Fact vs. fiction

Flicka · Feb 4, 2015

I know we've discussed this before, but something about this article really rubbed me the wrong way. To me, fiction is lying, and good fiction is lying convincingly. Accurate details helps you lie more convincingly and thus, IMO, helps you create better fiction. Can one not want one's fiction to be set in an accurate world and still know that it's fiction?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/susan-bordo-/admit-its-fiction_b_6588984.html

I think the writer of this piece commits exactly the error she is accusing Mantel of because she confuses fiction with fact (just like Starkey did in his usually charming little comments earlier). Mantel isn't passing her story off as fact, IMO, so bashing her for not delivering facts is pointless. This attitude, to me, basically invalidates good hist fic and is harmful to the genre.

So, tell me. What do you think of fact vs. fiction and the role of accuracy?

angeliz2k · Feb 4, 2015

Flicka, I can't read the article atm, but to respond: I agree with you. Fiction is fiction, and while we try to get as close to historical reality as possible, there's no way for us to do so. [Heck, even nonfiction writers have to make leaps of faith!] It's wrong-headed for anyone to criticize fiction for not being 100% historically accurate (who's to say what's 100% accurate, anyway? there are so many things that no one can agree on based on what evidence we have . . . ).

morngnstar · Feb 4, 2015

I'd like to be as accurate as possible about settings and contemporary events, but I want full creative control over my characters. The conflict between those two arises when the characters are notable real people. I'm on the fence, but I defend the idea of deviating from reality to tell a good story. It's not hypocrisy to want to get as many details accurate as possible, but to intentionally omit or even fabricate events to suit your theme.

Shadow_Ferret · Feb 4, 2015

It is historical fiction. Not sure what the article writer's agenda is other than to criticize where no criticism is warranted. Early on, the article quotes Hilary Mantel saying, "All historical fiction is really contemporary fiction." Then toward the end, the article says, "Why not admit, in other words, that the world she has created, while situated in history and peopled with characters that had an historical existence, is fiction."

Um. She did!

As for my own writing, I too strive for as much accuracy as possible. People, events, and such that occurred during the timeframe of my story as as close to what happened as possible, except for the fiction of my character gallavanting into their lives, disrupting history.

Jamesaritchie · Feb 4, 2015

Fiction is never an excuse to change history, or to change historical characters. Nothing turns an historical novel into a wallbanger faster than the writer acting like history doesn't exist, and that he can change anything or anyone to fit his needs. Good writers do not need to do this, and it's all that's worng not only with too many historical novels, but even with our education system.

A writer has the freedom to do whatever he or she wishes, so in this sense there is no argument, but nothing makes me stop reading a novel faster than a writer who chanegs things I know to be true. To me, i doesn't come across as good storytelling, it comes across as lack of skill and laziness.

Flicka · Feb 4, 2015

Shadow_Ferret said:
It is historical fiction. Not sure what the article writer's agenda is other than to criticize where no criticism is warranted. Early on, the article quotes Hilary Mantel saying, "All historical fiction is really contemporary fiction." Then toward the end, the article says, "Why not admit, in other words, that the world she has created, while situated in history and peopled with characters that had an historical existence, is fiction."

Um. She did!

As for my own writing, I too strive for as much accuracy as possible. People, events, and such that occurred during the timeframe of my story as as close to what happened as possible, except for the fiction of my character gallavanting into their lives, disrupting history.

I think the writer of the article is a) an Anne Boleyn fan peeved that Mantel's Anne comes across as pretty unlikeable b) is out to to flog her own (non-fiction) book (I am an uncharitable and cynical person by nature and mistrust people by default

).

But what I don't get is her bashing of Mantel's strife for accuracy. As if it's black and white - either all facts, or all fiction and then nothing has to be correct and to strive for accuracy is mistaking your fiction for fact. Like there is no standard for fiction whatsoever. I don't get that. Like if you make sure you get your setting for your present day book correct, you would automatically think you are reporting facts? I think SHE (not Mantel) is the one who cannot distinguish the fictional characters of Mantel's book from the real Cromwell and Anne Boleyn. Mantel is actually quoted as saying she makes sure she never believes her own story.

Obviously this is more of an issue the more famous people you are using, but I would hate for people to think that I actually think that that I am accurately describing the lives of my poorly documented minor characters (esp as they interact with people I invented). It's just me making stuff up, even if I make sure to get everything right down to the points and stockings, and I really don't see the contradiction in that.

How can you help the reader distinguish between the real world and your fictional one, which you have taken such care to craft according to the known facts about that time and place that it appear to be fact? An author's note?

mayqueen · Feb 4, 2015

Flicka said:
I think the writer of the article is [...] is out to to flog her own (non-fiction) book

Honestly, I think that is probably 95% of what that article is about.

kuwisdelu · Feb 4, 2015

Flicka said:
I know we've discussed this before, but something about this article really rubbed me the wrong way. To me, fiction is lying, and good fiction is lying convincingly.

