Have the stories all been told?

[Puma]

Donroc prompted this thread in my mind. He and I share a great admiration and love of "classical historical fiction" - Shellabarger, Sabatini, Costain, etc. Thinking of those writers and their stories made me wonder - have the best stories already been told?

There's no way anyone (in my opinion) could write a story based on the Conquest of Mexico that would eclipse Shellabarger's Captain from Castille. The same goes for me for Dickens and A Tale of Two Cities, Margaret Mitchell and Gone with the Wind, plus a host of other writers who first (or best) wrote stories of historical events (in my opinion).

Does my feeling mean that more contemporary writers covering the same events are writing stories that are, in a way, sequels?

And last, are there major historical events that are languishing in wait for the block buster novel? Have all the best stories been told?

What are your thoughts? Puma

[girlyswot]

Great question, Puma! I'm certain the answer is no. Just look at all the amazing stories that people here are in the process of writing.

I think there are two ways of looking at this. The 'best' stories don't necessarily come out of what we think are 'major' historical events. In the hands of a skilful storyteller, comparatively minor incidents can be both captivating and illuminating. Indeed, by telling the stories, the significance of the events can increase. So there's a lot of great stories out there that really haven't been told yet.

But then there's also the possibility of exciting new retellings. At the beginning of Georgette Heyer's 'An Infamous Army' which tells the story of the Battle of Waterloo, and has the Duchess of Richmond's ball as a key element, she speaks of the 'spectre of Thackeray' who described the same events in Vanity Fair. Daunting, indeed, to take on something that's been done well in the past. But Heyer has a different story to tell and her take on the event is equally compelling (and by far more historically accurate!)

Imagine, for instance, writing a novel about the Princes in the Tower. You could write at least two completely different versions of that story, both sticking to the historical facts, - one which shows Richard III as guilty of their murder and one which doesn't. I'd say they could both be great novels. Most events don't have quite such disparate possible interpretations, but every historical fact is subjective in some way.

Imagine 'A Tale of Two Cities' told from the point of view of Madame Desfarges - it would be a completely different story, and no less good for that reason.

History supplies us with infinite variety, and if we feel that its story has been told, I suspect that's due to a lack of imagination on our part.

[lkp]

NO! Even in the narrow historical field which is my day job, I could write stories for the rest of my life abut fascinating historical events few have heard of. And as girlyswot says, even a well known tale can be completely turned upside down by telling it from a different point of view.

Puma, have you read Salvador de Madriaga's (hopes the sp. is correct) Heart of Jade about the conquest of Mexico? It's a Spanish (translated) classic, and I bet you'd like it. Half is told from the perspective of a Spanish conquistador, and half from the perspective of a Mexican woman.

[Doogs]

I'm going to have to agree with girlyswot and lkp and answer negative.

Ignore writing for a moment. Consider churches. I think we can all agree there are a number of staggering, breathtaking cathedrals dotting Europe, all of them different, all of them unique. Or consider the number of treatments of landscapes, or of the Madonna and Child.

No two artists - be they sculpters, architects, or writers - approach the same subject the same way. There are variations of perceptions, variations of craft and of execution.

I think this is even more pronounced when it comes to historical fiction. Our subject matter is drawn from written (and often vague, biased, untrustworthy, or contradictory) records. There is a great degree of subjectivity in unearthing the "why" behind events. Girlyswot's Princes in the Tower example is perfect. I would add to it the story of Alexander the Great. His motive for perpetual conquest is one of history's greatest questions, and one to which there is not and probably never will be a right answer. It comes down to interpretation, and that interpretation drives the story.

I think the constant retreading of the same major stories (Alexander, Caesar, Henry VIII, Elizabeth, the American Civil War, etc) more than prove this point. Are there derivative and subpar works on each topic? Certainly. But there are plenty of original and unique stories as well, each with its own merits. Which one is the best is open to the reader's subjectivity. I mean - I happen to think Dumas' Count of Monte Cristo is the single best revenge story ever written - but I'm certain a poll of other frequenters would reveal another five, six, or seven titles in its place.

As for major events "languishing in wait" - they are out there. Off the top of my head:


The Trojan War
Romulus and the founding of Rome
The story of Cincinnatus
The Gracchi brothers
Vespasian's rise to emperor
The Visigoths. The Huns.
Charles Martel and the Battle of Tours.
The Norman Conquest of Britain (I've read so many books set from the White Ship on...but precious little about 1066).
The Norman conquests of Italy and Sicily.
The story of El Cid


And those only bring us up to about 1100 A.D. And skip over plenty of other novel-worthy events. History is full of fantastic stories. More, I think, than can ever possibly be compellingly conveyed in the form of historical fiction.

