Story vs Vignette - Historical Plots

How is it possible to have a plot in a "hard" historical fiction work other than one involving added fictional characters?

Click to expand...

By turning historical events into a narrative format? I guess I'm not really sure what you're trying to get at with the question.

In "hard" historical, the plot (though I would say 'stepping stones' is probably more accurate, esp. in the ancient world) and outcomes are known, yes. So that's the what, when, where and how. The author's contribution comes at the "why". The development of personalities, the explanation of thoughts and actions that lead from Event A to Event B, Event C, and so on. Do it right, in my opinion, and history becomes the present, giving the reader the chance to experience the horrors of the black plague, etc, right along with the characters. In other words, history becomes alive and - gasp! - accessible. At least, that's always where I thought historicals were at their best.

If a person writes a short about a small segment of history (such as the reversals in SYW that aren't going to lead to new novels), is it a short story or is it a vignette? Do vignettes count as short stories especially for contests?

Click to expand...

Short stories aren't my thing...but I don't see why they couldn't count. In my head, at least, a vignette is just that - a glimpse, and an incomplete one at that. So we may get a look at the past, but no story arc. A short story, on the other hand, has that story arc.

But I'm probably the worst person in the world to listen to on this subject.

Is the difference between "hard" historical fiction and historical romances/mysteries/etc basically that in "hard" fiction the history is most important and in the others plot is most important?

Click to expand...

I don't think so at all. I think the difference - speaking in broad terms - is that "hard" historicals incorporate the history into the story, and that the characters often drive or are driven by actual events. Historical romances/mysteries, etc - again speaking broadly - strike me as more "period" pieces than flat-out historicals. The history, the time period, it's a setting for a costume drama. And of course, both of these buckets have huge holes in their sides through which all the numerous exceptions can flow out of .

In my view, the known history is a plot, or at the very least a frame, directing the course of events. Come to think of it, I think it may be a difference of approach, not final product. "Hard" historicals take the history first, and then "reverse-engineer" their characters to fit into that frame. I know I did as much with my characters, and came up with some very interesting - and IMO real - personalities.

The historical romance/mystery/etc starts with a time period, but then focuses on a character or characters first, fleshing out their personality, getting a feel for them, and letting their actions drive the story. Historical events may act on them, but in a haphazard way. Which I know I'm explaining poorly, but it's early.

To finish, I think the one starts with the STORY, and the other starts with the CHARACTERS, and both meet in the middle.

In "hard history" you've got some documentary evidence to build your story around, but how you interpret it and what arc you choose are up to you. You might have a story that culminates in the Battle of Bosworth, but it's going to look very different depending on whether you tell it from the POV of Henry Tudor, Richard III, or one of the Stanleys. It's going to matter whether you think Richard was a villain, hero, or something in between; and what you think the Stanleys' motives were for their betrayal. Was Henry's victory preordained and inevitable, or did it depend on luck and last-minute decisions?

The outcome might be known, but your plot could vary widely from that of another author who is working from the same material.

Marlys said:

The outcome might be known, but your plot could vary widely from that of another author who is working from the same material.

Click to expand...

This is what I so poorly articulated as the "why" part.

Even with "hard" historicals there are gaps in what we know (thus the stepping stone metaphor), and it is the author's job to interpret the events and characters in such a way as to explain and illuminate those gaps.

Yes, exactly.

A series of events isn't really a plot. The plot is the beginning, middle and end of a story with some kind of conflict and resolution. If you're writing a 'hard' historical then you have to take the events and work out how they can form a plot. What is going to drive your narrative forward? What will stop it from being like a child's recitation of their day: "And then this happened and then that happened and then..."

But there are different ways you can do that. You can choose where to begin and where to end so that the event you see as the climactic moment is properly framed. You can select your material so as to highlight the theme of your novel (all historians and all writers have to be selective, so why not make your selectivity work for you). You can also choose a central character whose personal story forms the plot, and show the events from their perspective, having their own rise and fall matched or counterpointed by the 'grand' events.

And I think Doogs is quite right that the author needs to add the 'why'. Your plot will depend on your interpretation of the events.

I think what is most important in historical fiction is no different from any other novel --- it's the story.

