Finding the Story in the History

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

History has so many threads and influences, so many perspectives. How do you find the characters you want to use for your story? How do you settle on the key perspectives? How do you confirm that they're the among the best to use?

When I do it with contemporary or speculative fiction I pick the main characters for surprise value, reader sympathy and internal contradictions. It seems to me though that historically, no one character can see everything interesting. So do you decide what's interesting then pick the characters to witness it? Do you pick the characters and then try and stuff in as many interesting things as you can? Or something else?

mayamolly · Oct 5, 2009

I love your description of picking main characters for "surprise value, reader sympathy, and internal contradictions." I think this is a great formula for historical fiction as well. In fact, I think internal contradictions and surprise are especially important in historical fiction-- who wants to read about history that fails to surprise us? So long as a story has a historical basis, I love reading about the person I didn't think existed, such as a black slaveowner fighting for the Confederacy during the Civil War. If these characters existed, it would be fascinating to explore their internal contradictions and through the lens of such a conflicted character get a more complex view of the Civil War.

In my WIP, I researched events for a long time before my MC emerged. When she did, I think she fits the bill of "surprise value, reader sympathy, and internal contradictions." At first, though, I had to learn about the history and discover the interesting contradictions and vantage points available.

Ultimately, though, I think what is interesting will be my MC and the challenges she faces. She might witness a zillion interesting things and still be a boring character with a boring story. Learn about what is interesting, and pick a character who interacts with these events in interesting ways... but from then on, follow your character's story and make THAT as interesting as possible; don't try to stuff in interesting things.

(I think I just broke a new record for use of "interesting" in a paragraph!)

Doogs · Oct 5, 2009

I guess I go backwards. I'm usually drawn to a single personality, a desire to get inside their head and see what makes them tick. As far back as I can remember, my interest in various periods of history has always sprung from a fascination with a certain individual. I tend to approach novel topics the same way. I start with an interesting individual and go from there.

It seems to me though that historically, no one character can see everything interesting. So do you decide what's interesting then pick the characters to witness it? Do you pick the characters and then try and stuff in as many interesting things as you can? Or something else?

Personally, I start with a character and build out a map of sorts of where they go/what they witness. You're right that no one character can witness everything, but I think there's actually a lot of value in that. In this day of instant communication it's so easy to forget that, until recently, information traveled at the speed of horse, or boat. And even then it was often unreliable, or incomplete. I really like the idea of a character having to contend with an incomplete picture of things. In my opinion that kind of uncertainty can help pull a reader into the "present" of the history.

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

Doogs said:
You're right that no one character can witness everything

Unless you're Harry Flashman maybe. If there was a single major event in the history of the Victorian Empire that he didn't see from under a bed or behind a curtain, or while galloping madly away, I don't recall it.

Shakesbear · Oct 5, 2009

George MacDonald Fraser, the creator of the Flashman books was one of two or three writers who inspired me. As I read his works history became a living entity for me and he also gave me an insight into how real events in the past can be utilized in novels.

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

mayamolly said:
I love your description of picking main characters for "surprise value, reader sympathy, and internal contradictions." I think this is a great formula for historical fiction as well.

Yes -- the sympathy is important because we're taking the reader to a potentially unfamiliar setting. Surprise is essential or we've failed to render the setting interestingly. But internal contradictions are what make any fiction memorable I think. Graves' Claudius is memorable because his mind and his body are completely at odds. Forester's Hornblower is memorable because his honour and guilt are in constant war. With Fraser's Flashman, it's his cowardice against his opportunism.

In my WIP, I researched events for a long time before my MC emerged. When she did, I think she fits the bill of "surprise value, reader sympathy, and internal contradictions." At first, though, I had to learn about the history and discover the interesting contradictions and vantage points available.

Yes; there's that extra layer of difficulty because the milieu isn't intimate. So... how do you make it intimate? How do you shed your preconceptions? How do you build new values and beliefs and social fabric from which to draw the thread of character?

In the past I've started with blank human clay, and bounced it through key life experiences several times until I have a shape I believe. Then I'll exaggerate any tensions or contradictions and introduce some surprises until I have a viable character.

