When sources collide

Literateparakeet · Feb 5, 2012

I'm working on my first historical fiction short story. I love reading historical fiction, I've just never written it before.

Frustratingly some of the sources conflict. Assuming that the resources are as close primary sources as I can find, which one should I believe? Should I piece them together in the way I feel is most believable and most interesting? I think that would be my advice if someone asked me. Should I go with the commonly accepted story or the controversial opinion?

What do you do when faced with these choices?

randi.lee · Feb 5, 2012

Sadly, history is written by the men with pens. You will likely not find too many objective sites so I'd recommend searching multiple sources and piecemealing together the most commonly repeated facts/opinions.

DeleyanLee · Feb 5, 2012

History is often written with an agenda, which leads to open conflicts even in close sources.

Personally, I read at least three books, trying for different sources and not just different translations of the same source. Usually "the truth" lies in the overlaps, if there is "the truth" to be found.

As for my own historical fiction, I find those conflicts to be an invitation to offer my own interpretation of whatever facts are agreed upon. It's where I figure the fiction comes in.

donroc · Feb 5, 2012

Go with your gut-instinct/logical conclusion if you cannot find the sources for their biases. Please note my last quotation at the bottom of my signature.

EngineerTiger · Feb 5, 2012

History is subjective so you will find different interpretations.

Even primary sources can mislead depending on the source material. Take our own Civil War. For the Federals, it was a civil war. For some, it was a holy crusade to free the black slaves. For some newspapers, it was a way to sell papers. To some in the South, it was the War Between the States. For a few others, it was the 2nd American Revolution and they believed they were standing up to the Federal government the way their forefathers stood up to the British.

Two sources is generally not sufficient. Are you researching a war? If so, I recommend you check multiple sources from both sides of the conflict.

areteus · Feb 5, 2012

If you have the time and money, a good correspondence or local college course in history may help you with this issue. One of the main skills that (should) be taught by a good history teacher is how to evaluate sources. Pick a period you are interested in and do a course in that and use the opportunity to question your tutors about the validity of any sources you consider using for your writing.

If there is little to choose between them consider the following:

- Pick the most interesting/tense/climatic/plotworthy version and stick to that. Your goal is to entertain, after all, and often the truth is less interesting and this is an entertaining version which may be true...
- Consider a possible way in which, from the point of view of your characters, both versions may be true. How did these differing versions come about? Did one (or both) of the primary source creators lie in their accounts to cover up some deeper secret? Is one version based on a rumour or a misunderstanding of the true situation while the other is based on a more reliable first hand account? Can you rationalise both versions into a beleivable version of events?

Whatever you do, just make sure you add an author's note to tell people where you may have taken liberties (i.e if you chose the first option to make an interesting story) so that everyone is aware of where you have done your research.

MeretSeger · Feb 5, 2012

It is possible to evaluate sources on your own, too.

Look at their bio: are they affiliated with a major university? See if their CV is online: are they a primary researcher with many publications, or do they just filter other researchers' work? Who published the source? Is it an academic book or a 'popular' book? Also, dates matter: if a source was published long ago, new information may have come to light.

gothicangel · Feb 5, 2012

All the time.

I've lost count of how many times I've read online sources which have claimed a site called Aluna in different places. I've seen it on the Gask Ridge, Stirling, Falkirk, Strathclyde, the River Aln in Northumberland, Corbridge . . .

Then I bought a guide from English Heritage . . . it's Maryport in Cumbria. I bow down to the experts.

AutumnWrite · Feb 5, 2012

MeretSeger said:
Also, dates matter: if a source was published long ago, new information may have come to light.

True, though at the same time you have to be aware of revisionist history. There is a trend to put a current world view on past events. If you're looking for historical accuracy, primary sources are always best. Don't try to put today's viewpoints on yesterdays events. You have to project yourself into the past to understand their reasons and issues.

But when dealing with primary sources, keep in mind their motives as others suggest.

thothguard51 · Feb 5, 2012

Bernard Cornwell often states he fudges places, names and even some events because of conflicting source information. I have no trouble with the way he writes his historical fiction because he does keep the setting within the historical time periods he writes within...

EngineerTiger · Feb 5, 2012

Revisionist history isn't recent. As a major trend, it started back in the 1970s. One of my old professors said it actually began as soon as written records were kept as each generation brought a different perspective to events.

AutumnWrite · Feb 5, 2012

EngineerTiger said:
Revisionist history isn't recent. As a major trend, it started back in the 1970s.

This is true, but in relation to general discussion of history, the 1970's is recent.

It's also true revisionists have always been around, but the spin of putting current values and viewpoints on past events does seem much more pervasive now than at other times (50+ years ago). Again, motive is often the root of this. I think sometimes modern historians try to show how much better things are now by demeaning the past, rather than understanding the people of the time.

Raula · Feb 5, 2012

This is exactly what I was teaching my Year 8s (13 y/os) last week, when it came to looking at interpretations of Bloody Mary's reign. Never assume that a source is reliable because it came from the time. Eye-witnesses can lie, especially if they have a certain bias, and they can also be genuinly mistaken. You do have to engage critically and think about any 'hidden agendas' an author may have, or whether or not a source fits in with everything else you know.

The beauty of history, though, is that you can take one interpretation and roll with it. Nobody but The Doctor has a time-machine and we'll never know for sure - so as long as you have done the above, I say go with whichever source is most interesting and best fits with the rest of your story.

Siri Kirpal · Feb 5, 2012

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

Revisionists have been around since history began. Look for the historians who went for primary sources.

And Areteus' advice is good too. Chose what serves your plot. Figure out how the conflicting stories might be in agreement. Add an author's note at the end.