[julie thorpe]

There's still so much out there waiting to be written about. Example: I was in Frankfurt a couple of months ago and visited the Jewish Ghetto museum. There I saw details of an attempt in the seventeenth century to clear the Jews out of Frankfurt. Those who survived the massacre were literally herded on to boats and shipped away. When the Emperor heard about this he was furious - among other things he depended on the Jews for finance - so he had the perpetrators rounded up and executed, and had the Jews all brought back to the city again, and caused changes in the city ordinances governing the citizenship rights of Jews. What a story waiting for a writer - especially in view of the Holocaust a few hundred years later (also dealt with, poignantly, at the museum). Made me wish I was more familiar with German history and, more to the point, the German language.

[pdr]

it's not the big events that mean most to people it's the little ones about people like themselves. And those stories will go on and on.
It's when history is personalised that it means something to today's reader.

The grand epic tales will always be grand! But the ones that hit home and have an effect are those about how the people with little power and influence were affected.

[lkp]

Doogs, I'd read books about all those topics.
With respect to #9, have you read Cecilia Holland's Great Maria? It is the best book I've read on Normans in Italy and Sicily.

[scarletpeaches]

it's not the big events that mean most to people it's the little ones about people like themselves. And those stories will go on and on.
It's when history is personalised that it means something to today's reader.

The grand epic tales will always be grand! But the ones that hit home and have an effect are those about how the people with little power and influence were affected.

Similarly, I've always said Gone With the Wind isn't a war story; it's a love story with a war as a backdrop.

[Doogs]

Similarly, I've always said Gone With the Wind isn't a war story; it's a love story with a war as a backdrop.

Agreed.

And I don't think Gone With the Wind captures the Civil War to such a degree as to render all other attempts inferior. It was such a massive event, and impacted so many lives, that there must be an infinity of stories that could be written just dealing with it. GWTW is regarded as a classic, but that doesn't detract from other stories set in and during the Civil War. Consider Glory, or Cold Mountain, or Michael Shaara's Killer Angels.

[Doogs]

Doogs, I'd read books about all those topics.
With respect to #9, have you read Cecilia Holland's Great Maria? It is the best book I've read on Normans in Italy and Sicily.

I have not, but I will. I'm fascinated by the Norman experience in the Mediterranean, but it's not the easiest topic to find material on.

[Cathy C]

Here's a fascinating story about a real historical event (that I just saw on the History Channel the other day) Vlad Dracul's rise to power---twice! After taking the throne and ruling for five years, he was overthrown by his brother, sent into exile, captured by a neighboring country and held for ransom (which was never paid--because the brother didn't want him back! :ROFL:) After twelve years in a cold stone dungeon...TWELVE, he escaped, went back home and took the palace again, becoming the same tyrannical leader he was before. Didn't learn a thing, that one.

But there's definitely a book in there for the right author. :)

[Zelenka]

Here's a fascinating story about a real historical event (that I just saw on the History Channel the other day) Vlad Dracul's rise to power---twice! After taking the throne and ruling for five years, he was overthrown by his brother, sent into exile, captured by a neighboring country and held for ransom (which was never paid--because the brother didn't want him back! :ROFL:) After twelve years in a cold stone dungeon...TWELVE, he escaped, went back home and took the palace again, becoming the same tyrannical leader he was before. Didn't learn a thing, that one.

But there's definitely a book in there for the right author. :)

Have you read 'The Historian' by Elizabeth Kostova? It's a vampire story, but involves a lot of the details you mentioned, so you might enjoy it if that's what you're interested in. Weirdly, I was thinking that Vlad Tepes would make a good straightforward (ie non vampire) historical novel as I was reading.

As for all the stories being gone, I hope not! One thing I've noticed is there's a dearth of novels about my period. Those that are around are either very old and hard to get hold of (a lot written in the nineteenth century) or they are Harlequin-type romances. I like that though as it gives me a big sandbox to play in.

Other than that I agree with the other posts. The first thing that came to mind as you mentioned A Tale of Two Cities is that you've also got Baroness Orzcy's 'The Scarlet Pimpernel' set in the same era, yet both are great books. Sitting on my shelf at the moment, I have two biographical fiction books about Attila the Hun by different authors, too.