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

Doogs said:
I guess I go backwards. I'm usually drawn to a single personality, a desire to get inside their head and see what makes them tick.

I can believe that Graves did this with Claudius -- one of the most fascinating characters I've found in historical fiction. But the Claudius of history isn't a character -- he's a narrative. How might Graves have built the character? How do you?

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

Shakesbear said:
George MacDonald Fraser, the creator of the Flashman books was one of two or three writers who inspired me.

Me too, along with Graves, Forester and Henry Treece, and much later, Georgette Heyer.

Added: On reflection, I think Heyer might've been earlier and Fraser later. Something like: Treece, Graves, Heyer, Fraser and Forester.

Shakesbear · Oct 5, 2009

Georgette Heyer! Have you read any of the biographies about her? The research she did was awesome!

I've been thinking about how I build a character, which is not something I have given much thought to before. My characters are built by the circumstances that I put them in. I have to make decisions about basics - good/evil/nasty, innocent/experiences, but it is the circumstances that form them. At least I think it is.

lkp · Oct 5, 2009

I choose a character, real or imagined, about whom I can construct a compelling story arc and a character arc. It's not enough to have someone who participates in a whole bunch of exciting events; there has to be a story there that begins at the beginning of your novel and ends at the end.

This is a great question btw. I'm enjoying everyones responses.

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

Shakesbear said:
Georgette Heyer! Have you read any of the biographies about her? The research she did was awesome!

My first encounter with Heyer wasn't with her thrillers or her regency romances (which subgenre she virtually invented), but with her historical fiction in the form of the posthumously published My Lord John. Her research was meticulous and she had the uncanny knack of picking an off-centre viewpoint that yielded far more insight than the characters in the centre of the action might have done.

Doogs · Oct 5, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
I can believe that Graves did this with Claudius -- one of the most fascinating characters I've found in historical fiction. But the Claudius of history isn't a character -- he's a narrative. How might Graves have built the character? How do you?

This is a really great question - and thank you for the topic as a whole. I tend to think it's a process we all go through without really articulating, and it's a fantastic exercise, especially as I'm in the middle of developing some major characters (and refining others) for the next WIP.

First, I think there's a distinction to be made between a fictional character and a historical figure. There are certainly similarities, and both have to draw on the culture around them, but with actual historical figures, the weight of recorded history presents certain...limitations.

With a wholly fictional character, your notion of "blank human clay" holds as well for historical as it does for any other genre. As long as the character emerges as believable within their time and place.

Historical figures, on the other hand, require more reverse engineering. We're blessed and cursed with a certain set of signposts. Descriptions of their demeanor, of their role in events, of how they governed, who they betrayed, who their friends and enemies were, etc.

With my once and current main character, Scipio Africanus, I went back through his exploits, through his "character profile" as articulated by Polybius, and pretty much whatever else I could get my hands on, and worked backward from the event to the thought process to the personality underneath. And as events pile up, threads emerge, things start to click, and gradually a full picture takes form.

Ruv Draba · Oct 5, 2009

Doogs said:
I think there's a distinction to be made between a fictional character and a historical figure. There are certainly similarities, and both have to draw on the culture around them, but with actual historical figures, the weight of recorded history presents certain...limitations.

Yes -- it's a springboard, but it's also constraining. Readers who care about the history will want to see it come to life -- not be replaced.

But on the other hand...

There's a fun, four-part ITV series called Lost in Austen in which a modern English girl goes back to live inside the story of Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice, adopting the role of the character Elizabeth Bennet -- only to discover that while the events are identical, the characters are nothing like the way Austen portrayed them. The surprises make it witty and funny, but I also take it as a salutory lesson that historical fiction need not adhere to the opinions of chroniclers of the day, as long as we can explain why they had those opinions.

With a wholly fictional character, your notion of "blank human clay" holds as well for historical as it does for any other genre. As long as the character emerges as believable within their time and place.

With non-historical fiction I can often build characters from the inside-out, but with invented historical characters I've only ever been able to develop them from the outside-in -- throw them in a tumbler with rocks and stones of the era, rattle them around for a few hours, bring them out and see what it's produced... then try to fit a character to it.

