Historical Fiction

[Light of the World]

You may have seen my holocaust diary project in the share your work forum. I, without Mike, have decided to work off that story (which was mainly mine) and turn it into a novel. It will be the Diary of Gitta and Hannelore. Gitta is the Christian and Hannelore is the Jew.

The fiction part is easy, but how much research should I put into it?

[BlueTexas]

As much as you need to, I would think. Pretty sure no one can come up with a quantative answer but you.

[SRHowen]

enough to make the time period seem real, but not so much that it seems like a history book vs a work of fiction.

Shawn

[Diviner]

The fiction part is easy, but how much research should I put into it?

Historical fiction at its best is as accurate as the writer can make it. This doen't mean you overwhelm the reader with facts and explanations but that nothing important is contrary to the period and that the story is told in such a way that what was actually happening then influences your plot and characterizations. Sometimes I have searched through several hours of reading to elicit a single salient fact. Often I have put in those hours without finding a satisfactory answer. I hate it when I end up "faking" my material.

If I did not do rather painstaking research, my work would lack creditability, which is something readers of historical fiction want. Almost every aspect of the story can be researched, from the food people ate to their superstitions and legal relationships. Maps, old maps especially, are invaluable.

Whatever story you choose to tell, make sure you have access to th information you need. The internet is a good start, but a good library is even better, partly because the internet is not reliable. Added to this is that history is written by the winners, so much has to be taken with a grain of salt, and then there is modern revisioinist history, which is almost as subjective.

For my WIP I have huge stacks of hard copy, file cards, maps, and books. Very little of it will actually appear in the story, but all of it has been essential to the framing of my story--and I am not yet finished.

I have not seen your work, but the bottom line is to be as accurate as you can while telling a good story.

[Richard White]

Even though I write primarily fantasy, not historical fiction, having a degree in History makes me want to make my fantasy setting "right".

By that, for my own sanity, I have to make the "non-fantastic" as accurate as possible when doing "medieval/renaissance" fantasy settings. Coinage must be reasonable, professions need to have existed, buildings should be reasonably close to real buildings, etc. Now, once I have the setting fixed in my mind, then I can decide what to break to add in the fantasy . . . (Hey, who says you can't have the Pegasus tamer set up next to the tavern?).

The object is, even in a fiction story, don't do something that jars the reader (unless that's specifically what you're trying to do). Once the reader goes, "Nah, that's not right, that couldn't have happened," it's a rare writer who can get them back.

I know research is a four-letter word to some authors, but I think being familiar with your subject makes a better book.

Of course, this is my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[boots]

i agree with most of the other advice here ~ i find what happens is that you can do x amount of research and all of it is fascinating and wonderful, but ultimately, how much of that actually goes into the book depends on your audience and your motivation for writing.

is your audience primary people who are familiar with the more common details? then skip the broad stuff. is your audience young and likely not savvy about the era and the socio-political environment? maybe a scene in which some of this gets synopsized by the characters will help "ground" them.

the real trick is walking the fine line between overstating and saturating the text with "fact" at the sacrifice of the action of the story ~ or, contriwise, basting in such thin details that there's no sense of time or place at all.

only after a draft and a little perspective is it really easy to make this call.

my rule of thumb is to overwrite it the first way around. it's easier to cut than it is to try to patch in missing information ~

good luck ~ !

:)

[Alphabeter]

You need to do as much research as possible to make the historical part accurate. If you don't know what ration books and goose-stepping is, or why the star of David on windows was considered a "bad" thing, you can take the reader right out of the story-no matter how good it may be.

I could have the greatest tale about the American Civil War, but if I have the South wearing gray and carrying repeating rifles, it won't be widely enjoyed.

[James D. Macdonald]

Research is like an iceberg -- nine tenths of it is going to be out of sight.

Putting all the research on the page is called "I suffered for my art and now it's your turn."

[reph]

Seeing Schindler's List might help you understand the emotional atmosphere in Germany at the time and how Christians and Jews felt.

[Jamesaritchie]

You may have seen my holocaust diary project in the share your work forum. I, without Mike, have decided to work off that story (which was mainly mine) and turn it into a novel. It will be the Diary of Gitta and Hannelore. Gitta is the Christian and Hannelore is the Jew.

The fiction part is easy, but how much research should I put into it?

The trick, I think, is to make sure the historical facts you do need are accurate, but not abundant. Sometimes I think the best way of knowing how much research you actually need is to go ahead and write the novel.

I usually read two books on a given subject cover to cover before I start writing, and then put them aside and just write. The story then lets me know what historical facts I need, and if I didn't getthis information by reading those two books, I simply don't worry about it until after the first draft is finished. I just make a note at that spot in the manuscript and go on writing.

But it does depend on what kind of novel you intend to write. James A. Michener pretty much did write history book novels, and millions of readers loved them.

[victoriastrauss]

Even though I write primarily fantasy, not historical fiction, having a degree in History makes me want to make my fantasy setting "right".Unpleasant relative to me, not so long ago: "What are you doing these days?"

