Historical Accuracy vs Versimilitude

lkp · Jan 29, 2009

This could have gone in the "rules" thread but it might get ranty, and I don't want to derail.

I've said several times on this forum that what the successful HF writer attempts to do is write a great story that is full of historical versimilitude, not necessarily historical accuracy. I've found a great example of this: Ildefonso F.alcones's C.athedral of the Sea, a rip-roaring adventure about social mobility and church architecture in 14th century Barcelona.

Its major plot points are founded on massive historical errors. I'm only going to mention two.
1. It begins with a droit de seigneur scene --- the lord rapes the peasant's new wife claiming legal right setting up the main conflict of the book.
2. The hero gets tangled up with the Inquisition for loving a Jewish woman.

There was no droit de seigneur. It's a myth about the Middle Ages, something "everyone knows" but it has no basis in fact. You know that author's note we talk about so often? This author uses his to say that droit de seigneur is found in a particular medieval law code called the Usatges of Barcelona. It's not. Boggles my mind. Is he consciously lying?

There was no inquisition in Spain at this time. It wouldn't come until some 100 years after the book ends. And no one cared if Christian men had sex with Jewish women; only if Christian women were having sex with Jewish or Muslim men. But it is another thing that "everyone knows" --- Spain had an inquisition and it was mean.

So what he has created is versimilitude. By playing off popular stereotypes mixed with genuine research (because it is in there too) he has created a world that feels real to most readers. And how can you expect most readers to know enough about 14th century Europe to spot errors? You can't. Here's a quotation from one review:

The details of the book are astounding. From the life of peasants and nobility, to warfare, to politics and the Church, the painstaking research that went into creating Cathedral of the Sea is obvious. The brutality of the times in the treatment of the poor, the bigotry against those of Jewish faith, the injustice of the Inquisition - all are shown in vivid and heart-wrenching detail.

Many reviewers did criticize this book, and their criticisms are instructive. Many felt that the hero's values were too modern, too preoccupied with ideas we care about like freedom. That's where Falcones broke the spell. Not one reviewer mentioned my criticisms.

I plan to go on creating historical versimilitude with real historical research. And I don't think I can stand to read any more of this book.

It has sold over 2,000,000 copies in at least three countries.

donroc · Jan 29, 2009

I have not read the book, and now I most likely will not. In my HF, I tried to be as correct as possible based upon my research with images of "experts" in the field looking over my shoulder. In the end, before publication, my publisher, who knows her avians, caught my mention of a bird that was not indigenous to the area. That is the sort of error I miss when I read HF by other authors. It is the blatant and deliberate ignoring of major facts that causes me not to finish a book.

Having researched the Spanish Inquisition in depth, I might have dented a wall if it was mentioned as exisiting before its time. 1391 was the year of the great massacres and forced conversion of Jews, and in many communities, all chose Catholicism over death.

Puma · Jan 29, 2009

Unfortunately, lkp, in my opinion, what you've brought up points out the haphazard and not very commendable state of the publishing industry. It goes right along with the "close enough" attitude of modern society that permits establishments to function on shaky underpinnings. All of which have lead to the economic, educational, and moral problems we're currently facing. There has to be a major turn towards honesty and hard work (including adequate research and checking facts) across the board to stop the tailspin. To me honesty and personal integrity are far more important than a buck. Puma

firedrake · Jan 29, 2009

If you're going to write a historical novel and try and sell it as such, then I think one should be as thorough as possible with the research and stay true to the time in which you are writing about. For me that's not only the big picture, e.g. the battles but also those little details, like donroc's bird, because to create an accurate portrait of the period, the devil is in the details, from the dialogue, to what the characters ate, how they travelled, the music, everything. It does my head in when I read a "historical" novel and see the characters behaving in 21st century ways, using 21st century slang, etc. There's enough information 'out there' which should allow a writer to create a believeable background without having recourse to stretching things.

Having said that, I am having some issues with my third book because there is so little information available to me on the treatment of German POWs in England during WW1 but, I've found enough material to, at least, try and stay true to what might have been the situation.

Right, that's me, time for another coffee.

Claudia Gray · Jan 29, 2009

I agree that those seem fairly egregious errors -- they might not bother me in something structured as a thriller (where the concept of "realistic" can be interpreted more broadly), but in a more serious book, that would annoy me.

However, this example aside, I can see that sometimes versimilitude may be preferable to fact. For instance, a common girl's name in the medieval era (particularly for girls born on Jan. 6) was -- Tiffany. (It died out after medieval times, then became the name of the jewelry store, and returned as a first name after the movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's" became popular.) But if you write a book set in medieval times and give your heroine the totally plausible name of Tiffany, you and your book are likely to be laughed at for your trouble.