[My current challenge is somewhat more complicated because I want to write about civil war in a fictional setting but with historical sensitivities -- which means that both my setting and my characters are currently flapping loose.]

With my once and current main character, Scipio Africanus, I went back through his exploits, through his "character profile" as articulated by Polybius, and pretty much whatever else I could get my hands on, and worked backward from the event to the thought process to the personality underneath. And as events pile up, threads emerge, things start to click, and gradually a full picture takes form.

Do you find that you can produce different interpretations of the character? What leads you to pick one and not another?

Puma · Oct 5, 2009

Chiming in here - I've written about real historical characters and totally fictitious characters in history. With the real historical characters, there are limits to what's known, which provides some space for creative interpretation and allows bending the character to fit situations he or she wasn't particularly known for. The human side is frequently missing from documented sources. That provides a lot of opportunity.

My fictitious main characters in historical settings pretty much happen without a lot of thinking about how I want them to come across. There's always an initial scene,and in the course of writing that scene the main character takes on certain attributes that become his character. But, I always keep in mind the bottom line that readers have to like or greatly dislike main characters and have to develop sympathy or empathy and/or a desire to see the characters through (or done in by) the situations that are presented.

I guess I don't really give a lot of thought to the development of my characters - they happen - the trick is always to balance out the characteristics and sympathies for multiple main and/or supporting characters. Puma

Doogs · Oct 5, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
I also take it as a salutory lesson that historical fiction need not adhere to the opinions of chroniclers of the day, as long as we can explain why they had those opinions.

Dealing with Ancient Rome, I'm actually predisposed to be suspicious of the chroniclers' opinions. But you're absolutely correct that we can draw insight from understanding their biases and agendas (or more often, those of their patrons).

With non-historical fiction I can often build characters from the inside-out, but with invented historical characters I've only ever been able to develop them from the outside-in -- throw them in a tumbler with rocks and stones of the era, rattle them around for a few hours, bring them out and see what it's produced... then try to fit a character to it.

I'm not entirely sure the approaches are so different. With historicals we have to separate ourselves from modern culture and values that could otherwise be assumed when developing a character. To develop a historical character from within, we also have to build the world around them.

Do you find that you can produce different interpretations of the character? What leads you to pick one and not another?

It depends on the character. Some of them just fall together perfectly. Others can definitely go different directions, usually by landing on a different set of motivations (see the myriad interpretations of Caesar in historical fiction). In those cases I usually go with the one that serves my story the best.

Doogs · Oct 5, 2009

lkp said:
It's not enough to have someone who participates in a whole bunch of exciting events; there has to be a story there that begins at the beginning of your novel and ends at the end.

Also, THIS. I've started researching and subsequently abandoned several possible story ideas because I couldn't figure out how to tie the exciting events into a cohesive story. At least, not a story that would fit within a publishable length...

angeliz2k · Oct 6, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
Yes -- it's a springboard, but it's also constraining. Readers who care about the history will want to see it come to life -- not be replaced.

It can be constraining--if you let it be. I tihnk this comes down to choosing the right character and putting him/her in the right place at the right time. They don't necessarily have to witness or be part of the biggest of the big events. You want someone who can give you access to the events that NEED to be in your story, while you as a writer can still find life in them. Like in all fiction, it's up to the author to make the characters come alive, whether its Joe Random or Julius Caesar.

Do you find that you can produce different interpretations of the character? What leads you to pick one and not another?

Absolutey. If the character is totally fictional, obviously you have free rein. If it's a historical person, then all you have is a record of what they did, or (possibly) their own explanation of why they did what they did. But remember people aren't often honest with themselves about their motives, and rarely are they honest with the rest of the world. Even with a ton of histroical material, you can (and must) reconstruct that person as a CHARACTER. Motives, thoughts, emotions . . . that's why hstorical fiction can be more entertaining than nonfic.

lkp · Oct 6, 2009

I find I have close to equal amounts of free rein for both fictional and historical characters. Even my totally fictional characters are constrained by the values, economies, and events of the times in which they lived, as well as by their interaction with the historical characters. And, like Puma says, with historical characters, there are so many gaps especially with what we would call their personalities, that there is a lot of leeway to make even a well-known figure jealous, vain, ambitious, etc. as our story and our understanding of that character demands.

