Lies and Historical Fiction

Will read the Gruaniad bit later.

Have you tried these?

Times Literary Supplement - site is under construction- http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/the_tls/

Literary Review http://www.literaryreview.co.uk/

London Review of Books http://www.lrb.co.uk/

Historical Novels Review http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org/the-review.htm

London Magazine http://www.thelondonmagazine.net/default.aspx the link page may be of use as it has a list of other lit sites.

I think that is an excellent article. I think the writer also made an in interesting point about historicals and those who write them, if only subtly. I've been thinking for a while after reading so many SYW posts and reading responses to crits that there are at least two different types of historical writers. Those who write like historians and those who write like story tellers. I think the later type of writing is more compelling, although they may contain inacuracies - they are not bogged down by facts. I personally would prefer to read a good story driven by plot and charachters that give the impression of accuracy then a textbook account of the same subject.

from the article said:

One cannot have medieval characters using correct period language because no one would find the speech readable. Similarly, an accurate portrayal of a world in which most dutiful and conscientious fathers will regularly beat their sons is likely to alienate readers. If one was to write a novel about the real woman baptised in Dartmouth in 1737 as Constant Sex, it would have all sorts of double entendres and more basic entendres than she herself would have understood (the word "sex" having little or no connection with the sexual act in 1737). In describing the interactions of real individuals, one has to invent reactions or the character is just two-dimensional, and never develops. In creating good historical fiction, it is essential to tell lies.

Click to expand...

I think it's rather harsh of him to describe these as lies. Artistic license is the proper term. A lie is a delibrate inaccuracy presented as fact, like "your hair's fine" on the mild side or "my opponent skeet-shoots puppies for fun" on the malicious side.

"Going back a few years, James Clavell's Shogun brilliantly lied about the closeness of the English pilot Blackthorne to the future Shogun, Toranaga, to illustrate the drama of political events in Japan around 1600. In reality, the real English pilot William Adams was never as close to the real Shogun (Tokugawa Ieyasu). As with Wolf Hall, the lies added to the story, they did not detract from it."

I have to disagree, not with the very example, but with making it sound like "Shogun" is such a good story that its lies/inaccuracies wouldn't bother the readers. They do. I only read the book last year and it took me forever - the sheer improbability of the characters' motivations and behavior, and the totally false rendering of the period and place made it impossible for me to continue at times. (I started reading the book fully prepared to encounter mistakes, and intending to forgive them.)

The example given cannot even be considered a lie, it's just creating an opportunity for the story to happen. I'm totally OK with this sort of thing. It's entirely dismissible. But it looks like the author of the article has only a very basic knowledge of the place/period, enough to know that the closeness between the two was undocumented, but not enough to evaluate anything else. If the situation of a woman addressing her liege lord by "sweetie" instead of scarcely daring to speak in his presence does not detract him from the story, then I assume nothing will.

He says: "Some lies go too far and alienate the reader. Some are too obvious. But some lying is necessary, and to get away with it, one has to be both subtle and convincing." Not really, to me it looks like one has only to know which kinds of lies are safe enough to be swallowed by the audience.

I'm sorry...

to disagree, cooee but it isn't as clear cut as that.
Those who write like historians and those who write like story tellers.

Don't most people who write historical fiction choose to do so because they are intrigued by a character, a way of life, a snatch of story and want to turn it into a novel?

Of course it must be written as a good story, but if it is historical fiction then there are certain facts and social mores which apply to the period and should be part of the characters' lives, and therefore part of the story.

I agree with AZ Dawn about the use of the word 'lies' in the article. Fiction is creation which is not really the same as lying.

Surely we write historical fiction because we happen to think that the story and the era we write about have something to say to our modern readers?

If you write about 'real and known' historical figures you have a set of facts to work with. If you wish to alter them for your particular take on the story you must have a darned good excuse and tell the readers.

If you work with your own created characters then you are only constrained by the historical facts of the era.
BUT
you have to have a story worth telling and tell it in its correct historical trappings.

Ah, the point I was trying to make is that some stories come across as text book versions of history, an event, or a known charachter. Every truth is put it in it and sometimes I feel the writer's imagination isn't used as well as it could be. That some stories comes across bland, flat, because the story teller within the historical writer isn't really emerging. I'm not suggesting that you alter the historical facts as such, but that I feel you can give an impression of the facts, the time period, a charachter of the time, without stating all the facts. I feel that some historicals are bogged down in facts about the time period, customs, charachters, and/or events, that don't really add to the story.

The author of the Gardian article brought up I think it was called Pillars of the Earth - Ken Folly or Folart or... whoever...I read that years ago, enjoyed the majority of it, thought he was a brilliant story teller, and that he managed to created very vivid images in a readers mind, but I skipped some large sections that went on and on about building - after a period I felt like I had witnessed every single nail being hammered into a building, a church I think.