I've never viewed fiction as lying, and I'm always puzzled by those who do.

Fiction tells the truth, through story. It just uses imagination rather than fact to do it.

Good fiction never lies to the reader. Fiction that lies is bad fiction.

(The "fiction" in the phrase "fact or fiction" is a different usage; it does not refer to the literary genre.)

Flicka · Feb 4, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
I've never viewed fiction as lying, and I'm always puzzled by those who do.

Fiction tells the truth, through story. It just uses imagination rather than fact to do it.

Good fiction never lies to the reader. Fiction that lies is bad fiction.

(The "fiction" in the phrase "fact or fiction" is a different usage; it does not refer to the literary genre.)

But lies about what, and tells the truth about what? You can make up factual events ("lie" about them) and still tell a sort of metaphysical truth, which is what I think you're driving at. It's exactly what I am trying to say that Mantel (and all good historical fiction) does – she uses fiction about Cromwell to tell a deeper truth about human existence, not the truth about certain events. Essentially she says "I am going to lie to you now by claiming Cromwell said and did things he may not have done and you know that I am making this up, but you are going to pretend to believe me so that I can tell you some really important truths."

The problem is when someone, like the writer of this article, starts talking about the fiction not being fact which you never claimed (so in that sense "lie" may not be 100 per cent accurate) in the first place. She totally misses the point of fiction, which like you say, is telling the truth, while also "lying" in the sense of making up facts.

this post was very confusing most likely, but, essentially, I think we agree.

gothicangel · Feb 5, 2015

Flicka said:
I think the writer of the article is a) an Anne Boleyn fan peeved that Mantel's Anne comes across as pretty unlikeable b) is out to to flog her own (non-fiction) book (I am an uncharitable and cynical person by nature and mistrust people by default ).

No, you are right to be cynical. Bordo is not a trained historian, she is a sociologist who specializes in gender studies (she's a feminist philosopher). One of the big criticisms that I have read of her book is that she places 21st century ideas of gender on to the 16th century.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Bordo

gothicangel · Feb 5, 2015

If I was looking for an 100% accurate book about Anne Boleyn, I would be heading straight for the non-fiction shelves, for an author who had post-doctoral degrees in history coming out of their ears, and whose day job was writing and researching about Tudor England.

gothicangel · Feb 5, 2015

I've just received this link of something Rosemary Sutcliff once said, and thought you might like it Flicka:

http://rosemarysutcliff.com/2015/01/28/historical-fiction-breathes-life-into-the-bare-bones-of-history-rosemary-sutcliff/

Many years ago, when I was sure of myself as only someone scarcely out of their apprenticeship can be, I was talking to an audience of school teachers in the Midlands that are sodden and unkind, when a County Inspector of Education stood up and asked what was my justification for writing historical novels, which he clearly considered a bastard form, instead of leaving the job to legitimate historians who knew what they were talking about. I looked him straight in the eye and said: “Historians and teachers, you and your kind, can produce the bare bones, all in their right order, but still bare bones. I and my kind can breathe life into them. And history is not bare bones alone, but a living process.” Looking back I’m rather shaken at my hardihood, but I still think I was right.

Usher · Feb 5, 2015

To be honest most history we "know" to be true has an element of fiction about it anyway. It is very rare it is actually written by the people involved themselves and when it is they've written it to make themselves look good. Then history goes through the interpretation of people even further removed from the events themselves.

Look at Richard III - there was a period when the Shakespearean view was "fact" then there was a period when Shakespeare was considered "all wrong". We found Richard III's body and he did indeed have some of the characteristics Shakespeare placed on him and we will never prove some of the other issues.

When I was at university I was cataloguing a piece of flint - I called it a scraper but another more senior archaeologist decided it was a knife and finally it was decided it was naturally occurring. The piece of flint didn't change but the story behind it did

My absolute favourite ever book is about the Pendle Witches and it plays fast and loose with the characters. It is almost certain a lady called Alice Nutter was set up by the landowner Roger Nowell but in the story she is the evil woman with power over everyone and he is the guardian of the story's heroine. The story is still fantastic

Sometime, I believe, the story has to take precedent because that's what fiction is -- if I need facts I'll read a text book.

kuwisdelu · Feb 5, 2015

Flicka said:
But lies about what, and tells the truth about what? You can make up factual events ("lie" about them) and still tell a sort of metaphysical truth, which is what I think you're driving at. It's exactly what I am trying to say that Mantel (and all good historical fiction) does – she uses fiction about Cromwell to tell a deeper truth about human existence, not the truth about certain events. Essentially she says "I am going to lie to you now by claiming Cromwell said and did things he may not have done and you know that I am making this up, but you are going to pretend to believe me so that I can tell you some really important truths."