Personally, I'd love to see a good book about William Rufus, something focussed on the civil war between Stephen and Maud (I know the Cadfael novels are all set in this period, but I mean something actually about the events), actually I want to read girlyswot's Princes in the Tower book, or anything fiction-y on the War of the Roses, as that's my latest thing I'm reading about right now, Roman London. Lots of things. Even if there are books out there, I'd want more than one to read.

[Puma]

Yes, Jess, I'd agree that The Scarlet Pimpernel is another of the greats, but for that same time period, there's also Sabatini's Scaramouche which is another classic.

And I do agree with everyone that there are a large number of good stories that haven't been told or haven't adequately been told. Doogs' mention of the Cid is a good example (of course, I'll always see Charlton Heston charging on his white horse for any Cid story). As several people have mentioned, there are also many good stories of the little people, those insignificant to history. But, if you write about the little people, there's the immediate problem of who cares enough to read about them or that the stories are only of regional interest. They aren't about someone important so they have to include a major event to have half a chance of success. Which kind of brings this back around to Jess and her cameo question.

Maybe we need to start a new thread for historic topics needing novels. Puma

[Doogs]

Personally, I'd love to see a good book about William Rufus, something focussed on the civil war between Stephen and Maud (I know the Cadfael novels are all set in this period, but I mean something actually about the events), actually I want to read girlyswot's Princes in the Tower book, or anything fiction-y on the War of the Roses, as that's my latest thing I'm reading about right now, Roman London. Lots of things. Even if there are books out there, I'd want more than one to read.

Jess - if you haven't read Sharon Kay Penman, do so. When Christ and His Saints Slept covers Stephen and Maud, and The Sunne in Splendour is a fantastic take on Richard III.

[girlyswot]

As several people have mentioned, there are also many good stories of the little people, those insignificant to history. But, if you write about the little people, there's the immediate problem of who cares enough to read about them or that the stories are only of regional interest. They aren't about someone important so they have to include a major event to have half a chance of success.

Well, that depends why you're reading the novel, doesn't it? If you're reading to 'learn history' then maybe the little people aren't so interesting. Although, even there, the rise of interest in 'social history' suggests otherwise. People do want to know what life was like for ordinary people in other times and places. And, of course, the viewpoint of a 'little person' on a major event can be really fascinating - more so, sometimes than the key players.

But also, I think that the 'little people' stories are interesting just because people and their stories ARE interesting. Here, the historical setting is almost incidental. What matters is the story and the characterisation. The readers care because the writer makes them care, not because they have any prior knowledge or interest in the period. It's that same debate we've had before. Maybe these are historical NOVELS, rather than HISTORICAL novels. Or something?

[DeleyanLee]

Donroc prompted this thread in my mind. He and I share a great admiration and love of "classical historical fiction" - Shellabarger, Sabatini, Costain, etc. Thinking of those writers and their stories made me wonder - have the best stories already been told?

There's no way anyone (in my opinion) could write a story based on the Conquest of Mexico that would eclipse Shellabarger's Captain from Castille. The same goes for me for Dickens and A Tale of Two Cities, Margaret Mitchell and Gone with the Wind, plus a host of other writers who first (or best) wrote stories of historical events (in my opinion).

Quick and simple: No way.

Well, do remember that's your opinion and not everyone holds those individual books in such high esteem. Amazing, but true.

What those books explored were just parts of the over all of those eras, one story out of millions that are possible there. Just because Dickens was a genius doesn't mean there's nothing more to be discovered in the vast depths and intrigues of the Victorian era. The American Civil War affected far more than one southern woman and her estate after all. There's still lots of stories to be told and they are, in no way, sequels to the greats that have gone before.

[DeleyanLee]

something focussed on the civil war between Stephen and Maud

Ask and ye shall receive: When Christ and His Saints Slept by Sharon Kay Penman

[PastMidnight]

something focussed on the civil war between Stephen and Maud

Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth is also set during this time.

[scarletpeaches]

Jean Plaidy wrote many, many historical novels and she certainly focused on the Stephen/Maud relationship - trouble is I can't for the life of me remember the title.

[Zelenka]

Obviously the Stephen / Maud thing was a bad example, since there seem to be a load of books. Sorry to show my total ignorance but it's a period I've only recently gotten interested in.

