Ask a historian

[Artifex]

I just joined the forum and found this section, which seems very interesting. I have a background in history myself. I have been trained as a historian and I will finish my master's degree in World History soon.

Although I imagine many of you may have studied history and that many issues concerning history and fiction have already been discussed here, I thought I'd ask if you any of you want to ask me anything about history, writing history or researching history or anything...

[EngineerTiger]

Hi Artifex, welcome to the Historical Writing forum.

[flapperphilosopher]

Hello and welcome!! What are your particular areas? It's always great to connect with people passionate about history!

[Artifex]

Thank you for the welcomes.

flapperphilosopher, I am currently working towards my Master's thesis, which deals with the experiences of the British soldiers in the Great War (aka WWI). And in the last few years, the early 20th century, from the end of Victorian era to the beginning of WWII, has become my main area of interest.

The early 20th century is an interesting era in our recent history, sort of in-between "the old" and "the modern", which I find irresistibly fascinating. I am quite interested in the fine line between known and unknown, real and unreal in any case, so I think that's why I became interested in this era. In addition, the early 20th century has been slightly overshadowed by the great Victorian era and the WWII.

[flapperphilosopher]

Wow, fascinating!! That's the period of greatest interest to me too, actually (though I focused on medieval at school, because I hadn't realized that yet). It is such an interesting time-- the world of 1905 was SO different from the world of 1925, like, crazily. I find personal experiences of soldiers in WWI so, so compelling, too, what a great thing to do a Master's in!

I write that time period, too.... so expect questions from me at some point!

[EngineerTiger]

Hi Artifex, given your interest, you might want to read Nevil Shute and Warwick Deeping as both novelists wrote a great many books in the twenties and thirties about the ex-soldiers of the Great War. An aviator himself, Shute's books centered around pilots.

Deeping wrote romances prior to WWI. During the war, he served along the Western Front as an MO. That experience changed him and the books he wrote after the war dealt with the bitter-sweet life of the returning soldiers and how they handled their return to civilian life.

Their novels were contemporary but now provide an interesting peek into the years between the World Wars.

[Artifex]

Originally Posted by flapperphilosopher

Wow, fascinating!! That's the period of greatest interest to me too, actually (though I focused on medieval at school, because I hadn't realized that yet). It is such an interesting time-- the world of 1905 was SO different from the world of 1925, like, crazily. I find personal experiences of soldiers in WWI so, so compelling, too, what a great thing to do a Master's in!

I write that time period, too.... so expect questions from me at some point!

The period between the Victorian era and WWII era was certainly an era of change, although of course this is true of all eras. History is the story of change. The changes are at times slower and more gradual than at others.

I think compared to the dramatic, rapid changes of the post-WWII era and the great historical drama of the Victorian era, the period between those two may easily (and understandably) seem stagnant or insignificant, as I think the changes at that time were for the most a little more subtle than the changes that were to follow.

[Artifex]

Originally Posted by EngineerTiger

Hi Artifex, given your interest, you might want to read Nevil Shute and Warwick Deeping as both novelists wrote a great many books in the twenties and thirties about the ex-soldiers of the Great War. An aviator himself, Shute's books centered around pilots.

Deeping wrote romances prior to WWI. During the war, he served along the Western Front as an MO. That experience changed him and the books he wrote after the war dealt with the bitter-sweet life of the returning soldiers and how they handled their return to civilian life.

Their novels were contemporary but now provide an interesting peek into the years between the World Wars.

Thanks for the tips. I haven't read either of these two nor am I familiar with them, although I have read some other works by soldier-writers of the Great War, such as Siegfried Sassoon, Isaac Rosenberg, Wilfred Owen and the like. In fact, their poems and other literary works are one of my sources, as they, after all, were not only writers, but also soldiers. (Although, I do not look at their work as literary works as such, but more as historical artifacts of the war.)

[A_Napp]

Hi, just thought I'd join this thread and offer my help as well.

Have a PhD in Medieval History. My specialty: military orders, crusades, inquisition, cult of saints.

Other stuff I might be able to give basic: Ancient Egypt, South African History 17th - 19th century.

Feel free to ask.

[Raventongue]

Hey there.

I don't post much in the Historical forums because I'm awfully inexperienced, as I do mainly SFF. For the past year or so, though, I've taken a strong interest in someday writing a WWI historical.

My question is this: excluding the actual historical knowledge, what does someone need to know before writing historical fiction?

[EngineerTiger]

The beauty of historical fiction is that you can research as you go. Just imagine your characters and their story and then set them in the desired era.

