How True Should Historical Fiction Be? (Article)

DeleyanLee

Writing Anarchist
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
31,660
Reaction score
11,407
Location
lost among the words
IMO, "It's fiction" is the argument of people who don't have anything else to add to the discussion.

However, I do think there's certain responsibilities that all storytellers have to their readers--to be honest with and in their stories. If the story takes place in history, then that responsibility for honesty extends to the time, place and people of the story's setting.

That said, My favorite historical novelist of all time (Taylor Caldwell--she got me into reading both HF and HNF) that were factually inaccurate yet felt totally honest about the feel of that era so I felt I was there. To me, that's the real magic of the union between history and fiction. It's a strange balance, but it all does equal out to an honest, excellent story.
 

Ol' Fashioned Girl

Hand? What hand?
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 31, 2005
Messages
15,640
Reaction score
6,849
Location
Last Star on the Right
Website
www.jenniferdahl.com
Yeah, it's 'fiction', but the supportive 'facts' have to be right. If I write that someone climbed into the bathtub in 22 BC... wait... did they have bathtubs in 22 BC? If I don't check my supportive facts and someone who knows for sure and certain comes along and reads the results of my sloppy/no research and gets thrown out of the story and inspired to throw my book at a wall, I've failed in my job as storyteller.

BUT... bottom line... I'm a storyteller. I write historical fiction. It's my personal goal to make my fiction factual. I work very hard to do that... but - particularly in 'Evil's Own Trinity' - the back story which leads to the facts, their results, and the resultant true (as best we know what 'true' is in any given time period, even our own!) history is all mine.
 

mayqueen

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
1,547
A novelist has no real duty to anything except the story he or she is creating, the characters who inhabit it and whatever view of the world he or she is offering with the novel's ending. But if you are going to play fast and loose with historical fact for the sake of a good story, you'd better have done your research thoroughly if you want readers to take you seriously; only then will you have the authority to depart from those facts.

I thought that was pretty spot-on. Yes, it's fiction, but it's historical fiction. I want to learn something what people were like in a different time and place when I read it. Playing fast and loose doesn't do that for me.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
Exactly. :)

When I started my WIP I thought I knew pretty much what Judaism was. I have now decided I know nothing! I was talking just about this very thing to my sister (she's a student of Theology) and said 'this is a huge undertaking, but if I'm going to do this, I'm going to do this properly.'

Recently I've heard several authors (who I enjoy) saying 'some times the history gets in the way of the story. I don't understand this to be honest. My philosophy has always been to find the gaps in history and filling them with fiction, I can't imagine changing history to fit a story.
 

Histry Nerd

Moving Forward!
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
294
Reaction score
84
Location
Texas. It's like a whole 'nother country.
Patrick O'Brian created a fictional captain, put him on a fictional ship, and dropped him into the middle of real events that happened to other captains on other ships. He is widely regarded as one of the all-time masters of historical fiction, because the detail he put into his stories made the reader feel like they were on those ships during those events.

Almost all of the characters in Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels really lived, and really did the things they do in the book. Just about the only license Shaara took was to assign thoughts to his characters. He, too, did a masterful job of making the reader feel like they were at the Battle of Gettysburg.

I think our duty as historical novelists, whether we choose the O'Brian approach or the Shaara approach, is more to show the reader what it was like to live the events we describe than to be hyper-accurate in relating those events. Accuracy matters, to be sure--but I think people read historical fiction to live the history, and we may have to make stuff up from time to time to make that possible.

HN
 

snafu1056

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
819
Reaction score
88
When you consider the power history has to shape peoples perceptions of themselves and the world, it is pretty reckless to approach it glibly. Its not just entertainment. And even though people shouldnt get their historical information from pop culture, many do, and artists should be aware of that. Especially in countries like America which is pretty historically illiterate. History is one of those subjects that seperates civilized societies from barbarous ones. It represents a desire to understand the truth, rather than be satisfied with myths and fairy tales.
 

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Feb 24, 2008
Messages
3,727
Reaction score
488
Location
Commonwealth of Virginia--it's for lovers
Website
www.elizabethhuhn.com
When you consider the power history has to shape peoples perceptions of themselves and the world, it is pretty reckless to approach it glibly. Its not just entertainment. And even though people shouldnt get their historical information from pop culture, many do, and artists should be aware of that. Especially in countries like America which is pretty historically illiterate.

I agree to some extent but am hesitant to agree totally. I am no one's mother and no one's history teacher. Yes, I want readers to learn about the past, but that's not my primary job as a writer of fiction.

And while many people DO get their "history" from popular culture, it's mainly from television and movies. Unfortunately, these two media are far, far worse about getting things right than written historical fiction. Yet they're the most widely consumed and widely believed form of "history" many folks get. I could go on about how sloppy most television and film portrayals of history are, but I would be preaching to the choir.