Many elements go to make up a story --- plot, characters, themes, setting, voice, etc. and in historical novels, history can play a part in shaping any or all of these but it doesn't have to have an equal impact on all elements in every historical novel. That's to say, a setting might be based in history, but the characters and plot might be original and it could still be historical fiction, even (if done well) very good historical fiction.

I don't find the distinction between "hard" historical fiction and other types to be very useful for me.

This is...

difficult. As you can see there are differences already in opinions and you have to find what is comfortable for you.

Doogs gave us a very good description of the difference between vignette and story. Look at c.e.lawson's Japanese piece. It has a story arc and she can work on it to make it one. Others don't have that 'plot' to them.

Puma, a novel is a work of fiction. It is a created invention of the author.
An historical novel uses history as an important part of the story, what the author wants to say through the story has to be told in that historical setting. The history is almost a character. In the case of these 'literary' historical novels there is no need to use real 'name' people from the period at all. Of course a soldier would mention Old Nosey or Winnie, according to the era, but that soldier would be the author's creation.

There has been a trend in the last 15 years to write 'faction'. I think 'Longitude' probably started it, bringing the story of the stubborn old clockmaker to the general public's mind. This is where a huge interest in history surged and writers found that they could use a real person and a real story, write it like a novel, and find a market. Not academically approved of course, but even some professors have found this type of writing profitable. This is your hard history, Puma, real people and the actual events, but written with the writer's own interpretation of those events. There are so many of these stories, and if you like to stick to the facts, but write them like a novelist, with conflicts, emotions and a cracking good story line that does not deviate from the truth, but is twisted and turned to make it exciting, (usually that means not written classic biography style, from birth to death!) then you have a best seller.

Genre historicals - mystery, various forms of romance, seem to fall into two schools. It seems to depend on who started writing them first and how well they wrote them.
Mysteries and who dunnits have a long and illustrious past and so writers of these are expected to be accurate, careful, and thundering good story tellers. Talking to authors in this genre I've been struck by the fact that they love the period(s) they write in and are often re-enactors, go on digs, and are passionate about getting their historical details correct. They seem to live in their worlds.

Historical Romance does not have such a strong literary background - there were always bodice busters and bonk books - and things like the Regency romance and straight historical romance have altered since Georgette Heyer's witty social commentaries. These days the emphasise has fallen on sex, and more sex and the history is merely a pretty background for modern heros and heroines. Those of my acquaintence in the Romance Writers groups, who write a straight historical, an exciting story which also involves a relationship between a man and woman, have real problems finding a home for their work.

A good plot, Puma is vital for any novel.
A literary novel also has excellent characterisation and a strong theme which gives the book some sort of depth for a reader.
A genre book may do this too, but usually it is plot driven.

But, if you're writing what you called "faction" the plot would be limited to the historical record. That's what I'm getting at.

Click to expand...

Why would it? Like pdr said, real people and actual events, but written within the writer's own interpretation of those events. There's still the interpretation of the "why", there's still working out what happens between those events. I don't see the plot as being limited to the historical record so much as being grounded in it.

There would be no opportunity to create contrived scenes or incidences that were not at least plausible in the context of the characters.

Click to expand...

I would argue that any scene or incident, in any story, should be plausible in the context of the characters, regardless of genre or medium.

So, in my mind, in writing real history, there can be no plot other than the historical record unless the plot involves added fictional characters. Does that make sense? What am I not seeing?

Click to expand...

You seem to be fixated on this notion of fictional characters. I think we've probably all added them, as there is a limited cast that the historical record can present to us, but why are they necessary to push the plot beyond the historical record?

There's a lot that the historical record does not cover, a lot it can't cover.

I made a reference to stepping stones earlier...but I think signposts might be a better visual. You have to stop at them, but you can take your own time and your own path getting from one to another. And remember that not all of your characters (real and fictional) will stop at each sign post, so you'll have to figure out where they are instead, and send them that way.

I think you might do better to look at it this way:

There can be no plot other than the historical record unless the plot involves added fictional ELEMENTS.

Puma said:

But, if you're writing what you called "faction" the plot would be limited to the historical record. That's what I'm getting at. There would be no opportunity to create contrived scenes or incidences that were not at least plausible in the context of the characters.

Click to expand...

Sure - make your scenes plausible. But you still, as the writer, are in control of how you write each scene - whether it depicts a known historical event or not. You decide whose pov, you decide where to begin and where to end, you decide what to emphasise and what literary devices to use to show how it fits together with what went before and what comes next.