Wether that story was historically acurate I have no idea, nor did I personally care - that said I think it begins with Tom or could it possibly be Bob the builder LOL - so he may have lied about real names back then) but I felt that it was bogged down in sections with too much detail about something he obviously new a lot about, (well I became convinced he knew alot about building) but it was nothing of importance to me as a reader to gain an understanding of the story and I sometimes wondered if even a carpenter would have enjoyed those sections.

I'm fine with the term "lies" here in that, at times, the anachronisms and liberties are deliberate (and hopefully marked as such in an author's note). If an anachronism is to be used, I'd rather it be deliberate and in the author's control than be an error due to faulty or indifferent research. There are certainly times where I'm willing to overlook what I know to be a lie in a story as long as I can see the author is deftly wielding it to further the storytelling.

PastMidnight said:

I'm fine with the term "lies" here in that, at times, the anachronisms and liberties are deliberate (and hopefully marked as such in an author's note).

Click to expand...

Nope, still too harsh. Writing a novel with FDR as a time-travelling alien who cross-dressed in his spare time is artistic license.* Writing a nonfiction book claiming that FDR was a time-travelling alien who cross-dressed in his spare time is a lie.

*Tacky example is tacky.

Mistakes are evil, lies are fabulous. Give me I, Claudius over smug-and-accurate any day. If you want history, buy a text book.

Just joking. Well, almost.

I think writers have a responsibility to be as accurate as they can, so long as facts never get in the way of a damn good story. Period detail and period values are vital (never ever stick the Mycenaeans in Classical Athens and call it 'Bronze Age'); but when it comes to genealogy, events, personality - though the writer should know their facts down to the last jot and tittle, for exploitation purposes and for defending themselves - there's always footnotes for readers.

Fiction is fiction. Its primary purpose is to bring joy and sorrow and to engage the soul. There's a wealth of scholarship on practically every subject under the sun if you're truly interested. It's lazy and naive to expect fiction to educate you. The minute a writer puts words into a dead person's mouth, that writer becomes a moustache-twirling puppeteer telling big, fat lies for devious purposes. Yay! Even Thucydides had to spice it up, and he was meant to be a historian. Tut tut.

A fiction writer gets a reader interested in a subject, and he does that by sprinkling magical fairy dust (the legal kind) denied to non-fiction historians, and lo, he creates a thing with theme and imagination, through creative artistry. Then the reader turns to non-fiction to find out more, and he discovers something less gorgeous but equally rewarding.

BTW, did anyone catch that Braveheart? Shocking.

AZ_Dawn said:

Nope, still too harsh. Writing a novel with FDR as a time-travelling alien who cross-dressed in his spare time is artistic license.* Writing a nonfiction book claiming that FDR was a time-travelling alien who cross-dressed in his spare time is a lie.

*Tacky example is tacky.

Click to expand...

Delightfully tacky, though!

While I do understand what you're saying, we have to keep in mind that not all readers of historical fiction are historians. Although I think most of us here know to read a historical novel with that in mind, there remains a large part of the reading audience who place too much trust in us novelists. My grandma, bless her, would read historical novels and watch historical films as though they were nonfiction or documentaries. You and I may know that FDR didn't keep a sassy pair of heels beneath the desk in the Oval Office, but there may be a reader out there impressed with this new bit of research.

But I do like the term "lies" keeping us accountable. There's something about "artistic license" that invites a certain amount of unchecked freedom...

PastMidnight said:

While I do understand what you're saying, we have to keep in mind that not all readers of historical fiction are historians. Although I think most of us here know to read a historical novel with that in mind, there remains a large part of the reading audience who place too much trust in us novelists.

Click to expand...

Good point, though I hope they'd still be the minority of readers. I'm not writing strict historical fiction so much as historically-based fiction, but I'd certainly hope most of my readers would recognize it's too cheesy and over the top to be a historical account.

But I do like the term "lies" keeping us accountable. There's something about "artistic license" that invites a certain amount of unchecked freedom...

Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. To me, though, a lie in fiction implies an agenda. Something like a post-WWII novel where the protagonist is on the run from the Kosher Nostra because his research showed that the Holocaust was faked. Or NASA's crack assassin team is after him because he found out the moon landings were faked.

It's all in the intent

If it's not true, it's a lie. Period.

Is there a difference in intent when writers tell lies and liars tell lies?

Yes.

Liars are out to deceive you; fiction writers tell you straight out it's a lie and want to make it believable.

Now, lying doesn't always mean bearing false witness, but bearing false witness is always lying.