WWI offers a rich treasure of storylines (tragic, heroic, romantic, European, Middle East, United States, etc.) and it's not an era that has been done to death.

Typically, when I approach an era in which I have just general knowledge (that is, out of my comfort zone of what I studied for my degrees), I'll start the story and just see where the reasearch takes me.

Remember, one of the keys to historical fiction is to make your characters fit that snapshot of time. You want to see how events may have unfolded for a person living in that time. The traps to watch out for are foreshadowing events (unless it is integral to your plot) where you bring your past-event hindsight to bear. For example, in 1917 no one knew who was going to win. The United States only declared war in April and couldn't field the AEF until November. The Allies and the Central Powers were badly depleted of manpower and material so it was impossible to know the outcome.

One thing you might want to do is read some historical fiction to see if it really appeals to you and you want to undertake the work of researching the period. Unlike fantasy, for example where you can let your imagination paint the world, you're constrained by history.

Don't hesitate to ask questions. There are many fine historians and writers on this forum who will be glad to help you.

[Evangeline]

Originally Posted by Artifex

Thank you for the welcomes.

flapperphilosopher, I am currently working towards my Master's thesis, which deals with the experiences of the British soldiers in the Great War (aka WWI). And in the last few years, the early 20th century, from the end of Victorian era to the beginning of WWII, has become my main area of interest.

The early 20th century is an interesting era in our recent history, sort of in-between "the old" and "the modern", which I find irresistibly fascinating. I am quite interested in the fine line between known and unknown, real and unreal in any case, so I think that's why I became interested in this era. In addition, the early 20th century has been slightly overshadowed by the great Victorian era and the WWII.

My favorite era too (as you can see in my sig), and for the very reasons you've listed!

[Literateparakeet]

Originally Posted by Artifex

I just joined the forum and found this section, which seems very interesting.

Welcome! Thanks for offering to share your knowledge. I don't have any questions right now...unless you know about weapons in 1849. Black powder, flint...it's all mind boggling to me at this point, but I'll figure it out.

Originally Posted by A_Napp

Hi, just thought I'd join this thread and offer my help as well.

Welcome A_Napp, good to have you here.

Originally Posted by Raventongue

My question is this: excluding the actual historical knowledge, what does someone need to know before writing historical fiction?

Hey Raventongue, I'm just a newb myself, so perhaps not the best person to answer (but I've never let that stop me!)

I think as with any genre, it is helpful to read other works in the genre. But I don't believe there is any "formula" you need to follow. I'm working on my first book, a historical novel, and my "formula" has been to find a time period (and in my case a person) that fascinates me. Then research and write, research more and write more. It seems to be working.

[Artifex]

Originally Posted by Raventongue

Hey there.

I don't post much in the Historical forums because I'm awfully inexperienced, as I do mainly SFF. For the past year or so, though, I've taken a strong interest in someday writing a WWI historical.

My question is this: excluding the actual historical knowledge, what does someone need to know before writing historical fiction?

Apart from the actual historical facts, such as dates, events or inventions, I think it is equally, if not more, important to learn about the culture, social structure, conventions, values etc. of an era. Most fiction deals with people and human experience (in one way or another), therefore in order to make historical fiction accurate and convincing, it is important to know what people of that era were like.

For example, because of the differences in societies, cultures, experiences and values, the experiences of the British soldiers in the Great War differed from those of the British soldiers in the Second World War. The experiences of the British soldiers in the Great War also differed from those of the American soldiers in the Great War. If one were to assume, all soldiers experience war in X way, one would make an enormous mistake that would in all likelihood misrepresent the experiences of those people.

I would also strongly encourage to know the basics of the previous 100 years and (if applicable) the following 100 years or so, as history is a continuous story of change and no era exists in a vacuum of its own. I think it helps to know how the group of people in question got where they were and where they went from there (if known).

As others have already mentioned, historical setting will set some "restrictions", you will also have to do a fair amount of research, but both are true of many genres of writing. Other than that, I think you can use any technique or style of writing when writing historical fiction, too, as long as it fits the story and its setting (which, again, is also true of any other genre).

I think that well-written historical fiction can be a good way to learn about history, but badly-written historical fiction can badly misrepresent history. Personally, I would not want to do that, nor would I want to read someone else do it, either. There are probably different views on this, but if you love history and see its value, why not try to represent it as accurately as possible. On the other hand, if you are only using a historical setting as a "backdrop", why not just make up a world of your own if you don't want to bother with the research. (Just my view, there are probably others. )

[EarlyBird]

Where were you when I was writing my last two historical fiction novels?