There would be a limit to the amount of story arc creation and not necessarily even a climax. It would be a real story, a true story, but fiction rather than non-fiction because of the author's interpretation (and undoubted need to tie pieces of the historical record together).

Click to expand...

If there's no climax, no conflict to be resolved, no narrative drive then I don't think you've got a 'story'. I think you've just got a series of events strung together. That conflict can be personal or more general, but there needs - even, I think, in 'faction' - to be some point to the story you're telling.

So, in my mind, in writing real history, there can be no plot other than the historical record unless the plot involves added fictional characters. Does that make sense? What am I not seeing? Puma

Click to expand...

Even people writing straight 'history' need to make it tell 'a story'. They will interpret events and their significance often very differently. Being straight historians, they are generally obliged to show how all the evidence fits within their retelling of the events. As an author, you have much more freedom to (i) be selective according to your needs, (ii) be inventive where the historical records are lacking, (iii) tell your story in the way that shows your interpretation.


Let me give an example from a historical book I read a couple of years ago - The Virgin's Lover, by Philippa Gregory. Hers are a good example of this because her central characters are those who are well-documented by history. The Virgin's Lover focusses on the relationship between Elizabeth I and Robert Dudley.

She has certain facts at her disposal: the existence of some kind of relationship between the two, the known attempts to marry Elizabeth elsewhere, the fact that Elizabeth never married, the fact that Dudley's wife died in a suspicious accident, and so on.

The plot is Gregory's way of getting from the first two of those to the last. There are any number of plausible ways of linking those facts and historians still like to debate them. But you see how Gregory has chosen a situation where there is real conflict (these two people like (love?) each other yet there are reasons on both sides why they can't be married) and worked out a story that highlights this and brings it to a resolution (the suspicion that fell on Dudley concerning his wife makes him unsuitable for the queen even though he was innocent and she knows it). Gregory uses this plot to drive her discussion of the politics of the early stages of Elizabeth's reign. She doesn't ignore the other events, but she puts them in the framework of this story.

And that's what makes her book work. As a reader you never think, 'oh, that was interesting but I don't know what it's doing there, or where it's going.' Everything serves the plot. If you just relate a series of events, without that sort of plot, I think your readers are quickly going to be left wondering what's going on.

Puma, I look at it this way:

Your Cowes story (which I just skimmed right now, hence why I haven't reviewed it yet) has several characters which you've made more than simply names - the captain, Samuel, and the German father and daughter. You could take any one of those characters and make a story arc. For example, with regards to the German father and the teenage daughter, you could have a beginning for them where the father discusses why they've left and their hopes and dreams for when they land. These dreams can build through the voyage. Then these dreams are crushed by the indenturing issue, the reality that hits them when they land, and you have a climax of sorts. Then the resolution could be the part when they vow to be together again and the father tells the daughter of his plan to buy her out of her servitude and they say goodbye with hope. Just a thought off the top of my head. Same characters. Same situation. Story arc.

Or you could take all of the characters - the captain, Sam and the German father and daughter and devise a way/see if there is some sort of theme you can illustrate with all of them that happens through the course of their voyage - how this incredible voyage changes people. Have them at a starting place, then events happen which change them, and they are in a different place psychologically/emotionally at the end. Story arc.

Or you could contrast the incredible changes that happen to the passengers - wonderful dreams/excitement/possibilities for Samuel, dashed hopes for the German father and daughter - with a captain who is hardened to the emotion of it all and floats through these incredible life changing events as a robotic observer, who simply turns around and does it again the next day.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head, but ways to create a story arc with exactly what you have, simply adding 'story' to the story, completely in context and plausible with recorded history.

c.e.

Puma,

I'm not sure about the vignettes question, so I'm answering the plot in hard history part. I'm also writing about specific events, which are documented very well, at least on one side of the story.

The plot is what you build around the known facts. Making a story that is plausible given those facts, and which doesn't argue with the known history. But which is intriguing to the reader.

On one side of my story, I have a character that lots is known about. I have to look at those known facts & imagine myself as him. How would this have affected my daily life, my career, my marriage? My respect within the community? How would these motivations have driven me to do terrible things? Facts A & B draw me as a decent person, but facts C & D say I was a monster of sorts. What drove me from point A to point D?