IndieWriter · Oct 6, 2009

Wow. Great topic. And very timely for me, as I'm currently plotting out my historical novel and am facing that very dilemma.

I already know exactly which historical events I'd like to base my story around, so what I've done is try to determine what sort of a character would have the most interesting perspective on those events.

I'm also very much in agreement with the original poster about choosing a character for their internal contradictions, so I'm shaping a character that will be conflicted about his involvement in these events, will struggle mightily through them, and ultimately will grow to understand himself through his experience.

pdr · Oct 6, 2009

I think you...

might have it backwards, Ruv Draba.

So do you decide what's interesting then pick the characters to witness it? Do you pick the characters and then try and stuff in as many interesting things as you can? Or something else?

A story comes together out of a whole lot of little things which have caught your attention at some time and then have been turned over and mulled over in your writer's creative mind. Then there's an 'Ah ha! Eureka!' moment when things slide together and you find yourself researching and seeing if there is a novel there. If you just mechanically chose a period of history and then pick a minor or major historical figure you can run the risk of writing a history text and not fiction.

Allow for the creative action of your writer's soul to put together the items/ideas which interest you.

Ruv Draba · Oct 7, 2009

pdr said:
A story comes together out of a whole lot of little things which have caught ~~your~~ my attention at some time and then have been turned over and mulled over in ~~your~~ my writer's creative mind. Then there's an 'Ah ha! Eureka!' moment when things slide together and ~~you~~ I find ~~yourself~~ myself researching and seeing if there is a story there. If ~~you~~ I just mechanically chose a period of history and then pick a minor or major historical figure ~~you~~ I can run the risk of writing a history text and not fiction.

PDR, thank me you for my your contribution.

Steam&Ink · Oct 7, 2009

It's so interesting to read everyone's experiences on this

I found myself nodding and murmuring "absolutely" several times already... just as well I don't share an office

ishtar'sgate · Oct 7, 2009

Ruv Draba said:
historical fiction need not adhere to the opinions of chroniclers of the day, as long as we can explain why they had those opinions.
Do you find that you can produce different interpretations of the character? What leads you to pick one and not another?

The chroniclers of the day frequently disagree with one another which leaves a lot of latitude for the writer to create their own version of a character or set of circumstances. In my current WIP (set in ancient Babylon just before the Persian invasion) I can either make King Nabonidus a rather ignorant religious zealot or a man with a severe personality disorder. I chose the latter because it opened up far more interesting possibilities.

pdr · Oct 7, 2009

Nope!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pdr

A story comes together out of a whole lot of little things which have caught your my attention at some time and then have been turned over and mulled over in your my writer's creative mind. Then there's an 'Ah ha! Eureka!' moment when things slide together and you I find yourself myself researching and seeing if there is a story there. If you I just mechanically chose a period of history and then pick a minor or major historical figure you I can run the risk of writing a history text and not fiction.

PDR, thank me you for my your contribution.

You missed the point entirely.

PastMidnight · Oct 8, 2009

Great topic! This is something I'm currently worrying about as I plan another novel. I have the characters, I have the plot, but I don't yet have a Big Historical Event. I don't even have a backdrop of events against which to set my story. And I'm having trouble finding events for the years in question.

I suppose this is more a question of Finding the History in the Story.

lkp said:
It's not enough to have someone who participates in a whole bunch of exciting events; there has to be a story there that begins at the beginning of your novel and ends at the end.

This makes me wonder if I'm worrying too much. If the historical details are all there, do you really need an Event or a Backdrop Event to pin your novel firmly in history?

Finding the Story in the History

Ruv Draba

mayamolly

I haz a pomegranate

Doogs

Ruv Draba

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw

Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Ruv Draba

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw

lkp

Ruv Draba

Doogs

Ruv Draba

Puma

Retired and loving it!

Doogs

Doogs

angeliz2k

never mind the shorty

lkp

IndieWriter

Procrastinating Writer

pdr

Ruv Draba

Steam&Ink

sekrit superhero

ishtar'sgate

living in the past

pdr

PastMidnight

Oponionated