Me: "Working on a new book. I'm in the research stage right now."

Her (blankly): "Research? For a fantasy novel?"

Me: "I do research for all my novels. I was at the library yesterday, took out a pile of books."

Her: "But it's fantasy. Can't you just make it all up?"

Me (silently): "Grrrrr."

- Victoria

[Sarita]

Research is like an iceberg -- nine tenths of it is going to be out of sight. Putting all the research on the page is called "I suffered for my art and now it's your turn."

I'm with Uncle Jim. I'm working on a Hist. Fiction based in the Incan Empire on the brink of downfall. I traveled to Peru, took thousands of pictures, have read almost everything available, but I'll be damned if I'm going to pen it all out for my would-be readers! It's mostly just to put me there, so I can write like I know what I'm talking about (I do, really!), use the correct vocabulary and terms, create the right atmosphere...

[arrowqueen]

Yep. I agree. (again.)

I write historical erotica and the latest novel is set in England after the Norman Conquest. For this I researched:

Norman and Anglo-Saxon names.
Weaponery.
Pre and post-Norman systems of government.
The position of women under both.
Food and clothing. (I think I mentioned the lovely recipe I discovered which started 'Take an lapin or an mouton and smyte hem into gobbettes' on another thread.)
Customs and entertainment.
Social mores.
The church calendar.
Methods of agriculture.
The construction of a motte and bailey castle.
Furniture.
Poisonous toadstools indigenous to Britain at the time.

and even then I still had to check out little details as I went along. (For example, if your heroine is about to hit the evil baron over the head with a chamber pot, it's a bit off if the poor girl has to wait a hundred years for them to be invented!)

You don't hit your reader over the head with all this stuff, but you do need it to provide a plausible setting for your story. It may just be erotica, but by God it'll be as accurate as I can make it!

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
aq

P.S. On the other hand I did make up all the sex scenes myself. ;)

[boots]

I could have the greatest tale about the American Civil War, but if I have the South wearing gray and carrying repeating rifles, it won't be widely enjoyed. hmmmm ~ except that the South did wear gray and repeating rifles were being manufactured ~ (though not widely distributed) ~

now if you said that the whole army of the South was finely attired in nice gray uniforms and everyone had repeating rifles and hand grenades, okay, that would be a stretch.

;)

[Richard White]

Unpleasant relative to me, not so long ago: "What are you doing these days?"

Me: "Working on a new book. I'm in the research stage right now."

Her (blankly): "Research? For a fantasy novel?"

Me: "I do research for all my novels. I was at the library yesterday, took out a pile of books."

Her: "But it's fantasy. Can't you just make it all up?"

Me (silently): "Grrrrr."

- Victoria


Sounds suspiciously like a conversation I had with John Ringo at Stellarcon a couple of weeks ago. To him, research is a four-letter word. His basic response was, "While you spend four months researching that novel you're working on, I'll put out three novels and be getting royalty checks."

This is where this site needs a :banghead: smiley.

Rich

[Jamesaritchie]

You need to do as much research as possible to make the historical part accurate. If you don't know what ration books and goose-stepping is, or why the star of David on windows was considered a "bad" thing, you can take the reader right out of the story-no matter how good it may be.

I could have the greatest tale about the American Civil War, but if I have the South wearing gray and carrying repeating rifles, it won't be widely enjoyed.

Well, large numbers of southern troops did wear gray, and some even carried repeating rifles of various types. Issued frock coats and caps were primarily gray, and even when Confederates wore civilian clothing, it was almost certainly homespun from gray jean-wool. Gray wool was the common fabric in the south, and nearly all of it went undyed once the war started. This meant homespun pants, shirts, and jackets were almost always gray. So lack of uniforms almost always meant a line of "Confederate gray," as it was called at the time.

But there were also a few souther troops who wore blue, and a few northern troops who wore gray. Go figure.

For some reason, many think of the Henry as the first repeating rifle, but it was far from it. Most of the repeating rifles carried by the south were Colt or LeMat revolving rifles, but a surprising number of Spencer rifles also fell into southern hands. Some were captured in battle, but many more were smuggled south.

Only 1,761 Henry rifles were issued during the war, but the Spencer lever action was another story. The Spencer was invented in 1860, and was in mass production by 1862. Some 200,000 were used by the north (The Spencer is credited by many for the yankee win at Gettysburg.), and just over half of these were bought by soldiers, rather than being issued by the government. No one knows how many were used by the south, but among select troops, it was a substantial number.

Confederate cavalry also carried the Maynard carbine, and while not a true repeating rifle, it did use a roll of percussion caps that worked just like a modern cap gun. When the lever was used, a new percussion cap automatically moved into position for the next shot. It fired 12 rounds per minute, which was pretty darned fast by the standards of the day.

[brokenfingers]

P.S. On the other hand I did make up all the sex scenes myself. ;)

What? No research!?

[arrowqueen]

I'm a writer. I made it all up.

:tongue