[PastMidnight]

As several people have mentioned, there are also many good stories of the little people, those insignificant to history. But, if you write about the little people, there's the immediate problem of who cares enough to read about them or that the stories are only of regional interest. They aren't about someone important so they have to include a major event to have half a chance of success.

I don't know if I would agree with this, although perhaps this has to do more with personal taste. Generally, I prefer historicals involving the little people as opposed to those about major historical figures. I suppose I feel that, if I wanted to read about Charlemange, I would rather read a biography on him, rather than a novel. I want to read novels about the people that no one is going to write a biography about. That's what I lean towards in my writing as well. Ordinary people doing ordinary things, but living in extraordinary times that cannot help but have an impact on them.

[PastMidnight]

Obviously the Stephen / Maud thing was a bad example, since there seem to be a load of books. Sorry to show my total ignorance but it's a period I've only recently gotten interested in.

No worries! We were just giving you a few more titles to add to your 'To Read' list. :D I agree that it is an underrepresented period.

[PastMidnight]

Jean Plaidy wrote many, many historical novels and she certainly focused on the Stephen/Maud relationship - trouble is I can't for the life of me remember the title.

:D I don't know if there is a period that Jean Plaidy didn't write about.

[Zelenka]

I don't know if I would agree with this, although perhaps this has to do more with personal taste. Generally, I prefer historicals involving the little people as opposed to those about major historical figures. I suppose I feel that, if I wanted to read about Charlemange, I would rather read a biography on him, rather than a novel. I want to read novels about the people that no one is going to write a biography about. That's what I lean towards in my writing as well. Ordinary people doing ordinary things, but living in extraordinary times that cannot help but have an impact on them.

I'm sort of on the fence on this as I like both kinds of novel. I'm not sure which one I'd lean more towards and even looking at my bookshelf, there's a mixture of the two there. But I do tend towards the little people stories when I write.

[Pup]

Well, that depends why you're reading the novel, doesn't it? If you're reading to 'learn history' then maybe the little people aren't so interesting. Although, even there, the rise of interest in 'social history' suggests otherwise.

I agree. For what it's worth, the novel I recently completed was definitely about "little people," and the agent who accepted it said she's marketing it to publishers as the kind of thing teachers might suggest to students when they're studying that period. It probably couldn't set the world on fire as a best seller--which is the fault of my writing rather than the setting, I think--but it still could contribute to a niche of social history.

But also, I think that the 'little people' stories are interesting just because people and their stories ARE interesting. Here, the historical setting is almost incidental. What matters is the story and the characterisation. The readers care because the writer makes them care, not because they have any prior knowledge or interest in the period. It's that same debate we've had before. Maybe these are historical NOVELS, rather than HISTORICAL novels. Or something?

That kind of historical novel has always been my interest. We don't expect contemporary novels necessarily to include famous people or events, and I think one can approach a historical novel the same way.

[Doogs]

That kind of historical novel has always been my interest. We don't expect contemporary novels necessarily to include famous people or events, and I think one can approach a historical novel the same way.

Maybe not novels (I have to confess I don't read too many set in modern day), but we have PLENTY of stories including famous people and events. From the world of movies, just consider Walk the Line, Ray, Miracle, Invincible, Thirteen Days, Flight 93, etc.

Personally, I can go either way. I think it all depends on the story, the pace, the writing, and the characters. As long as you come to care about the characters and their circumstances, what does it matter if they are emperors, queens, squires or slaves?

I also think the terms "famous" and "little" have a lot of room for flexibility.

For example, my WIP deals with the Second Punic War, fought between Rome and Carthage. My main characters WERE famous, even legendary. But today, they are unknown to all but the small percentage of the population who paid attention in ancient history or who went on to study Classics in college. So do they and the events in which they participated necessarily count as "famous"?

The same could be said of "little" people. Where does one draw the line? Are we talking about the powerless? The peasants and serfs? Or just some personage history has for the most part overlooked?

[pdr]

little people are those the writer creates. The merchants, trading in commodities we've never thought about, shopkeepers, selling things we wouldn't buy, in ways we didn't know about, farmers, the hows of their farms and what they grew and ate, labourers, and their work often no longer work today, the craftspeople working at crafts we don't know of today! They fascinate readers and all the daily details about water and food, clothes and laundry, travel and transport which are so different from today.

An 'undiscovered' Duke or General is merely that. S/he could never be a 'little' person because of hir position and rank. There many around, in most periods, all with stories to tell.

