How much is too much?

If it contributes to the character development, his fulfilment, then put it in, if it add to the plot, add it, if it's mindless filler you put in because you read it and it's relevant to the time but not much else--better to leave it out.

Get your favorite beta reader out. Got him/her? Watch this person read. When their eyes glaze over, it's too much.

Honestly, I hate to get a history lesson or worse, geography lesson while I read. A little bit goes a long way.

Write in everything you want to write, then cut mercilessly later.

I might be quite off here, but I honestly believe that if you research the era to an extent where you feel absolutely familiar with it, then the reader will feel comfortable there too.

Personally, as a reader, I like it when the author presents some details that are interesting and needed to move the story along, but will put the book away and not return to it if I feel that I am being lectured. If I become interested in the period presented I am perfectly able to search for more info myself.

Come on down...

to Genres and join us in Historicals, where we have discussed this, and many other useful topics, in depth.

Realize first that you will not tell the reader half of what you found out. Or shouldn't anyway. You take what you know and weave it in the story in such a subtle way that the reader isn't even aware they are learning something.
For my WIP I have to research stuff like the beginning of agriculture, the weather during the early holocene in the fertile crescent (which I had to stop researching ), migration patterns of early humans...

The list goes on and on. I learned that one theory in the academic community is that these early farmers buried their dead under there houses, and this is what made them feel so connected to the land. Their past was buried in the ground, and from that ground their crops grew and their animals ate. Their past and future connected in the land and bound them to it. They felt such a connection to it that they stayed there, even when the weather shifted again and farming became very difficult. This prompted them to develop better farming techniques which made them depend even more on their innovation.

Sounds dry and boring right? Text book material.

Presented in the right way it won't be. Show and not tell. Character motives. Goals. Setting. Conflict. By the end of the book the reader will know all this, and not even realize he was learning it.

dkglenning said:

... Where do you guys say enough is enough?

Click to expand...

I agree with heyjude that if your beta's eyes glaze over, it is too much.

But before that you have to have some sort of boundary. So first, read the information. If that raises more questions like, "my character is doing this, do they really (or would they really) do that..." then find out.

For instance, did you know that in first century Rome they used animal urine to make their togas white?

*G*

That doesn't have to make it into your book, but when you think about it, the ammonia smell had to have been overpowering. So, if your character was a lowly base servant they would try to avoid laundry duty, don't you think? So having a choice between a clothespin (which when talking about the spring action variety wasn't invented until 1853 by David M. Smith of Springfield, Vermont. Earlier than that, the Shakers invented the peg variety, but didn't patent it. Source Wikipedia.) and a whip, which would your character choose?

Not every inclusion of fact has to fall into the Black Footed Ferret trap, in fact it VERY MUCH SHOULDN'T (*using poor grammar to prove a point). When you "relate" little bits of information it needs to be relevant. Also, it doesn't hurt to double check the veracity of your sources.

For instance, several "history" books on the Celts lump Druids into a "mystical, religious sect" category. BUT, Caesar's (Julius) writings indicate that they were part of the intellectual class. Furthermore, other Greek and Roman historians noted names for "priests" that didn't include the word "druid" among them. Peter Berresford Ellis transcribes these sources well in his book "The Celts" and goes further to point out that Claudius outlawed them.

It was an obvious move for Rome to make: in order to conquer any people and absorb them, you first have to get rid of their intellectuals and destroy their cultural knowledge. (Peter Berresford Ellis, "The Celts" pp 55-56

Click to expand...

In essence, the Druids composed the scholars...the movers and shakers behind the scenes. They were king-makers (or queen-makers), not some magical force that many not so purist histories made them out to be.

First century Britain becomes a rather interesting political backdrop considering these things. It's almost easy to equate them with the US conquest of Iran/Iraq. We rip apart a religious/intellectual class and replace it with our own set of understandings and values in order to reshape a culture to be more amicable to our goals.

>:|D Sorry. I like this stuff is all. And, yes...it's dry as toast.

But, with information like that, you can create a heck of a political history. Or should I say "re-create" because as historical fiction writers do, they re-create history. Within artistic license.

Getting back to my point, if I hadn't checked and cross-checked sources I would have incorrectly assumed that the Celts were a matriarchal society with mystics that predetermined the rules. That assumption is incorrect because some tribes (most notably the Trinovantes, who minted coins and insured a historical record of succession this way.) were patriarchal. Even the much touted Boudica, was queen only after her husband died.

When I read books that ignore what I uncovered through legitimate sources it burns me. Why? because it only took four reference books to debunk the misinformation that's out there. If one person says "Global warming is caused by seal crap" and enough people believe it, we'd go out and club baby seals again. As a compassionate person, I'd hate to see that happen. And I hate to see history misquoted as well. Caesar wrote that Druids burned people alive in wicker cages shaped like giant men, and people believed it so the Roman legions justified annihilation of the sect. GW says that Iran helps the terrorists...well, I hope you get my thought process here.

In essence, get your facts straight, know your reference sources, don't use their words verbatim, and draw your own conclusions based upon what you've learned, apply it to your idea, but always let your reader know what you are writing is fiction.

And sorry for the dry as toast post.

Amy

there is no such thing as knowing too much about your subject. There is such a thing as putting much petty detail into your work. As long as its relevant, put it in. When you cross the line into 'hey look at this obscure fact I found! Aren't I the greatest?' you've got a problem.

However, you'd be surprised about how different certain eras of history are. There are lots of things that people in our day take for granted that simply didn't exist, or were monstrously expensive in historic eras.

What era is it?

Thats interesting, you mean the American Revolution? Thats an era I don't know much about, but its at the very beginning of the industrial revolution. Probably most things that exist in your story would have been made by hand, probably, except for certain textiles, guns and bullets, and stuff like that. I believe that those products were kind of the kickoff for the industrial revolution.

For example, pins were actually very expensive in those days. That something people nowadays don't appreciate. Nails too. I'm not exactly sure when these things got industrialized. Perhaps before your era. But its something worth looking in to. Now of course, its unlikely to be significant to your story, but its just kind of the mindset thing that we have now that didn't exist before. To us, pins and nails are the very definition of cheap. They weren't always.