That said, I'm not a slave to historical accuracy. I don't want to openly contradict historical fact or culture just because it's easier. But I'm not getting things right because I owe it to my audience to learn them some history; I'm trying to get it right because I want to tell a truthful story set in a truthful setting (which is something writers of all fiction go for).

It's a balancing act. I always go for historically correct if I have to choose. But if I come to a point where there's no real obvious winner between "historically correct" and "good for the story", I will generally choose the story.

History is one of those subjects that seperates civilized societies from barbarous ones. It represents a desire to understand the truth, rather than be satisfied with myths and fairy tales.
Preliterate societies had/have history/histories. They just didn't/don't write them down and express(ed) them in different ways than we do. It's a different kind of history, not a lack of it.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
Preliterate societies had/have history/histories. They just didn't/don't write them down and express(ed) them in different ways than we do. It's a different kind of history, not a lack of it.

I always wonder how Iron Age societies explained Bronze Age monuments like Stonehenge. Did they maintain some kind of oral tradition? Or was it just as mysterious to them as it is to us? Vespasian had a camp near Stonehenge, what did he make of it?
 

Siri Kirpal

Swan in Process
Kind Benefactor
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 20, 2011
Messages
8,943
Reaction score
3,151
Location
In God I dwell, especially in Eugene OR
I always wonder how Iron Age societies explained Bronze Age monuments like Stonehenge. Did they maintain some kind of oral tradition? Or was it just as mysterious to them as it is to us? Vespasian had a camp near Stonehenge, what did he make of it?

Sat Nam! (Literally "Truth Name"--a Sikh greeting)

I should think the answer to that would depend on whether the folks occupying the area were descendants of the folks who built it or newcomers. The descendants would probably have an oral tradition, a poetic recital of what happened. The newcomers would postulate giants or natural forces or magic or whatever.

As far as the main topic goes: I like accurate to the period historical fiction, that is also accurate to most checkable facts. If a fictional building is inserted, I'm not going to be bothered. If an attitude that folks didn't have then is inserted, I will. If you put potatoes in Ancient Ireland, I'll probably quit reading...unless it's alternative history. Ditto with peasants having cartloads of furniture in the Middle Ages. But slight shifts don't bother me.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
I've had a reader take me to task – rightly – over an incorrect detail of clothing worn by the hero of my books, the 16th-century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno, even while they seemed quite happy to accept the much more flagrant invention of turning him into a spy who solves murders.

That's the part of the article I found most interesting, and illuminating.

I think one has to draw a line between the 'perversion' of historical 'fact' for conceptual reasons, and the tiny little dropped anachronisms that indicate sloppy research.

I don't mind an historical novelist bending history for the sake of the story, or throwing a whole new spin on events. Hell, I've invented an entire new biblical timeline in my post-Exodus novel (the 'real' one can't be proven anyway, if indeed the events even happened). But when someone makes Rameses the great eat a banana... nope, I'm done with that novel coz you just threw your credibility out the window.
 

mayqueen

practical experience, FTW
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Mar 27, 2012
Messages
4,624
Reaction score
1,547
I think that's a very good point. There's bending facts when facts are bendable to suit the plot, and then's there just being sloppy.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
I always wonder how Iron Age societies explained Bronze Age monuments like Stonehenge. Did they maintain some kind of oral tradition? Or was it just as mysterious to them as it is to us? Vespasian had a camp near Stonehenge, what did he make of it?

I lived 10 miles from stonehenge for the first 18 years of my life (until I escaped the Shire and went to uni :D) and the only thing I ever thought about it was 'hmmm. bet that was tricky.'

Familiarity breeds contempt - or just outright whatevs-ness ;)
 

ULTRAGOTHA

Merovingian Superhero
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jan 17, 2011
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
313
I think the reason a reader is more concerned that Odd's mother in Odd and the Frost Giants is knitting (knitting was invented centuries after the Viking age) than with the fact that Odd is off dealing with !Frost Giants, Hello! is that Frost Giants are a given premise of the story. That's right there up front.

But the details immerse us in the background of the story. And let me tell you, that when I read that bit with Odd's mother knitting in the corner, I got thrown right out. I wasn't reading that story expecting incorrect historical minutia so that threw me. I was reading it expecting Frost Giants and Loki and Asguard. So that didn't throw me at all.

Turning Giordano Bruno into a spy who solves murders is the backbone of the book and I go into it expecting that. But I'm not going to like it if the background holding up that very large anachronism is also anachronistic.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
I lived 10 miles from stonehenge for the first 18 years of my life (until I escaped the Shire and went to uni :D) and the only thing I ever thought about it was 'hmmm. bet that was tricky.'