I think it's all about finding balance. Leaving out something true but unbelievable to modern audiences isn't the same as dealing in myth, which it sounds like this first author is doing.

Zelenka · Jan 29, 2009

I've had similar experiences with books that I've had to put down because the historical inaccuracies have got in the way of my enjoyment of the plot. I can overlook small things, but not if it's something the whole plot hinges on (ie the story wouldn't have happened at all if the author stuck to the historical facts), or if the book is riddled with mistakes.

Saying that, my problem is actually the opposite. I find that when I'm writing I tend to let facts get in the way of actually getting on with the story. I get bogged down trying to make sure every little thing is correct and then tend to get a bit overwhelmed and disheartened about the story in general. I think I picked that up from working in London, when I was doing the tours. You would not believe the amount of bitching and spitefulness people can muster, despite us all supposedly sharing an interest in history. Get one fact wrong and that's it, it's just assumed that you know absolutely nothing, no matter how accurate you are 99% of the time.

Sorry, had a bit of a flashback there. Anyway, historical accuracy in a book I'm reading = good. Blatant errors that a basic google search could've shown up = book thrown across room.

Doogs · Jan 29, 2009

lkp said:
I've said several times on this forum that what the successful HF writer attempts to do is write a great story that is full of historical versimilitude, not necessarily historical accuracy.

Agreed, but with a few comments.

First, I would argue there is a difference between verisimilitude and blatant historical inaccuracy. At least as I understand it, verisimilitude is something that appears to be or is in all probability true or real.

Second, I would argue there are degrees of verisimilitude, dependent on the reader's knowledge of the period. Misplacing the Spanish Inquisition is what I would call "Lowest Common Denominator Verisimilitude". Just like the whole "let's restore the Republic!" nonsense at the end of "Gladiator". It's the stuff that readers with little/no knowledge in the period would buy.

angeliz2k · Jan 29, 2009

It's a perpetual question, I think.

With big things, sometimes artistic license is not only okay but GREAT. This requires research and an author's note to explain what was changed. It's a case of "you have to know the rules [history] to break the rules[chagne history]".

Sometimes, truth is stranger than fiction and if you write it, people might not believe it. For instance, I've written some things which people have pointed out seemed wrong for the period--except that the person themselves said the thing happened. The Tiffany thing is an example, too.

And when it comes to small things--those are human errors. Unfortunately, when you're wiritng novels of any genre, there is going to be a flaw or two. As a reader, I don't even notice these, no less let them bother me.

lkp · Jan 29, 2009

Doogs, I'd say this error is more than just chronology --- it's akin to talking about Scipio Africanus being the emperor of Rome.

Puma, I agree with you on all counts. I'm not going to change my way of researching and writing.

I do want to try to learn from the good or at least popular things about this book --- what made it so resonant for so many people and why.

Based on what I know of the period (and my field is medieval Spain), I am frustrated because I feel he could have written a tale that was just as action-adventure, just as fast-paced and page-turny and based it on plausible situations.

But what I'm afraid of is, maybe I'm wrong. Jumping off of what JessRamage said, maybe those of us who are trying to be accurate are killing something in our writing. Is it possible to write something that is both true and saleable --- not necessarily 2,000,000 copies, but a good book contract from a big publishing house and respectable sales --- in this market?

I keep repeating to myself "Dorothy Dunnett, Dorothy Dunnett" under my breath.

Inarticulate Babbler · Jan 29, 2009

Historical Fiction (loosely) = Fiction (not true) set in history, historical situations, or with historical figures.

Does it have to be exact?

No.

It's fiction.

It has to be believable.

As long as you know the facts (which you would use the "historical note" to straighten out) you can twist them to your events/plot.

GirlWithPoisonPen · Jan 29, 2009

lkp said:
But what I'm afraid of is, maybe I'm wrong. Jumping off of what JessRamage said, maybe those of us who are trying to be accurate are killing something in our writing. Is it possible to write something that is both true and saleable --- not necessarily 2,000,000 copies, but a good book contract from a big publishing house and respectable sales --- in this market?

I keep repeating to myself "Dorothy Dunnett, Dorothy Dunnett" under my breath.

Keep chanting "Dorothy Dunnet, Dorothy Dunnett." She got it right and wrote amazing novels.

A good story sells. Period.

There's no reason that it can't be accurate to the best of our ability. We shouldn't ignore the facts as we know them.