I can build a subplot around all these human interactions & motivations without dishonoring the history. I give the characters a personality that can't be known historically, motivations that we can only ascribe to them much after the fact. While these personalities, interactions, & motivations can't be proven historically, these are what make the reader keep turning pages. Around those known facts I have to make a sympathetic character, build a conflict, and then resolve it.

Recently there was another thread in here where someone said (paraphrasing!), "historical is just your setting. What kind of story are you telling within that setting?" I really liked that statement, because while it may not be 100% true, if you can't answer it to some degree, then you may have a problem. I can take the history behind my story & turn it into a swashbuckling adventure. Or a romance, even. Or a tragedy. What are your goals in telling this story? (Besides chronicling historical facts--put those aside for a moment.) What do you hope to evoke in your reader?

I think your character musts have a plot of their own that involves their personal thoughts, emotions, behaviors & reactions, separate from what happened to them or around them.



wee

Damn, Wee, you wrote exactly what I intended, so I shall second everything. I might add that one should write the novel, then worry if it is hard or whatever.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

I'm finding myself confused by some of the terms that are being used here. The following is just to make sure I get what we're talking about.

What pdr is calling "faction" sounds to me like what publishers would call popular trade (ie. not academic) non-fiction --- history that is factually correct, containing interpretations that are grounded in evidence, but written in an evocative, engaging style that highlights narrative arcs that can be supported with evidence.

I'm not sure what Puma means by "hard" historical fiction. Because this is fiction, right? Once you invent conversations or describe what is going on in someone's head without evidence to support it (like a diary), you're writing fiction as far as I'm concerned, even if you're not inventing new characters and if you are trying to stay as close to the facts as possible. And at that point, it is judged by all the criteria that any work of fiction is judged by. Is it engaging, compelling, convincing, interesting? Etc.

The distinction between fiction and non-fiction seems pretty clear to me, but that may because being a historian is my day job.

donroc said:

Damn, Wee, you wrote exactly what I intended, so I shall second everything. I might add that one should write the novel, then worry if it is hard or whatever.

Click to expand...

...And I guess what donroc says here raises my big question: why do you *ever* need to decide whether your historical fiction is "hard" or not? It is not a question an agent or a publisher will ever ask you. All you need to know is whether you are writing historical fiction or non-fiction, and if it is fiction, whether it is more suited to genre (historical mystery, historical romance) or straight hitorical fiction. And that last question is answered at the level of plot, not of historical accuracy.

(Apologies for double posting but I cross posted with donroc)

donroc said:

Damn, Wee, you wrote exactly what I intended, so I shall second everything.

Click to expand...

I think this may be because I was quoting you from an earlier post.


ETA: No, sorry, and my apologies to the person I failed to properly quote. It was an excellent point, girlyswot! It stuck with me even if I didn't recall who said it.

lkp said:

I'm finding myself confused by some of the terms that are being used here.

<snip>

I'm not sure what Puma means by "hard" historical fiction

Click to expand...

Oh, good. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who'd never heard of "hard" historical fiction.

I've heard of "hard" science fiction--but even hard-core SF fans/authors/editors can't agree what that really means--is this a term in the same "undefined" boat, by chance?

lkp said:

All you need to know is whether you are writing historical fiction or non-fiction, and if it is fiction, whether it is more suited to genre (historical mystery, historical romance) or straight historical fiction. And that last question is answered at the level of plot, not of historical accuracy.

Click to expand...

This is an interesting comment, another way to think of it. Within historical, then, "straight historical fiction" would correlate to "general fiction" on the non-historical side?

wee said:

Within historical, then, "straight historical fiction" would correlate to "general fiction" on the non-historical side?

Click to expand...

Yes, I'd say so. That which at AW is labelled as mainstream/literary/contemporary (or something like that). But even that still has to have some kind of plot, whether internal or external.

Puma said:

My contention is that if you don't create a fictional character, you cannot have a plot or story arc other than what really happened in history. You can't have Cortez fleeing the Inquisition (which de Vargas was), you can't have Cortez's sister die on the strapado, you can't have Cortez imprisoned by the Aztecs (which de Vargas was), you can't portray real characters with a spin other than that compatible with what's been recorded.

And realize - I'm a historian first (which is why I'm such a nut on historical accuracy). Puma

Click to expand...