[Doogs]

little people are those the writer creates

Not necessarily. If I'm not mistaken, Puma's WIP involves historically documented individuals. And - poor example though it may be - Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome (not the model of historical accuracy, but hey...) are mentioned in Caesar's account of the Gallic War.

I take your meaning - my point is simply that things aren't so cut and dry.

[Puma]

pdr - I have to ask whether the "hir" in your post above was a typo or something new I haven't seen before to indicate either sex. It's clever. Puma

[girlyswot]

Not necessarily. If I'm not mistaken, Puma's WIP involves historically documented individuals. And - poor example though it may be - Lucius Vorenus and Titus Pullo from HBO's Rome (not the model of historical accuracy, but hey...) are mentioned in Caesar's account of the Gallic War.


I never knew that! I shall now imagine Rome as actually being peopled by Kevin McKidd lookalikes. Mmmm.

[pdr]

Doogs, nothing is that simple. Simply because people will keep on complicating things! :)

Many people, little people, are documented, even if only in a birth, marriage or death certificate, a will probated or a deed of sale. In Puma's era or my NZ pioneer era their lives were documented in ship manifests and land grants. Puma takes the real person. I take a Christian name here, a Surname there, a port or place somewhere and an incident, then create. These are little people because their lives were not those of great moment to the usual type of historian and they aren't found in history books.

Puma, and you a 60s woman's right lass too! :) S/he and hir always for the old him and her, his and hers. Used by some writers in SF and fantasy novels too. Lovely isn't it, after years of having his and him rammed down our throats, having to say a word that sounds like she or her.

[Puma]

pdr - I've seen the S/he quite a bit but don't recall having run into hir before (but I don't read much if any sci-fi or fantasy.) Thank you for the explanation. Puma

[scarletpeaches]

I imagine Rome as being populated by James Purefoy in the altogether. Now that's some yummy right there.

[Pup]

Maybe not novels (I have to confess I don't read too many set in modern day), but we have PLENTY of stories including famous people and events. From the world of movies, just consider Walk the Line, Ray, Miracle, Invincible, Thirteen Days, Flight 93, etc.

Definitely. But readers don't expect or require it in modern novels. A novel set in 2007 could be about a handful of completely made-up schoolkids dealing with the problems of adolescence, and no one would wonder why it didn't end with some newsworthy event, or include a visit from a famous person.

A historical novel about a handful of completely made-up schoolkids (or apprentices) dealing with the problems of adolescence in 1200 or 1600 or 1800 isn't typical for a HISTORICAL novel, but would work for a historical NOVEL. :)

[PastMidnight]

Definitely. But readers don't expect or require it in modern novels. A novel set in 2007 could be about a handful of completely made-up schoolkids dealing with the problems of adolescence, and no one would wonder why it didn't end with some newsworthy event, or include a visit from a famous person.

A historical novel about a handful of completely made-up schoolkids (or apprentices) dealing with the problems of adolescence in 1200 or 1600 or 1800 isn't typical for a HISTORICAL novel, but would work for a historical NOVEL. :)

Well put!

[funidream]

The readers care because the writer makes them care, not because they have any prior knowledge or interest in the period.


And isn't that the nut of all good fiction?

I mean, who wouldn't rather read an exciting well written story about queen's maid, than drab and flat writing about the queen, no matter how accurate the research?

As far as how many stories are out there - to me it's kind of like music - there is a limited number of notes but there are an infinite number of combinations.

As far as little people and big people go, the two stories I have being published are both focused on unfamous, everyday people coping within the constraints of their time and place. There is not a famous "real" person in sight in my MIDWIFE book, and Berkley still catalogs the book as "Historical Fiction".

Though I am a stickler and as nutty as we all seem to be on historical accuracy, story is my prime directive, and I freely admit I probably write historical NOVELS rather than HISTORICAL novels.

[c.e.lawson]

And isn't that the nut of all good fiction?

I mean, who wouldn't rather read an exciting well written story about queen's maid, than drab and flat writing about the queen, no matter how accurate the research?

As far as how many stories are out there - to me it's kind of like music - there is a limited number of notes but there are an infinite number of combinations.

As far as little people and big people go, the two stories I have being published are both focused on unfamous, everyday people coping within the constraints of their time and place. There is not a famous "real" person in sight in my MIDWIFE book, and Berkley still catalogs the book as "Historical Fiction".