Familiarity breeds contempt - or just outright whatevs-ness ;)

True! I never visited most castles or Hadrian's Wall until I came back from Scotland (where I was a member of Historic Scotland.) I have a huge to do list this year (including Stonehenge - which I've only ever driven past. :))
 

ishtar'sgate

living in the past
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Aug 23, 2007
Messages
3,801
Reaction score
459
Location
Canada
Website
www.linneaheinrichs.com
I write primarily for my own enjoyment and I love finding and exploiting historical loopholes. If previous reader response is anything to go by, accuracy is expected but if I make a good enough case for my take on those grey areas they're okay with it. I've found some doozies for my current WIP.:)
 

snafu1056

Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jul 18, 2013
Messages
819
Reaction score
88
I agree to some extent but am hesitant to agree totally. I am no one's mother and no one's history teacher. Yes, I want readers to learn about the past, but that's not my primary job as a writer of fiction.

And while many people DO get their "history" from popular culture, it's mainly from television and movies. Unfortunately, these two media are far, far worse about getting things right than written historical fiction. Yet they're the most widely consumed and widely believed form of "history" many folks get. I could go on about how sloppy most television and film portrayals of history are, but I would be preaching to the choir.

That said, I'm not a slave to historical accuracy. I don't want to openly contradict historical fact or culture just because it's easier. But I'm not getting things right because I owe it to my audience to learn them some history; I'm trying to get it right because I want to tell a truthful story set in a truthful setting (which is something writers of all fiction go for).

It's a balancing act. I always go for historically correct if I have to choose. But if I come to a point where there's no real obvious winner between "historically correct" and "good for the story", I will generally choose the story.

Preliterate societies had/have history/histories. They just didn't/don't write them down and express(ed) them in different ways than we do. It's a different kind of history, not a lack of it.

Why do you hate me when all I want to do is love history?
 

Wilde_at_heart

υπείκωphobe
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
3,243
Reaction score
514
Location
Southern Ontario
The friends of mine who read historic fiction read a lot of it so factual errors that are well-documented would annoy them a lot more than they would a more general reader. Or many of them are history buffs. It's similar to getting police procedures wrong in mysteries, or the science wrong in Sci Fi.

Preliterate societies had/have history/histories. They just didn't/don't write them down and express(ed) them in different ways than we do. It's a different kind of history, not a lack of it.

And other societies had most of their texts burned or it's never been deciphered, so all we have is one 'side' as it were.

Destroy a culture's history, destroy their culture...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_libraries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_book-burning_incidents
 
Last edited:

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
The friends of mine who read historic fiction read a lot of it so factual errors that are well-documented would annoy them a lot more than they would a more general reader. Or many of them are history buffs. It's similar to getting police procedures wrong in mysteries, or the science wrong in Sci Fi.

This is a great point. You never see threads on MTS asking how accurate should crime fiction be? :D
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
http://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2014/mar/19/how-true-should-historical-fiction-be-mantel-andrew-miller-gregory

Interesting article from The Guardian. I found the comments even more interesting though, I do agree that the 'it's fiction' is an unhelpful response that closes down any debate.

Thoughts?

It is odd that people seem to assume there is always some glaringly obvious historical truth to which a story needs to conform. I'm dealing with the explosive late 1794 offensive of the Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse. There are an immense number of accounts concerning what happened and how, but there is very little agreement on even some fundamental truths -- for example, Scheber wrote two different accounts of what happened at Sprimont on Sept 18 and Sprimont is an "exemplary battle" in terms of how the French Revolutionary armies actually fought. But there is no consensus about what is being exemplified. Did the army actually use dense columns or was that sort of an Euphemism? If you put a character in a position to witness the events (which were actually shrouded in a real fog at the time in reality) -- what do they see versus what they report? And which is more terrifying (since the Austrians retreated without actually encountering whatever it was those dense or not so dense columns or non-columns)? When it emerges from fog? A seemingly still sort of organized enemy or a shapeless, on-rushing blob of an army?
I suppose I have to come up with a likely event -- but there is no simple truthfulness to violate -- except perhaps the idea that there is such a thing in this case -- posing a truth here would be most untruthful.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
It is odd that people seem to assume there is always some glaringly obvious historical truth to which a story needs to conform. I'm dealing with the explosive late 1794 offensive of the Army of the Sambre-et-Meuse. There are an immense number of accounts concerning what happened and how, but there is very little agreement on even some fundamental truths -- for example, Scheber wrote two different accounts of what happened at Sprimont on Sept 18 and Sprimont is an "exemplary battle" in terms of how the French Revolutionary armies actually fought. But there is no consensus about what is being exemplified. Did the army actually use dense columns or was that sort of an Euphemism? If you put a character in a position to witness the events (which were actually shrouded in a real fog at the time in reality) -- what do they see versus what they report? And which is more terrifying (since the Austrians retreated without actually encountering whatever it was those dense or not so dense columns or non-columns)? When it emerges from fog? A seemingly still sort of organized enemy or a shapeless, on-rushing blob of an army?
I suppose I have to come up with a likely event -- but there is no simple truthfulness to violate -- except perhaps the idea that there is such a thing in this case -- posing a truth here would be most untruthful.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is only one historical truth. What I (and I think other people) object to in HF, is the changing events or existence of a person that is well documented. What your example demonstrates is conflicting reports that plague historians and writers alike. This is where the writer gets creative, and the historian is restricted. What I object to is the violation of documented evidence.