The problem is when someone, like the writer of this article, starts talking about the fiction not being fact which you never claimed (so in that sense "lie" may not be 100 per cent accurate) in the first place. She totally misses the point of fiction, which like you say, is telling the truth, while also "lying" in the sense of making up facts.

Yeah, if it's fiction, you're not claiming a factual account, so I don't see how it can be a lie. It can be inaccurate, but inaccuracy is different from a lie.

morngnstar · Feb 5, 2015

kuwisdelu said:
Yeah, if it's fiction, you're not claiming a factual account, so I don't see how it can be a lie. It can be inaccurate, but inaccuracy is different from a lie.

How about a simile instead of a metaphor? Fiction is like a lie. The point was that in both, you give the audience as little reason to believe it's not true as is feasible. Please don't give fantasy as a counterexample. Even there you only include the unreal elements you need to tell the story you want to tell. You don't make horses' hooves make the sound of a car horn when they hit the ground, just because.

Flicka · Feb 5, 2015

morngnstar said:
How about a simile instead of a metaphor? Fiction is like a lie. The point was that in both, you give the audience as little reason to believe it's not true as is feasible.

Yes, the actual simile or the metaphor or the image or whatever I used is unimportant. The issue I was trying to raise was how to juggle fact and fiction when writing historical fiction, because it seems to be more complicated both for writers and readers than in contemporary fiction.

Flicka · Feb 12, 2015

An interesting article by a historian relating to the same topic:https://theconversation.com/adapting-wolf-hall-for-tv-how-i-played-historical-guessing-game-36150

gothicangel · Feb 12, 2015

Flicka said:
An interesting article by a historian relating to the same topic:https://theconversation.com/adapting-wolf-hall-for-tv-how-i-played-historical-guessing-game-36150

Interesting article.

In my own writing at the moment, I am finding that I am coming to the limit of the research of the Bar-Kokhba Revolt (although I am finding some good stuff still from books on Rabbinic Judaism). Still, the ancient sources are unchanged, and virtually nothing is know about the actual Revolt. So I have found myself increasingly looking at more contemporary wars/insurgencies to find inspiration most notably Vietnam and even Islamic State, and finding a lot of similarities. Is it a lie? Well, from my research I'm putting together information and ideas that have never been put together before in one history textbook (they are a mix of Roman, Rabbinical and Christian sources, as well as archaeology) and the rest is conjecture to something we will probably never know (unless an archaeologist manages to uncover Hadrian's lost memoir or Koshiba's answer to Josephus' The Jewish Wars.*

*I am growing so fascinated by this Revolt, that I'm planning my dissertation on it, perhaps a non-fiction title too, bringing together this research.

morngnstar · Feb 12, 2015

gothicangel said:
So I have found myself increasingly looking at more contemporary wars/insurgencies to find inspiration most notably Vietnam and even Islamic State, and finding a lot of similarities. Is it a lie? Well, from my research I'm putting together information and ideas that have never been put together before in one history textbook

Your lie may be more true than the truth, because the exact details of one event may have idiosyncrasies that are peculiar to that event, whereas a synthesis has a better chance to discover universal truths. It's related to another post, where someone is asking if they should write autobiographical fiction. No, you should synthesize different events in your life, combined with observations of other people, and what you get from other people's fiction. That will produce a more true, even though more invented, picture than your own narrow perspective.

At the very least, by incorporating modern events, you have more chance of having current relevance.

Maxx · Feb 12, 2015

Flicka said:
So, tell me. What do you think of fact vs. fiction and the role of accuracy?

My current work is set in a frame (Europe around 1800) where you would think the facts would be easy to isolate from the fiction, but the more you look into what people seem to think the facts are, the more fictive they look. For example -- what are the facts of the Committee of Public Safety's supervision of the Revolutionary Armies?
Were commanders really in constant danger of being executed? And how much traitorous correspondence with the enemy was really going on? (Quite a lot).

I've given up trying to catalog or account for the number of secondary sources that completely misrepresent the events of 1794-95 when the First Republic destroyed the first Coalition. Either it isn't mentioned or it had no real impact etc. etc. In recent works, only in some perceptive fiction (O'Brian) have I found any reference to what a trauma this was for the Old Regimes.