I feel that there lies the difference: saying "I made this up, it isn't true, but sit back and enjoy it." or live," is lying with no ill intent; and saying, "Now this is how it really happened..." is lying with the intent of deceiving. I had this issue when I started writing, because I'm one of the few people I know that still believe in the Good Book, and I struggled with the issue of lying. But, the bible doesn't say "lie" (in the original translations), it says "bear false witness," and I believe it is deliberate. I also believe that this is the exact type of situation it relates to.

I can see using "creative license" in certain projects but I'm currently flipping out over "The Memoirs of Mary Queen of Scots". Whoooo boy, that one takes everything to a "is this for real, it's got to be a joke!" level.

Phillipa Gregory doesn't seem to have a problem with lies, stretching the truth, adding some sugar or whatever you wish to call it. If I can be half as famous as her, that ain't half bad in my book.

I do know some authors change things up a bit, stretch the truth, lie, however you wish to say it. Do they do it to add some flavor to their work? Yep. Do most people know the difference? Doubtful.

The other day I was reading a summary where Joan of Arc's father was abusive and her sister was killed by the English. Um, OK. I remember her sister dying, but not by English hands. I do remember her father told her she better not become a whore(joining the army) or he'd kill her. That doesn't seem abusive to me. So, the author is taking creative liberties with her novel.

I dont fault them for changing things. Now, if it turns out to be like the Luxe novels, then I have an issue with it. But I'm not as hardcore as some.

If I am that starved for historical facts I'll pick up a non fiction book. When I read fiction I just want to enjoy the story.

History_Chick said:

If I am that starved for historical facts I'll pick up a non fiction book. When I read fiction I just want to enjoy the story.

Click to expand...

I like it when fiction makes me want to find out more. For example, I read the Brother Caedfile mysteries, and they mentioned King Stephen and Queen Maude a lot. I wondered who won that conflict, so I looked it up. (It depends on your definition of win; Stephen got to keep the throne, but he had to make Maude's nephew his heir.)

I forget where I heard it (I know I didn't make it up), but I completely agree with the adage that "Fiction are the lies that allow you to glimpse the truth" or something like that.

Historical fiction is the same, IMO--a story (lies) about the truth (history) that allows the reader to get a glimpse into what was, why it was, how it was, and (hopefully) spark an interest in knowing more.

There is an inherent responsibility in that--to choose your lies well and to know and understand what the truth being glimpsed is--but I don't think that's the same as being rigid about all your facts to the point you can't make it an entertaining read.

While there are an surprising (and sad) number of people who can't tell fiction from fact, I think if we, as historical fiction writers, do the job right and make them interested in reading/learning more about the time, then that's the greatest achievement possible.

I got into historical fiction because of Taylor Caldwell. She made every era she wrote about come completely alive for me and sparked my interest those eras--and in history in general. I wrote a fan letter at age 13 to express my enthusiasm, and got back a very nice letter back that said that it was among the greatest compliments she'd received.

Moving the reader beyond themselves is a helluva great goal, IMO. It's one that I shoot for, at least.

DeleyanLee said:

I forget where I heard it (I know I didn't make it up), but I completely agree with the adage that "Fiction are the lies that allow you to glimpse the truth" or something like that.

Historical fiction is the same, IMO--a story (lies) about the truth (history) that allows the reader to get a glimpse into what was, why it was, how it was, and (hopefully) spark an interest in knowing more.

There is an inherent responsibility in that--to choose your lies well and to know and understand what the truth being glimpsed is--but I don't think that's the same as being rigid about all your facts to the point you can't make it an entertaining read.

While there are an surprising (and sad) number of people who can't tell fiction from fact, I think if we, as historical fiction writers, do the job right and make them interested in reading/learning more about the time, then that's the greatest achievement possible.

I got into historical fiction because of Taylor Caldwell. She made every era she wrote about come completely alive for me and sparked my interest those eras--and in history in general. I wrote a fan letter at age 13 to express my enthusiasm, and got back a very nice letter back that said that it was among the greatest compliments she'd received.

Moving the reader beyond themselves is a helluva great goal, IMO. It's one that I shoot for, at least.

Click to expand...

How cool is that??! Taylor Caldwell answered your letter! My mom had a lot of Taylor Caldwell, and I checked out one or two of them. But I wasn't truly inspired to historical fiction until I read "The Memory of Eva Ryker" by Donald Stanwood. One of my absolute favorites, with Titanic era and Pearl Harbor-era time periods, in addition to the early 1960s.

The only author fan letter I've ever written was an e-mail to Nancy Horan, who wrote "Loving Frank." It's absolutely brilliant, and has inspired me to some creative non-fiction.

My problem with this stuff is not that I'm setting out to lie, but just that the subject I've picked only has a very few mentions in bios or newspapers of the day that I've been able to find online. I'm having to be creative simply because there isn't enough information out there to write it any other way!

Neat stuff

All:

Great comments here. I've had discussions on truth in historical fiction in numerous forums, the latest at a book signing event for my 8th-century BC novel. It really generated some interesting Q&A from the audience.