Though I am a stickler and as nutty as we all seem to be on historical accuracy, story is my prime directive, and I freely admit I probably write historical NOVELS rather than HISTORICAL novels.

Thanks for posting that, funidream. My WIP doesn't have a "real" person in it either, so I'm glad to see such a high profile publisher as yours designating your work historical fiction. I'm definitely a historical NOVEL kind of person. (Did you just start some new terminology, girlyswot?) My fascination with "unfamous, everyday people coping within the constraints of their time and place" is the main reason why I read historical fiction, and is the focus of my WIP. *breathes sigh of relief*

c.e.

[girlyswot]

girlyswot[/B]?)
c.e.

Looks like it. ;)

[pdr]

Senile decay it may be and I missed it previously, but what the heck are the definitions of:

a HISTORICAL novel,
and
a historical NOVEL?

I beg your pardon, what did you say?
A historical novel about a handful of completely made-up schoolkids (or apprentices) dealing with the problems of adolescence in 1200 or 1600 or 1800 isn't typical for a HISTORICAL novel, but would work for a historical NOVEL.

Oh no. Are you trying to break down historical novels into those which are history because they deal with real people who lived, AND fiction because they are about the writer's created characters set in history. Look it can't work because if it is a novel it is a writer's fictitious creation.

No, no, no, please go and look at the HNS definition. You are not telling me the editors at PenguinUS told you that. That's not what I've heard the UK Penguin editors say.

[girlyswot]

pdr, this is what I said:

Well, that depends why you're reading the novel, doesn't it? If you're reading to 'learn history' then maybe the little people aren't so interesting. Although, even there, the rise of interest in 'social history' suggests otherwise. People do want to know what life was like for ordinary people in other times and places. And, of course, the viewpoint of a 'little person' on a major event can be really fascinating - more so, sometimes than the key players.

But also, I think that the 'little people' stories are interesting just because people and their stories ARE interesting. Here, the historical setting is almost incidental. What matters is the story and the characterisation. The readers care because the writer makes them care, not because they have any prior knowledge or interest in the period. It's that same debate we've had before. Maybe these are historical NOVELS, rather than HISTORICAL novels. Or something?

For me the distinction was more to do with the role of the history in the novel, rather than whether it's 'little people' or 'big people' or 'fictitious people' history.

Some people, like Puma for instance, like to read and write HISTORICAL novels, where the main emphasis is on conveying historical information, using the novel format to do so.

Others prefer to concentrate on the central story of their characters, and the fact that the novel is set in a different time and place is merely a matter of accident. I'd say these are historical NOVELS, with the main aim of engaging the reader in the story and characters. Most of us, I think, fall into this latter category.

[Zelenka]

pdr, this is what I said:



For me the distinction was more to do with the role of the history in the novel, rather than whether it's 'little people' or 'big people' or 'fictitious people' history.

Some people, like Puma for instance, like to read and write HISTORICAL novels, where the main emphasis is on conveying historical information, using the novel format to do so.

Others prefer to concentrate on the central story of their characters, and the fact that the novel is set in a different time and place is merely a matter of accident. I'd say these are historical NOVELS, with the main aim of engaging the reader in the story and characters. Most of us, I think, fall into this latter category.

I don't want to be argumentative or anything. I just wanted to say that I don't think it's as simple a distinction as that. For instance my novel is set (eventually) in a little village in Somerset during the English Civil War. It focusses mainly on the characters and any historical people who turn up are cameos, couple of lines at best. The setting though isn't a chance one and is important to the story too. For instance, one of the big issues in mine is the religious ideas people had at that time, arising from the conflict, as well as the division of families etc as they chose sides. My main aim is to tell an engaging story and get people to care about whether my characters live or die, but it's also about the history.

Likewise, if I wrote a biographical fiction of Oliver Cromwell's life (which I don't intend to do, the Cromwell enthusiasts scare me far too much), it would still be about the character. Just I'd have to make doubly bloody sure I got the details right ;)

Going back to the original question, I've been thinking about this, and one thing I wondered about was the sort of novel I just mentioned, where it tells the story of a famous person's life. What do people think the situation would be if, say, loads of people wrote a biographical novel of Elizabeth I? If you read one really good one, would you want to read another? Assuming both authors stuck to the established facts for the most part so really, the two stories are the same, it's just the treatment, maybe aspects of the characterisation or storytelling that's different?