Blessings,

Siri Kirpal

areteus · Feb 5, 2012

EngineerTiger said:
Revisionist history isn't recent. As a major trend, it started back in the 1970s. One of my old professors said it actually began as soon as written records were kept as each generation brought a different perspective to events.

The Romans were notorious for it, much of the accounts about the native Britons when they invaded were exaggerated to make them look better.

Literateparakeet · Feb 5, 2012

Thank you for all the great responses, you guys are a wealth of information.

One of the things realized while reading this thread was that I need to relax. My inner critic was certain that someone would complain that I got the details wrong. But what I want to write about are some relatively unknown people.

Lavinia Fisher, the first woman to be hung in the United States, and her husband were hung for murder. The story is about the would be victim that got away. It's a fascinating story that I came across when I was searching for ideas for the Western contest. I had not heard of any of them until recently. And that means less people to tell me I wrote it wrong.

I can't imagine taking on the project of a war, any war, THAT would be seriously intimidating. As you said no matter what you write on that topic someone is going to disagree with you depending on their view of the war, not necessarily your research.

These and many other new thoughts came to me as I read your replies, so thank you again!

Puma · Feb 5, 2012

Just as an aside to Engineer Tiger's post above about the Civil War and various names - I don't think I've ever seen it called the second American Revolution - that title is usually reserved for the War of 1812. Puma

Mac H. · Feb 5, 2012

Puma said:
Just as an aside to Engineer Tiger's post above about the Civil War and various names - I don't think I've ever seen it called the second American Revolution - that title is usually reserved for the War of 1812. Puma

I've seen it called that.

eg: "In 1861, the war spread and grew into the Civil War, or what some considered the second American Revolution. This war led to emancipation of the slaves and a new era of tenuous possibilities and thwarted justice for African Americans"

From: 'The escape, or, A leap for freedom: a drama in five acts'

That isn't the source I remember the reference from - but it was one of the ones that came up with Google.

The one that's particularly confusing is 'The Great War'. Every generation seems to have a conflict that they call 'The Great War' ... which contradicts the one from earlier.

Mac

Puma · Feb 5, 2012

Yes, the Great War is pretty common. Another common name for the Civil War in the South is the War of Northern Aggression.

Thanks for the reference, Mac H. I may have to google that since I'm very familiar with the second revolution applied to 1812 but not the Civil War. Puma

donroc · Feb 5, 2012

I remember hearing it called The War for Soutern Independence by southerners in the 1950s.

KayEn78 · Feb 5, 2012

I've heard/read the expression -- The War Between the States as referred to as The Civil War. I remember in one of my history classes, we learned that, in the 1920s and 1930s, World War I was referred to as "The Great War" or "The War to End All Wars." It made sense because WWII hadn't happened yet. It made you think for a second, oh yeah! Of course people wouldn't have called WWI World War I! Makes perfect sense... When the Second World War came around, of course, people then referred to it as World War I and some still called it The Great War. I've also heard those other sayings for The Civil War -- the War of Nothern Aggression. Interesting how these things are said in certain regions of the country.

-Kristi

Cristin_B · Feb 6, 2012

I've stressed over this quite a bit. The histories about the time period I'm writing are so varied and inconsistent it is impossible to know what actually happened. Sometimes accounts differ by more than ten years. I feel I've done my homework as much as possible, and based on all the information have chosen the events that are most dramatic and suitable to my story.

For example, Emperor Carinus died while laying siege to Ctesiphon. Some say he was struck by lightning, some that he was assassinated by Diocletian, some that he died of a battle wound. For my story, having him die of a lightning strike adds foreshadowing, so that's the way I told it.

Puma · Feb 6, 2012

Cristin - All you can do is the best you can. But, we also have an advantage in historical because if we're a bit nervous about inconsistencies in sources there is the option of including author's notes to cite sources and differences. You can also include a bibliography; in mine I even included very short biographies of my real characters. Puma

EngineerTiger · Feb 6, 2012

I know Puma, it surprised me too when I came across it. I'm afraid I can't source it for you. It was in one of the biographies I read a number of years ago while I was doing research for the Black Knights. I just noted it for the fiction work because it startled me as I always assumed that was used for the War of 1812. I came across it again in Ben Ames Williams HOUSE DIVIDED but, since that was fiction too, he didn't provide a source either.

I do know that it was part of the discussion as to why so many poor farmers who didn't own slaves entered on side of the Confederacy. Along with the States' Rights issue, they apparently believed that the Federal Government was no different than the English King and Parliament who their grandfathers and great-grandfathers defied. Obviously, they were inheritors of Jefferson's anti-Federalist views.

gothicangel · Feb 6, 2012

areteus said:
The Romans were notorious for it, much of the accounts about the native Britons when they invaded were exaggerated to make them look better.

Yes, but if you were to go and compare Roman accounts of imperialism, with those of the British Empire, you will find that the Romans had a lot more respect for their enemies.

The Latin word Barbarii [barbarian] simply means 'foreigner.' The meaning we have today of the word barbarian comes from British/French/Spanish imperialism.
A misconception that infests current Roman fiction I'm afraid.

When sources collide

Nerdy Budgie

Certified Non-Genius

Writing Anarchist

Historicals and Horror rule

Writing HF Again, Thank God

The Alydar of Writers

Toughen up.

Old enough to know better

A Gentleman of a refined age...

Writing HF Again, Thank God

Old enough to know better

Swan in Process

Nerdy Budgie

Retired and loving it!

Board Visitor

Retired and loving it!

Historicals and Horror rule

Retired and loving it!

Writing HF Again, Thank God

Toughen up.