The guideline I've always used is, if I can ascertain imperically to my emotional and intellectual satisfaction that something didn't happen, I won't use it. For example, I wanted to use an eclipse (preferrably solar) as a celestial omen in my latest novel. I was able to determine through NASA's Web site that such an eclipse did not happen at the time of interest in my story. Therefore, I could not, in clear conscience, create one. Would a reader have gone to the trouble of plugging my ephemeral formula into a spreadsheet and research the historical accuracy of the event? Not likely. But for me, it was over the line, a matter of integrity--and all I had to have was one question at a book event asking, "Did that really happen?" to get red-faced in the admission that it did not. Then I'm copping out and getting sloppy in facilitating my story. (Happy ending: there was a penumbral lunar eclipse visible from the location at that time, and I used it. )

Feasibility in unverifiable circumstances is another story and carries a lighter shade of gray, I think. The thing I don't want a reader to walk away from one of my stories with is the assumption that a contrived/fictional scenario was a true one. You can't always help that--and, arguably, readers who appeal to fictional stories alone as proofs of historical truth (which happens) deserve what they get. To help avoid such mistakes, as an example, I compile a character list at the beginning of my books (with maps and glossary, if necessary) and identify which are historical and which are fictional. Maybe helps a little; who knows?

Any other purists out there...?

Thanks again for the discussion. This was fun.

BruceJ said:

To help avoid such mistakes, as an example, I compile a character list at the beginning of my books (with maps and glossary, if necessary) and identify which are historical and which are fictional. Maybe helps a little; who knows?

Any other purists out there...?

Click to expand...

I wouldn't call myself a purist, but I also keep track of which characters I'm using are historical and which are my creation--but that's more because I'm tracking the use of names and reminding myself whose names I can mess with and whose names I can't and what's been used, etc. Depending on the era and location, coming up with easily identifiable names for characters can be a challenge. (Have you ever noticed that there seems to be only 5 names for all important personages in some moments in history? I seem to love those eras, for some reason.)

Thanks again for the discussion. This was fun.

Click to expand...

Correction: IS fun. The convo isn't over quite yet.

BruceJ said:

All:

Great comments here. I've had discussions on truth in historical fiction in numerous forums, the latest at a book signing event for my 8th-century BC novel. It really generated some interesting Q&A from the audience.

The guideline I've always used is, if I can ascertain imperically to my emotional and intellectual satisfaction that something didn't happen, I won't use it. For example, I wanted to use an eclipse (preferrably solar) as a celestial omen in my latest novel. I was able to determine through NASA's Web site that such an eclipse did not happen at the time of interest in my story. Therefore, I could not, in clear conscience, create one. Would a reader have gone to the trouble of plugging my ephemeral formula into a spreadsheet and research the historical accuracy of the event? Not likely. But for me, it was over the line, a matter of integrity--and all I had to have was one question at a book event asking, "Did that really happen?" to get red-faced in the admission that it did not. Then I'm copping out and getting sloppy in facilitating my story. (Happy ending: there was a penumbral lunar eclipse visible from the location at that time, and I used it. )

Feasibility in unverifiable circumstances is another story and carries a lighter shade of gray, I think. The thing I don't want a reader to walk away from one of my stories with is the assumption that a contrived/fictional scenario was a true one. You can't always help that--and, arguably, readers who appeal to fictional stories alone as proofs of historical truth (which happens) deserve what they get. To help avoid such mistakes, as an example, I compile a character list at the beginning of my books (with maps and glossary, if necessary) and identify which are historical and which are fictional. Maybe helps a little; who knows?

Any other purists out there...?

Thanks again for the discussion. This was fun.

Click to expand...

My first reaction to the bolded part was, "hell yeah," or something very like that. But then, I have little sympathy for credulity and/or stupidity. I can't be patient with someone who will take a fictional story as gospel--or, you know, something infallibly true.

That being said, if I don't know the history behind a fictional story, I'm always very eager to read a thorough historical note that will tell me which characters are historical and which aren't (at the least). If I could, I would probably write a 20-page historical note for my readers, telling them what I had fabricated and what I hadn't. Heck, if I ever get published, a big section of my blog will be dedicated to the historicity or otherwise of every each chapter, because I'm crazy like that. I think it's part of the responsibility of the writer to provide a good sketch of what was and wasn't historical so the reader doesn't necessarily have to go running off to the library to understand the basics of the "real" story.

I have decided next time to list only fictional characters instead of both, which I did not do for Rocamora. They are are fewer in number than historical personages in my sequel and also my current WIP.

Just thought I'd pop in for a peek.

I write historical fantasy, so I lie... a lot. I have gods and magic and eternal youth, but the general bones of the story is the truth to which certain historians have agreed.