[girlyswot]

They weren't meant to be hard and fast categories, just different ways of thinking about it. Most novels are more complicated than that, though I do think that most of us have a bias in one direction or the other.

I'd certainly read more than one novel about Elizabeth I. In fact, I think I have. Because however closely you stick to the facts, you can still tell different stories depending on the other choices you make. People are complex and history is complex and there's more than one way of joining the dots. Reading different interpretations gives you a better place to stand in making your own judgments.

[Zelenka]

They weren't meant to be hard and fast categories, just different ways of thinking about it. Most novels are more complicated than that, though I do think that most of us have a bias in one direction or the other.

I'd certainly read more than one novel about Elizabeth I. In fact, I think I have. Because however closely you stick to the facts, you can still tell different stories depending on the other choices you make. People are complex and history is complex and there's more than one way of joining the dots. Reading different interpretations gives you a better place to stand in making your own judgments.

I only picked Elizabeth I because at the same time I was also thinking about adaptations of the same story. For instance, I've seen at least three about Elizabeth, all exactly the same and adding no real extra dimension or different idea about her character or the events of the time. I've read books like that too, where the character's actions and personality even are well documented.

As for leaning one way or the other in the bias, I'm still not sure, purely thinking of my own WIP. But then I think what clouds the issue with mine is that I consider the period / setting almost as another character that interacts with the human characters, so possibly that's why I can't really say which is more important to the story.

[Voyager]

If you're reading a HISTORICAL, Historical, historical or historical novel in order to learn history, you're in for some rude awakening if you have to pass an exam.

[Zelenka]

If you're reading a HISTORICAL, Historical, historical or historical novel in order to learn history, you're in for some rude awakening if you have to pass an exam.

Speak for yourself. I fully intend to pass Medieval Legal History solely on my knowledge of the Cadfael mysteries! :D

[Zelenka]

Speak for yourself. I fully intend to pass Medieval Legal History solely on my knowledge of the Cadfael mysteries! :D

Actually that's not as funny as I thought it was, since I just remembered I actually did answer all the questions in class on sanctuary law from The Sanctuary Sparrow. :o

[Voyager]

That's okay, I'm just rereading Bawab the Builder, you're still a funny arse.

Actually that's not as funny as I thought it was, since I just remembered I actually did answer all the questions in class on sanctuary law from The Sanctuary Sparrow. :o

[Doogs]

If you're reading a HISTORICAL, Historical, historical or historical novel in order to learn history, you're in for some rude awakening if you have to pass an exam.

Yes and no.

Reading historical fiction, and ONLY historical fiction, in order to learn history is ludicrous.

But...

In my experience, historical fiction is a fantastic way to immerse yourself in a period. It's a primer that makes approaching the drier historical texts palatable, and even exciting.

As an example, I fully credit Pillars of the Earth for awakening my interest in Medieval Europe. Between it and Norman Cantor's Civilization of the Middle Ages, I found myself absolutely addicted. And I came away from my Early Medieval Europe class at Vanderbilt with an A. After that, I made it a point for the rest of my college career to approach any new period of history with 1) a historical novel on the period and 2) a good narrative history. A lot easier to stay awake through the dry stuff after that, because it ALL becomes fascinating.

[funidream]

Oh no. Are you trying to break down historical novels into those which are history because they deal with real people who lived, AND fiction because they are about the writer's created characters set in history. Look it can't work because if it is a novel it is a writer's fictitious creation.

No, no, no, please go and look at the HNS definition. You are not telling me the editors at PenguinUS told you that. That's not what I've heard the UK Penguin editors say.

First of all, I'm not saying the editors at PenguinUS told me anything - I was responding to this comment by Puma:

"As several people have mentioned, there are also many good stories of the little people, those insignificant to history. But, if you write about the little people, there's the immediate problem of who cares enough to read about them or that the stories are only of regional interest. They aren't about someone important so they have to include a major event to have half a chance of success. Which kind of brings this back around to Jess and her cameo question."

I was just noting that my story, populated by "little people" and devoid of what are being called "real" or "famous" characters, has sold (which is a measure of success) and is still catagorized as a Historical Novel by my publisher - just as a novel about Henry VIII is catagorized as a Historical Novel in the same catalog (this being the catalog that goes out to booksellers). My purpose being to point out that even stories about "little people" have a chance at publication and are considered Historical Fiction - you know, to encourage those of us who write about the "little people".

