are certainly some things you can point to as evidence to support this, it's simply not true by and large. you could just as easily, and more accurately, argue the church did everything they reasonably could to *promote* science. was it galileo who was official astronomer to the pope?

people *know* that corking your bat makes the ball go farther. utter nonsense.

people nevermind the facts as long as some crazy assumption or supposition supports what they already believe is true. as it's been said here a thousand times before, when you set the record straight, you, not the reader, are ignorant.

facts, schmacts.

[gp101]

I love history, though I'm far from an expert. And I love historical fiction especially set in ancient Rome or Egypt. For the most part, the historical heavies aren't messed with much, and are usually the ones with the least screen time--one way to avoid writing something truly incorrect.

I'm a huge fan of the dramas "Rome" from HBO and... and... oh crap, I can't rememeber the name of the other, but it's on Showtime and it's about Henry VIII. Now both of these series do use the heavies from their respective periods. Caesar, Marc Antony, Cleopatra are all prominent with lots of dialogue as are Henry, Anne, and Henry's bishop/advisor. I don't know how true historians take to these series, but I love both. They stay pretty close to historical fact, s far as I can see--I'm sure true historians here will find where each show went off on a tangeant with history.

But both shows have a huge cast of characters that if they were real historical figures, they were so small or not well known/understood that the writers can get away with more creative license and often these characters carry the weight of a lot of episodes. My guess, especially with "Rome" a lot of the major players in the series never existed or were so insignificant that you can make them do what you want.

Rent the DVDs if you can. They're both fairly popular and critically acclaimed. And when you write yours, I wouldn't totally ignore what historians might think, but I wouldn't write just to please them. Please the audience, satisfy the historians.

[moblues]

http://www.medialaw.org/Content/NavigationMenu/Public_Resources/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm




Mike

[Danger Jane]

I know, it's fiction! Still, I do wonder... what is the feeling about fictional characters in a historical setting, in a real organization. I mean, for example, a general in the Japanese army during WWII or a lover of Hitler who never existed. Would the readers say, "There is no such person in history" or would they accept that it's just a fictional character even if the story is set against a historical backdrop? Or does it depend on the character... the higher the position the less tolerant the readers could be? For example, you can't make up a different President of the US during WWII... Thoughts?

For something like Letters to Iwo Jima... must all the main characters be real "historical" figures?

I think generally, the more prominent/well remembered someone is, the less you want to make them up. Because, yea, someone will wonder why you replaced FDR or Truman with some random generic Mr. President.

In my stories I try to have as many real characters as possible, even if I know next to nothing about the person. Like one of the love interests was a real renowned sculptor who lived during the golden age of Athens. I only made up one character in that story.

Then in another all the characters that are not mythological are completely fictional. I doubt the average reader knows the names of all the rulers of the island of Aegina from way back in the day.

Course you never know do you?

[preyer]

thanks for finding that, mike. it said a 'living person' can sue, and that a 'living person' can also be considered to be a corporation, etc.. so, indeed, making libelous statements about clayton moore (the lone ranger) can bring down clayton moore's estate, if incorporated, down upon you. that's how i understand that, anyway.

btw, mickey mouse is a pedophile.

[JoNightshade]

I would put this issue the opposite way: It irritates me when writers take REAL people and then assign them fictional personalities and actions.

If an author is going to be writing a fictional story, I'd rather he/she make up a fictional general (or whatever) to put against the backdrop of real historical characters. I feel like fooling with people who actually lived, in a way that is not obvious, is misleading. IE, I'm fine with having famous people have fictional conversations because it's obviously fictional. But if you take the name of a real general and then say that he did such-and-such, and he didn't, that bothers me.

[wayndom]

I don't see a problem with fictional characters interacting with higher-ups like Hitler or FDR, as long as the story provides a reason why their interactions were kept secret, and shows the lengths they go to keep it secret.

As an aside, though, I have to say I find the idea of a secret lover of Hitler laughable, only because it's so hard to imagine Hitler making love. The only documented tryst he had was with a niece (I believe) who wrote in her diary that he was a monster who didn't want what "a natural man" would want. She later committed suicide. Hitler's like Richard Nixon in that they both seemed so permanently stiff and uncomfortable with physical contact. The thought of either one of them having sex makes my skin crawl...

[wayndom]

Unless you're doing some kind of "alternate history", such as Philip K. Dick did with The Man in the High Castle; then it's wide open.


Which reminds me of one of my favorite Len Deighton novels, SSGB (SS-Great Britain). It takes place in mid-forties Nazi-occupied England. I don't recall anyone objecting to the fictionalization of WWII, and the book was a bestseller.

On the other hand, this thread also brings to mind James Clavell, who invented similar-but-different names for his historical characters (e.g., the Shogun, Toranaga, whose real name was Tokugawa), I assume to make it clear to readers that his books were not historically accurate.

[JoNightshade]

I love Shogun.