Puma · Jan 29, 2009

Dredging up one of my all time favorites, Captain from Castille written by Samuel Shellabarger. Subject:Conquest of Mexico. Pre-subject:the Inquisition in early 1500's. Is it accurate? As far as I've ever been able to tell, Shellabarger did an excellent job both on the accuracy of recounting the conquest and on the Inquisition. I'm a history major and just five hours shy of a second major in Spanish - so I ran into both of these subjects a lot. Shellabarger used the Bernal Diaz del Castillo account of the conquest - no better source at that time (1940's). I'm not sure what his source was on the Inquisition. The story is easy to read, quick, and convincing. No versimilitudes. Just an expertly put together fictional hero story against the backdrop of these two major items. That, to me, is what historical fiction should be. Puma

Doogs · Jan 29, 2009

GirlWithPoisonPen said:
There's no reason that it can't be accurate to the best of our ability. We shouldn't ignore the facts as we know them.

THIS.

firedrake · Jan 29, 2009

Puma said:
Dredging up one of my all time favorites, Captain from Castille written by Samuel Shellabarger. Subject:Conquest of Mexico. Pre-subject:the Inquisition in early 1500's. Is it accurate? As far as I've ever been able to tell, Shellabarger did an excellent job both on the accuracy of recounting the conquest and on the Inquisition. I'm a history major and just five hours shy of a second major in Spanish - so I ran into both of these subjects a lot. Shellabarger used the Bernal Diaz del Castillo account of the conquest - no better source at that time (1940's). I'm not sure what his source was on the Inquisition. The story is easy to read, quick, and convincing. No versimilitudes. Just an expertly put together fictional hero story against the backdrop of these two major items. That, to me, is what historical fiction should be. Puma

Thomas Costain was another great one for well written Historical Fiction for the same reasons.

lkp · Jan 29, 2009

GirlWithPoisonPen said:
There's no reason that it can't be accurate to the best of our ability. We shouldn't ignore the facts as we know them.

I think that's what makes me the ANGRIEST about that stupid book: that he made a point of writing in his historical note at the end of the book that droit de seigneur (and some other non-existent law about lords being able to force any of their female serfs to be wetnurses for their children) was in the Usatges of Barcelona. He must have *known* that was untrue and known he would get in trouble for it now that Alain Boureau has written a big book debunking it, so he made that up about the Usatges so he wouldn't be challenged. You can check for yourselves --- the Usatges are online and translated into English.

ETA: I love Costain. Though I'm not sure he's too accurate either. Costain fans might like this book. That's definitely the audience Falcones is seeking --- people who like action adventure with lots of brave men and battles. And he did do some good research too. It's just...argh

Doogs · Jan 29, 2009

Inarticulate Babbler said:
It has to be believable.

This is the point I was trying to make earlier about verisimilitude being relative. To the person who knows jack-all about the time and period, they aren't going to notice the Spanish Inquisition taking place at the wrong time (then again, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...), so, to that person, it would be believable.

The higher, and far more challenging, goal is to make it believable to someone who does know the period. That's the degree of verisimilitude I'm going after.

As long as you know the facts (which you would use the "historical note" to straighten out) you can twist them to your events/plot.

Ehh, perhaps, but I'd caution that you have to be very careful with this. Minor facts or disputed facts have a degree of malleability to them, but the big, established facts (the Battle of Hastings took place in 1066, JFK was shot in Dallas, etc)...unless you have a VERY good reason, I would advise against messing with those.

Inarticulate Babbler · Jan 29, 2009

Established facts is too a loose term. I'd concur with well-known facts (ie. JFK, The Battle of Hastings, The Siege of Boston, The Battle of Thermopylae etc.) but whether or not you have the HMS Glasgow pick up a passenger within days of an attack (though it had been out to sea), is an acceptable tweak...if you mention in the "historical note" that the Glasgow's stop is fictious and for plot-furthering purposes. However, since the Dread Pirate Roberts was known for being a teatotaler, having mass aboard his ship and abstaining from drink—it might be hard to swallow if you had a crew member get him drunk. But, if you had him fistfight with Blackbeard, it could be acceptable—if treated right, and explained why the change was there.

pdr · Jan 29, 2009

Yes, well...

was offered and refused to review it! Preferred reading 'Rocamora' instead!

lkp · Jan 30, 2009

Doogs said:
This is the point I was trying to make earlier about verisimilitude being relative. To the person who knows jack-all about the time and period, they aren't going to notice the Spanish Inquisition taking place at the wrong time (then again, nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition...), so, to that person, it would be believable.

The higher, and far more challenging, goal is to make it believable to someone who does know the period. That's the degree of verisimilitude I'm going after.