Moreover, I've found whole mountains of real events that I'm sure no one will believe. My favorite example is that supposedly Ney was painfully wounded in the arm in 1795. He and his surgeon insisted that everyone (more or less a whole village plus his commanding officer and his staff) play music sing and dance while the operation on Ney went on. This actually is something of a tradition since the Mad Halberstadter had similar performances while his arm was amputated in 1622 at Fleurus. Ney kept his arm. And that's only the simplest seemingly fictive real event.

Anyway, I don't have much use for what people want to take for facts, because even a little research shows a tremendous mass of stuff no one will ever think is factual.

kuwisdelu · Feb 12, 2015

morngnstar said:
How about a simile instead of a metaphor? Fiction is like a lie. The point was that in both, you give the audience as little reason to believe it's not true as is feasible. Please don't give fantasy as a counterexample. Even there you only include the unreal elements you need to tell the story you want to tell. You don't make horses' hooves make the sound of a car horn when they hit the ground, just because.

I just don't see verisimilitude as the defining aspect of lying or fiction. Furthermore, drawing attention to the fact that a story is fictional rather than factual is a valid and common technique in fiction, otherwise tropes like breaking the fourth wall wouldn't exist. This is especially true in postmodernist works. Sometimes you actually want the audience to be aware that they are engaging with a story that is not real.

But as Flicka points out, this is all tangential to the point of the thread anyway. :tongue

kelliewallace · Feb 14, 2015

I'm glad I saw this thread. I was going to start one regarding this topic. Had a new idea stem tonight about a U.S. soldier behind enemy lines in france during ww2. Comes across a farm and the woman who lives there looks after him. I doubt anything like that could happen and I even considered doing an alternative history but I thought screw it, it's called fiction for a reason.

gothicangel · Feb 14, 2015

I was re-watching I, Claudius this week and thought this line was very apt for this thread.

Livia (to Sejanus): Recently, you have buried many men with your pretty lies.

Sonsofthepharaohs · Feb 15, 2015

gothicangel said:
I was re-watching I, Claudius this week and thought this line was very apt for this thread.

Livia (to Sejanus): Recently, you have buried many men with your pretty lies.

What a great line, from a fantastic series. I have to watch that again soon.

Another one of my favourite I, Claudius lines comes from Asinius Pollio, when he and Titus Livy come across Claudius in the library. Pollio asks Claudius who he prefers as a historian, him or Livy. Claudius says something like 'for beauty of language, Livy, for interpretation of fact, Pollio' - Livy gets all offended, and says now he pleases neither of them, to which Claudius replies 'I wasn't trying to please, merely to tell the truth.'

I do love that series... so many lines stick in my mind, because they were all so pithy and delivered so well. But one of those that sticks with me is when Drusus (Claudius' father) goes to kiss Livia goodbye before leaving for Germania, and she turns away. He kisses her anyway, and as he's going out the door turns back and says 'you mustn't mind if you dislike me. A mother can't love all her children."

I don't know why, but that just really struck me as a powerful line in a charged scene.

And now I REALLY want to watch it again...

Flicka · Feb 17, 2015

Completely disjointed and probably confusing, but here's what I just thought:

I was watching a documentary on Caravaggio's painting "The Taking of Christ" (here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caravaggio_-_Taking_of_Christ_-_Dublin.jpg ) and suddenly I thought that what Caravaggio was doing (what all religious paintings at the time were trying to do) wasn't all that different from writing historical fiction.

Did Caravaggio seriously think this is exactly how the scene in Getsemane looked? Of course not. I don't think he was even trying to recreate how it might "really" have looked, or that he thought "this is how Jesus is bound to have looked". He was trying to tell the story in the most effective way he could. With his highly realistic painting, he was trying to drag you into the story and create a feeling of verisimilitude. He didn't say "oh, but this may not be at all how it looked really, so I don't need to get the details of the light glinting off the armour right." He wanted it to look realistic to the point of you feeling you were standing there with them, because that was how he could engage the onlooker and most effectively tell his story. And he kept the details from the sources accurate - it was night; there were disciples and soldiers; Judas betrayed Jesus with a kiss etc... He just fleshed out the bare bones with a lot of imaginary details. And he did it in order to tell a story about betrayal and fear and anger and sacrifice and suffering that is relevant outside the historical context of the Jesus myth and probably contains his own thoughts and feelings and experiences as much the Biblical story.

Isn't that really pretty similar to what we do and why we care about getting the details right although we know we are not telling the "real" story? It gave me some perspective, anyway.

Fact vs. fiction

Dull Old Person

never mind the shorty

Court Jester

Dull Old Person

practical experience, FTW

Revolutionize the World

Dull Old Person

Toughen up.

Toughen up.

Toughen up.

Revolutionize the World

Dull Old Person

Dull Old Person

Toughen up.

Got the hang of it, here

Revolutionize the World

Toughen up.

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy

Dull Old Person