Just needed to say that. :)

[preyer]

i guess it's me being hypocritical not to mind using factual people in fictional settings (caveats noted), but it really chaps my hide when i see a commercial of fred astaire dancing with a digitally added vacuum cleaner, or deceased actors inserted into movies (i believe 'sky captain and the crappy world of tomorrow' did this, as i recall). they did this in 'gladiator', putting in a digital bit of oliver reed, who died while shooting, though i think that's rather acceptable. after all, he did agree and got paid to finish the movie and the shot was just for a few seconds, long enough to resolve the character. that is, i'm pretty sure oliver reed would have been okay with it. frickin' lawrence olivier, though? hm, that i'm not quite so sure about. honestly, i didn't even see the point other than doing it for the novelty.

hypocritical? i guess so.

since WWII seems to be the boilerplate, yeah, i'd be annoyed were fictional generals to supplant real generals. would it be misleading? well, hm, i'd have to imagine that were someone to make a story that i was actually involved in, i think i'd rather have me in it and fictionalized to a certain extent rather than being forgotten altogether. unless, of course, what i did was horrible, and then that's only more reason to do it, imo.

i suppose every writer will have their priorities on this stuff.

this is somewhat of a coincidence, this thread. recently i've been mulling over a WWI story of trench warfare. my current sig comes from a site i found while researching. anyway, it's not difficult to find information about when the doughboys went there, what companies, and probably who the officers were. i thought about whether or not to use real names. what i decided was use the real names only if they'll in a positive light ~ if i need a major to be a complete ass, i'd change the name unless said officer did make a certain mistake to which he could be ascribed some shame ~ i don't think i'd avoid that if i could bring some research up about the person. i don't want to forever villify a person who made a mistake and suffered the rest of his misery life for it. at the same time, accuracy is a pretty big deal if you ask me. some could reasonably argue that certain deletions are a kind of indictment in itself.

[Wolvel]

It really depends on how your story affects the known history. Is it a covert action that you can make up safely or are your characters tied into a major historical scene.

As for replacing the President, unless his last name is Bush, I would not do it. Once you cross that line it becomes an alternate past and whole nother world.

[Inky]

So, in other words, you wouldn't be pissed because what you thought was real were actually fictional....

That's good to know. I'm always very uptight about people saying "this person didn't exist and they were never there and these didn't happen" and throwing the book across the room because it's considered "historical." That's why I'm trying hard not to label this historical, instead a "story based on historical events." ;)
Inside Harlan Coben's books, he has a blurb that makes me laugh out loud. It goes something like this:
People, this is fiction. No character in this book is real. That's why it's called FICTION.

I like bluntness with a lemon on top.
No, Ray, most of us wouldn't be upset, but rather, in awe over your ability to create such a memorable character. To others that would throw the book across the room--which is an abhorant sin in itself--perhaps they should step back into grade school, and re-learn what 'fiction' means.

Most Hollywood movies do the same thing: based on historical events.
They then go on to create a war movie, or love story, or even fantasy/sci-fi, protected all the while because they said 'based on', and labeled it fiction.

[Inky]

This is a work of fiction based on historical events.


There. Now your readers will understand it's fiction...fake...that's what we do..we're word manipulators.

[blacbird]

As an aside, though, I have to say I find the idea of a secret lover of Hitler laughable, only because it's so hard to imagine Hitler making love. The only documented tryst he had was with a niece (I believe) who wrote in her diary that he was a monster who didn't want what "a natural man" would want. She later committed suicide.

There's some serious, and now unanswerable questions about this event. Hitler claimed to be elsewhere, in a tavern, when she died, an account contradicted by the tavern owner. On the famous "Night of the Long Knives", when Hitler eliminated Roehm and his SS in 1934, the tavern owner was murdered.

caw

[Penguin Queen]

I'm always very uptight about people saying "this person didn't exist and they were never there and these didn't happen" and throwing the book across the room because it's considered "historical."

I'm one of those poeple. :D

But I think a great deal depends on how it's done.
It's vital IMO to get your historical facts right, ie., not having a Victorian setting in which characters say, "OK"; or drive the wrong make of car (that didnt exist then) -- I get really, really narked by stuff like that.
If you invent a character and explain that briefly in your foreword (Everybody mentioned in this novel really existed except for Captain Anne Gascoin who is my invention. Howveer, there really were women like her fighting in Napoleon's army .... blah etc.) then your readers will not feel cheated that they invested emotion in someone who isnt real.
Well. This reader woudlnt. :)

[ishtar'sgate]

I'm one of those poeple. :D

But I think a great deal depends on how it's done.
It's vital IMO to get your historical facts right, ie., not having a Victorian setting in which characters say, "OK"; or drive the wrong make of car (that didnt exist then) -- I get really, really narked by stuff like that.
If you invent a character and explain that briefly in your foreword (Everybody mentioned in this novel really existed except for Captain Anne Gascoin who is my invention. Howveer, there really were women like her fighting in Napoleon's army .... blah etc.) then your readers will not feel cheated that they invested emotion in someone who isnt real.
Well. This reader woudlnt. :)
Exactly. Readers want to feel that they can step into the past with you. If you mess it up with badly researched 'facts' you cheat them of an experience they were expecting.
Linnea

[preyer]

one of the few things i ever lost and really, really, really wish i hadn't had some diary excerpts from 1692. originally, the excerpts were fairly accurately written for the time and character. and completely incomprehensible by today's standards and so 'modernized' them enough to be readable. i had a section called 'writer's notes' (i refuse to call myself an 'author') wherein i explained the differences for those interested out of curiosity's sake. the story involved lighthouses and how bandits on land lured ships to a rocky demise with false lights, which i suppose is something the welch were known for more than anyone else, and there had been a few paragraphs about the history of that, among other things.

another story i'd stretched a timeline out a bit. i wanted the character to be forced into being a battlefield thief, pulling teeth from the dead. the practice in question would have been more or less stopped by the time my character was involved, so i was somewhat pushing it. still, i want the reader to be aware of the true practice to a certain extent just so they know i'm not just blowing smoke up their skirts.

but, yeah, i love these kinds of notes. that way i know i've actually learned something in the process.

my favourite author, park godwin, re-writes classic tales like robin hood and king arthur, and his books have a little section on the actual history involved, which is much appreciated.