In my last book, I wanted to know where Hadrian was in spring 131 CE. The answer is that the historians don't know. One will conjecture that he was in Greece, another that he was heading to Rome but turned his ships around when he heard about the outbreak of revolt in Judaea. Because there is no way to verify this, I had him as having arrived in Rome before news of the revolt reached him (as he was in the area-ish.) A violation to me was in a recent book I read, claiming that in the Dacian War (under Trajan) that Hadrian was Legate of the Tenth (he wasn't, he was Legate of the First, Minerva) something that was altered to fit a romance plot about Sabina.

My two cents anyway.
 

Sonsofthepharaohs

Still writing the ancient Egyptian tetralogy
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Jun 17, 2010
Messages
5,260
Reaction score
2,673
Location
UK
In my last book, I wanted to know where Hadrian was in spring 131 CE. The answer is that the historians don't know. One will conjecture that he was in Greece, another that he was heading to Rome but turned his ships around when he heard about the outbreak of revolt in Judaea. Because there is no way to verify this, I had him as having arrived in Rome before news of the revolt reached him (as he was in the area-ish.)

This is a historical novelist's bread and butter - finding gaps in the historical record to exploit and fill, as Ishtar'sgate said. It just happens that some periods and events have more gaps than others, allowing the author more scope to get creative :)

A violation to me was in a recent book I read, claiming that in the Dacian War (under Trajan) that Hadrian was Legate of the Tenth (he wasn't, he was Legate of the First, Minerva) something that was altered to fit a romance plot about Sabina.

That wouldn't bother me at all, although i know it would niggle some purists (like yourself :D). Such minor details fall under the banner of 'things the historical novelist can bend for the story' in my opinion.

Although if that minor detail totally changed the course of said person's life, so that events we know took place could no longer happen... that would be a bigger problem.
 

Maxx

Got the hang of it, here
Super Member
Registered
Joined
May 26, 2010
Messages
3,227
Reaction score
202
Location
Durham NC
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there is only one historical truth. What I (and I think other people) object to in HF, is the changing events or existence of a person that is well documented. What your example demonstrates is conflicting reports that plague historians and writers alike. This is where the writer gets creative, and the historian is restricted. What I object to is the violation of documented evidence.

It's also interesting that there seems to be an imagery of the "restricted historian" vs. the writer. If you look at primary sources you are often looking at accounts written by participants and these are "documented evidence" but usually full of deliberate lies and obfuscations moreover there are vast quantities of "documented evidence" that I suspect one can freely change since nobody will ever even notice. For example, in attributing one account, I could freely change Scherer for St. Cyr and not only would nobody ever notice, but there is at least one secondary source where this was done accidently.
So I assume when people want their HF done "historically" they really mean without changing anything that anyone might reasonably be expected to actually have heard of. It think this region of history that people have heard of is so small that -- with a little research -- an HF writer can do nearly anything they want.
 

Nikweikel

Registered
Joined
Sep 28, 2013
Messages
48
Reaction score
4
Location
California
As far as I'm concerned, a good historical fiction novel can't be disproven.

Inventing characters, places and conversations is one thing. Bringing major historical figures back from the dead or killing them off prematurely, moving battles hundreds of miles from their recorded locations, offering people inventions that wouldn't appear for a few hundred years, fixing them up with wives, husbands, celebrated lovers, or children none of their contemporaries knew anything about... that takes some doing.

Not saying it can't be done and done well, but I want it justified.
 

gothicangel

Toughen up.
Super Member
Registered
Joined
Nov 29, 2008
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
691
Location
North of the Wall
As far as I'm concerned, a good historical fiction novel can't be disproven.

Inventing characters, places and conversations is one thing. Bringing major historical figures back from the dead or killing them off prematurely, moving battles hundreds of miles from their recorded locations, offering people inventions that wouldn't appear for a few hundred years, fixing them up with wives, husbands, celebrated lovers, or children none of their contemporaries knew anything about... that takes some doing.

Not saying it can't be done and done well, but I want it justified.

This is my feelings too. :)