Well said.

It is interesting to see where he did go for a degree of versimilitude *beyond* the average audience. He's not a writer and obviously thought his novel would be of limited interested in Spain in general and Barcelona in particular. So he was meticulous in referring to medieval Barcelona streets that still exist. Fun for me since I just spent three weeks there and could visualize every step like his original target audience. But I'm sure it made some readers' eyes glaze over.

There are probably ten people in the world who could appreciate the versimilitude I'm aiming for in a very specific way and maybe 1000 who'd get it in a general way. But I've got big goals. I want to change the stereotypes people have about the Middle Ages and introduce them to the realer (and more interesting) version without hitting them on the head with it --- just by giving them a fun, engaging novel that happens to be accurate.

donroc · Jan 30, 2009

pdr said:
was offered and refused to review it! Preferred reading 'Rocamora' instead!

Thank you pdr. I hope all here take the Rocamora "challenge" for verisimilitude and accuracy.

funidream · Jan 30, 2009

Also well said.

lkp said:
I want to change the stereotypes people have about the Middle Ages and introduce them to the realer (and more interesting) version without hitting them on the head with it --- just by giving them a fun, engaging novel that happens to be accurate.

Exactly describes the kind of books I like to read, and the stories I try to write.

DMarie84 · Jan 30, 2009

A few minor inaccuracies are ok, but if there are too many, I get really annoyed and won't finish the book.

That's why my novel will probably take a long time to finish with the research I need. I don't want to be a historical fiction writer that ignores major details of the time.

PastMidnight · Jan 30, 2009

I wonder if, as people who write as well as read historical fiction, we have higher standards with regards to accuracy. And not only when reading novels set in "our" time period. I find myself reading most historical novels, even set in periods I don't know much about, with a certain amount of skepticism and, based on discussions here, I know I'm not the only one. My non-writing friends who read historical fiction all probably fall on the side of "Don't let history get in the way of a good story". But we here seem to lean more "Story is vital, but don't screw with the history." Is it because, in writing historical fiction, we are all historians and researchers? Because, based on the popularity of historical novels such as the one Lucy mentioned, the general reading public obviously doesn't mind as much as we historical novelists do.

Puma · Jan 30, 2009

Maybe yes, maybe no, Past Midnight. And there's another part of the coin - I stopped reading historical fiction (and most fiction) sometime in my 20's. From that point forward it's been mostly non-fiction with an occasional lapse for very well done contemporary fiction (Arthur Haley - Airport, Hotel, etc.; Crichton - Jurassic Park, Congo - sort of suspense/thrillers but also with a lot of detail and need for accuracy). Our daughter gave me a collection of famous animal stories for Christmas and I just can't stomach the flowery descriptions (plus seeing every unnecessary that, etc.) When I was a teen I devoured historical fiction, but most of it doesn't interest me anymore. And I know I'm not alone in the shift from fiction to non-fiction and the abandonment of historical fiction. So for me, the influence of non-fiction would certainly come into play on my writing style for historical fiction. Puma

Zelenka · Jan 30, 2009

PastMidnight - that's an interesting idea and one I'd not thought of. I kind of agree, as I know I've read some books with quite annoying mistakes in and one thing that's irked me is that I'm sitting there steeped in research to make sure I stay as faithful to fact as is possible, when there are published books that don't seem to have bothered. So maybe doing the research myself does make me more of a stickler for it when I read. I only really read historical fiction set in my favourite era nowadays. My decision to write in that period was based more on my love for fiction of the time, rather than modern stories set then, but I have found a lot that I enjoy and thankfully they've been (mostly) very well researched.

I've been thinking about this question quite a bit since this topic showed up, actually, and it occurred to me that sticking to the facts is actually really important to what I want to achieve in my book too. I could basically do whatever I liked, since technically my story is set in an alternate universe (mine is historical fantasy, along similar lines to Jonathan Strange and Mr Norrell in terms of subject), so I could make it up as I go along, but what I really want to achieve is a feeling that the story could feasibly have happened in this world too, if that makes sense. I want to make the fantasical elements of the story believable because they fit in with the established history and fact, rather than changing it.

At least, that's what I'm trying to do.

Historical Accuracy vs Versimilitude

Historicals and Horror rule

Retired and loving it!

practical experience, FTW

Going home!

never mind the shorty

Pissin' Everyone off, 1 at a time

Mata Hari

Retired and loving it!

practical experience, FTW

Pissin' Everyone off, 1 at a time

Historicals and Horror rule

I wish I had a time machine

Oponionated

Retired and loving it!

Going home!