I think Girlyswot's "HISTORICAL novel" vs. "historical NOVEL" distinction as a clever way to describe the difference between those stories that are based on significant historical figures or events and those, like my story, that are not. I read and enjoy both types.

[pdr]

Definitely a senile moment.

I see, thank you girlyswot (May I just use gs as I'm not enamoured of your board name for reasons I won't enter into here but are personal to me and not thee, lass!)

Yes, light has dawned and I see. Nice distinction even if all of us had better remember that we need a good story for the reader if we are to be published.

Did you get your editor to send your book to the HNS for their Review journal, Funidream? Do. It's free and the Review goes to a wide range of readers worldwide.

Doogs, I'm with you re the importance of historical fiction. It was Rosemary Sutcliffe who hooked me forever, but there was a huge list of good writers from the Oxford University Press -Roland Welch, Cynthia Harnett, Barbara Willar, Lucy M Boston - when I was at school who showed me history was about people. And my son silenced his Classics teacher with some comments about Roman Britain and, when questioned on his knowledge, told him it was Rosemary Sutcliffe and Lindsay Davies who had hooked him on to Classics!

Jess, Peters was pretty sound historically but don't tell your profs.

[Zelenka]

Yes and no.

Reading historical fiction, and ONLY historical fiction, in order to learn history is ludicrous.

But...

In my experience, historical fiction is a fantastic way to immerse yourself in a period. It's a primer that makes approaching the drier historical texts palatable, and even exciting.

As an example, I fully credit Pillars of the Earth for awakening my interest in Medieval Europe. Between it and Norman Cantor's Civilization of the Middle Ages, I found myself absolutely addicted. And I came away from my Early Medieval Europe class at Vanderbilt with an A. After that, I made it a point for the rest of my college career to approach any new period of history with 1) a historical novel on the period and 2) a good narrative history. A lot easier to stay away through the dry stuff after that, because it ALL becomes fascinating.

That's really interesting, just because I'm the opposite. I start reading historical fiction once the period has 'cropped up' in some way elsewhere. I got interested in the Civil War because I used to take tours around the royal parks and palaces in London and so had to learn the history for that (just after I left college the first time), and as I've been studying history in depth at university, I've found myself getting more interested in other periods too. I enjoy studying them, and then I hunt out fiction in that period (as in the Stephen / Maud stuff).

Not arguing with you or anything, just saying it's interesting the different approaches everyone has.

Oh, for pdr, my professor uses 'Law and Order' as an example in almost every lesson, so I don't know if he'd be that bothered if he did find out the sort of reading I'd done! ;)

[donroc]

I have been away for three days, so I will now respond to Puma. There are many stories yet to be told concerning obscure yet interesting historical figures and significant events. One event that could be a huge novel in the classic form would cover the Fashoda Incident. Add an MC to the French or the Brits; romance at home. And you have it.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[funidream]

Definitely a senile moment.
Did you get your editor to send your book to the HNS for their Review journal, Funidream? Do. It's free and the Review goes to a wide range of readers worldwide.

Thanks! The advance copies that go out to reviewers won't be going out for a few weeks yet, but I do plan to have one sent to HNS. I am a member and I purposefully went to the conference in Albany in order to meet some of the reviewers and Bernard Cornwell in order to better promote my book, when the time came. The trip sure paid off, as Mr. Cornwell was kind enough to read my manuscript and offer a very nice quote for the cover.

[PastMidnight]

I'm with you, Doogs. Historical fiction is often a stepping stone for me. I read a novel about a new historical figure/period, which often leads me to a biography or two, which leads to general books on the period, which leads to more novels, etc. I tend to get on 'reading kicks' surrounding a particular person or time period or culture, started by the reading of a historical novel.


Yes and no.

Reading historical fiction, and ONLY historical fiction, in order to learn history is ludicrous.

But...

In my experience, historical fiction is a fantastic way to immerse yourself in a period. It's a primer that makes approaching the drier historical texts palatable, and even exciting.

As an example, I fully credit Pillars of the Earth for awakening my interest in Medieval Europe. Between it and Norman Cantor's Civilization of the Middle Ages, I found myself absolutely addicted. And I came away from my Early Medieval Europe class at Vanderbilt with an A. After that, I made it a point for the rest of my college career to approach any new period of history with 1) a historical novel on the period and 2) a good narrative history. A lot easier to stay away through the dry stuff after that, because it ALL becomes fascinating.