Okay, this helps a lot. I disagree with the first part of the above, and agree with the last part (mostly).

You can write a historical novel using solely characters attested in history, and you can still invent new plots, narratives, character arcs, mysteries, romances etc. for them. There are TONS of gaps even in the life of someone like Cortes that are ripe for a novelists invention. If you want it to be compelling and convincing though, you'd better not stray too far from the historical record --- still, even then what readers will tolerate will vary greatly according to their knowledge of the period. As I have said before in another thread, if you contradict known medieval European history, I'll put your book down. If you contradict medieval Japanese history, I won't know the difference.

Ultimately, historical fiction is going to be judged on how well it works as fiction. Historical versimilitude is only one part of that.

Most of the historical fiction I've read recently though is more of a biography type thing. I've a few on Attila the Hun, some on Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs etc. I understand that there will be some points where these books are padded a bit to make them more readable, but the basis of the plot is still the historical events in that person's life, which would be the background to other historical fictions featuring a fictional character, if you see what I mean.

I'm just a bit confused, sorry, trying to get the distinction in my head.

lkp said:

Okay, this helps a lot. I disagree with the first part of the above, and agree with the last part (mostly).

You can write a historical novel using solely characters attested in history, and you can still invent new plots, narratives, character arcs, mysteries, romances etc. for them. There are TONS of gaps even in the life of someone like Cortes that are ripe for a novelists invention. If you want it to be compelling and convincing though, you'd better not stray too far from the historical record --- still, even then what readers will tolerate will vary greatly according to their knowledge of the period. As I have said before in another thread, if you contradict known medieval European history, I'll put your book down. If you contradict medieval Japanese history, I won't know the difference.

Ultimately, historical fiction is going to be judged on how well it works as fiction. Historical versimilitude is only one part of that.

Click to expand...

Exactly, lkp. I'm not familiar with the example you're using, Puma, but it would seem to me that Shellabarger could have written a novel about those events from, say, Cortes' pov, without necessarily inventing a fictional character. It would have been a different story, of course, but it could have had its own plot.

I think something that bears on this discussion is the notion of 'brute facts'. There is no such thing as 'history'. Every account of what happened, whether it's my trip to the grocery store this evening or the conquest of Mexico, is a selective and interpreted account. So it seems to me that what you're aiming for, Puma (at least if I've understood you correctly, ), is a false goal. Even actual historians are writing stories which interpret events. And as a fiction writer you have more freedom in the way you show that interpretation.

I also wonder if we're all using the word 'plot' in the same way. Plot is one of the banes of my writerly existence. I know I need to do more than just relate one event after another. I recognise how other, better, writers than I can juxtapose events in ways that show causality, or echo or other links that build the conflict which is then resolved. I don't think plot can simply be 'what happened', it also needs to be 'why it happened' and 'why it matters'.

Most of the historical fiction I've read recently though is more of a biography type thing. I've a few on Attila the Hun, some on Roman emperors, Egyptian pharaohs etc. I understand that there will be some points where these books are padded a bit to make them more readable, but the basis of the plot is still the historical events in that person's life, which would be the background to other historical fictions featuring a fictional character, if you see what I mean.

Click to expand...

Jess, I don't think it's a question of 'padding for readability' so much as telling a story of a person's life.

Perhaps one way to illustrate this is to imagine two different biographies (of either the factual or faction kind) and to see how they can use the same historical facts to tell quite different stories. Oliver Cromwell (because I know the Civil War is your thing!) is a great example of this. To some he's a great general and a political and religious hero, to others he's the tool of the devil (I'm thinking especially of the Irish here). The writer gets to choose which of these two people they're writing about (or some third way). They select their information about the character's life, family, background - deciding what they think is most relevant or illuminating. They give accounts of the events, which inevitably give some indication of their interpretation - one very easy way to do this is simply by skimming over some events briefly and writing others at great length. They choose what order to put things in (not playing with real chronology but, for example, by including a prologue featuring an event late in life, or a memory at a crucial moment). They can even choose where to begin and where to end, in order to highlight particular features of the person.

What I meant by padding (poorly expressed, my fault) was that in a few of the books, certainly those about historical figures where there's a lot of speculation involved, authors sometimes take liberties and invent other characters / incidents to fit around the historical backbone. Or at least that's what I've found in my reading, especially with the Egyptian biographical fictions.