Recently I've been researching early American history, specifically in regards to civil rights...Jim Crow laws, etc. I don't have any unanswered questions about that era at the moment, but when I do, I know where to go.

[angeliz2k]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

Where were you when I was writing my last two historical fiction novels?

Recently I've been researching early American history, specifically in regards to civil rights...Jim Crow laws, etc. I don't have any unanswered questions about that era at the moment, but when I do, I know where to go.

Hi, Early Bird!

Quick question regarding the above. By "early American history", what do you mean? "Jim Crow laws" usually refers to laws made post-Civil War up into the 20th century. This doesn't really count as "early". There were laws restricting enslaved and free blacks before the Civil War. Is that what you're referring to?

By the way, I'm currently writing in the 1850's in Washington City/Virginia. I was going to take it to the Sea Islands of Georgia, too, but I think now that I'll keep it in old Virginny.

[Raventongue]

Thanks a bunch, Tiger, Artifex & Parakeet!

I'll very likely be back, either because I'm an obsessive double-checker when it comes to research or out of sheer curiosity.

[Tinkerbelll]

Hello Artifex,

Could I ask you a question about baronetcy? Let's say that a Baron married with a woman and his wife became a Baroness by marrying to him. Then they had two daughters and two sons. This children born with baron and baroness titles or only the older son get the baronetcy after his father's death?

[donroc]

Welcome arifex and enjoy.

[Artifex]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelll

Hello Artifex,

Could I ask you a question about baronetcy? Let's say that a Baron married with a woman and his wife became a Baroness by marrying to him. Then they had two daughters and two sons. This children born with baron and baroness titles or only the older son get the baronetcy after his father's death?

Sorry I have taken so long to reply. I haven't been around for a while as I have been traveling, and I now have my brother visiting me (but I had to take one day "off" to work...).

Anyway... Titles are inherited. In this case, the oldest son would get the title of Baron after his father's death. Of course, nowadays in many places females can inherit titles, too, whereas in the past they maybe could not have. For example, in Sweden, the title of king went to the the oldest son, but nowadays the title goes to the oldest child.

[Evangeline]

Originally Posted by Tinkerbelll

Hello Artifex,

Could I ask you a question about baronetcy? Let's say that a Baron married with a woman and his wife became a Baroness by marrying to him. Then they had two daughters and two sons. This children born with baron and baroness titles or only the older son get the baronetcy after his father's death?

Not Artifex, but a baronetcy/baronetage and a barony are two separate titles-- Sir Firstname Lastname and Lord X, respectively. The offspring a baron are The Honourable Firstname Lastname (shortened to The Hon., in writing--and the children would only be addressed as Mr/Miss Firstname Lastname), and the eldest son is unlikely to possess a courtesy title because a barony is the lowest rung on the peerage. Some extremely old baronies (usually Scottish) can be inherited by daughters, but if they have a brother, he would inherit it even if his mother was a baroness in her own right. Sometimes, a barony that could be inherited through the female line was placed in abeyance after the death of the of the last direct male holder, which could be terminated in favor of one of the female inheritors by the Monarch.

Some examples:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Conyers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_de_Ros
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_Willoughby_de_Eresby

When in doubt, visit http://www.hmsrichmond.org/avast/titles02.html

[Artifex]

Evangeline, thank you for the clarification. I don't honestly know all that much about aristocracy and royalty (apart from "basics"), but it's good someone else does.

[benbenberi]

It may be worth mentioning that the above discussion of titles & inheritance applies specifically to England/Wales. Every European country has different rules & practices. (Frex, in some places a title is attached to a property, not a bloodline, so if you sell or otherwise transfer the property you're also transferring the title. "Courtesy" titles exist in some places, not in others, and where they do exist may be applied more or less broadly than in England.)

-- For the record, my historical specialty is 17c France, so if anyone has questions about that topic I'll be happy to natter on about it...

[SirOtter]

Early 20th Century is my favorite period, too, although my emphasis since college has been American. Odd, since my BA is in British History. A bunch of short human beings started showing up in my house right after graduation, so I never went on to get my MA and PhD.

The great thing about the 20th is that so many of the sights and sounds were recorded, it's pretty easy to immerse yourself in the period.

[Artifex]

Originally Posted by SirOtter

Early 20th Century is my favorite period, too, although my emphasis since college has been American. Odd, since my BA is in British History.

I guess it's one of those things that when you start out you may have a completely different idea about what you wanna do than when you finish. When I started at university, I had no intention of doing a Master's in History. History was only supposed to be a minor (my first MA is in English Philology). I had even less intention of studying war. I thought it possibly the least interesting topic in history. Well, here I am working on a Master's thesis on WWI.