Impenetrable Historical Figures?

Although not a main character in my current WIP, King Nabonidus plays a fairly active role. But it was frustrating trying to learn anything about him because a lot of the monuments and writings he'd commissioned were defaced or destroyed. He wasn't well liked and much of what remains concerning his life is pretty well just propaganda from either Cyrus the Great's perspective or the priests of Marduk, who hated him. So I'm going to have to try and read between the lines and portray him as I think he might have been.

Such an interesting topic. My son is a history major (please, Fates, let him get employment) and we talk about a similar topic all the time: the victor writes the history. Few ancient historical figures wrote about themselves, so much of what's available is at least one step removed, propaganda, or conjecture. Beyond that, the "historical record" has been altered by rewrites, translations, further propagandizing and the fact that we can't help but evaluate what we read through our modern lens.

It's fascinating, and makes me admire you hardcore HF writers all the more for digging in so deep.

gothicangel said:

Today I've been reading an interview with Hilary Mantel about the historical Thomas Cromwell (unfortunately it doesn't seem to be available online) in BBC History Magazine. It was this that caught my attention:



Which started getting my mind thing about my WIP, and the figure of Kokhba. He's pretty impenetrable, one of those lost voices who never speaks for himself, and when history does speak you encounter myth and legend. The only time I think I have glimpsed the man behind the myth, is a few rare, desperate parchments found by Yigael Yadin (dating from the end of the revolt.)

Has anyone else tackled such a subject.

Click to expand...

King Arthur is pretty impenetrable. There's just barely enough documentation to make you suspect there might have been such a guy.
I think lack of documents is the main problem for historical personages before say 1950.
Of course there are exceptions in both directions (eg. Julius Caesar is not impenetrable and neither is Xenophon).

For some of my research, the opposite is the case. There's almost too much information on the people involved in the Affair of the Diamond Necklace. They all wrote memoirs, and there are court documents and newspaper articles and . . . well, it gets overwhelming, especially since they were mostly monumental liars who also happened to be in legal trouble.

I researched Boudicca years ago. There's a lot on her, but obviously it isn't her own voice we hear.

I think it is fairly safe to say that all historical figures are pretty much impenetrable. Even if they left detailed journals and diaries, they may have been completely lacking in self-awareness or they may have been lying through their teeth to create an impression.

When we put a historical figure in a book, we are stuck with certain parameters—he lived in a certain time and place and did certain things—but beyond that we are imagining the kind of person who might have done those things, the motives that might have prompted that behavior, etc.

And sometimes, we might even be right. But there is no way to know.

I'm currently reading a book on Socrates called the Hemlock cup which tries to piece together his life. In the preface the author relates how she was talking with another writer about how she was writing a book on Socrates to which he replies "Socrates! What a doughnut of a subject! Gloriously rich, with a whacking hole in the middle where the central character should be." As most know Socrates never wrote a thing down himself, most of what we have comes from his students Xenophon and Plato. So she tries to piece together his life by telling the story of Athens while he was alive. Essentially she tries to tell his story the same way a scientist would try and detect dark matter, by looking for the gravitational pull it has on the objects around it.

I agree with Lil. Unless you have primary materials written by your character, that person is pretty impenetrable. I'm querying a novel about Penda of Mercia right now, who is really only given a personality through his Christian enemies' writing about him. I chose to read through those materials with the awareness that what his enemies had to say about him, while not the Truth, could reveal something about his personality.

It's the same with my current WIP. There are several contradictory source materials about my two main characters, which at times variously make one or both of them saints or complete assholes, depending on whose interests are being served. Which I think is pretty fun. I like trying to figure out who these people were really. Even though I know that my portrayal is only going to be my imagination, not the Truth.