The danger of a single story

I'll second that thought, Girlyswot. I've thought for a long time there was too much re-telling of the same old stories with a little different window dressing. I want to read something new (one of the reasons I enjoy the posts in SYW).

But if you go up to the current thread in Roundtable re: agent Kristin Nelson, you'll see what we're all up against (interesting thread, by the way). Puma

I agree, and I am the first to tell mine in my novel of 17th century Spain.

That's exactly why I write historical fiction --- because I think there are so many interesting stories out there that readers would love but aren't being told. I can't imagine ever running out of inspiration.

I second all above and I like mining the past for a good story.

Very interesting talk and so, so true.

girlyswot said:

Did anyone actually listen to the talk?

Click to expand...

Yes -- Williebee posted it a couple of months back.

Perhaps...?

we should e-mail it on to American agents who seem only to want known figures starring in historicals?

I posted a while ago about the UK agents who are looking for historical novels which show history through the eyes of unknown or totally created characters.

Yes, thanks for the link.

And Pdr - your comment gives me hope

Great post, girlyswot, and a very good speech by Ms. Adichie.

To add my own two cents, I think it may be helpful to equate the single story with stereotypes, or at the very least, popular conception. At least, that's how it struck me.

I don't see that this has to do with prominent historical figures so much as understanding and appreciating the nuance in people, cultures, and societies. Heck, a lot of prominent historical figures are themselves misunderstood, victims of this single story. Even relatively recent ones. Just look at the mythology surrounding the Founding Fathers.

I see this all the time in my ancient world playground. The Visigoths depicted as bloodthirsty savages (who were at the same time gullible and easily overcome by drink), when by Alaric's day the upper reaches were thoroughly Romanized and actively seeking influence from within the imperial power structures. The Romans of the middle Republic viewed the same as those of the imperial age...which would be like equating Americans of the mid-19th century to those living today.

I'd agree that part of our task as historical writers is to battle against this intellectual laziness. To show the past, the people, their lives, as they were, not as they are currently perceived.

Great link - very thought provoking.

Finding and learning the lost stories - the stories that broke with stereotype, mythologies and perceptions is what I find most fascinating and is what drew me, first as a reader, and then as a writer, to historical fiction.

And as a word of encouragement to writers of historical fiction facing querying American literary agents - I wrote my debut novel unwittingly breaking the following "no-nos" I often see mentioned on these boards:

- I wrote a historical fiction novel with an American setting
- I wrote a historical fiction novel without a single famous or "real" person among the cast of characters
- I wrote dialog using dialect
- My novel began with a prologue
- I depicted horrific, historically accurate violence, including a rape

Despite the fact that I had no no previously published work, and no credentials for writing anything, much less historical fiction, my query garnered a lot of attention among American agents. The agent I chose from the three who offered ended up selling that book to a big house.

My second published novel is set during the American Revolution centered on characters who are completely drawn from my imagination. The few "real" characters in it are of the type almost lost in history, and the truly famous personages appear in only the most cursory way - and yet I have a contract to write two sequels.

There is no single story, even when it comes to finding a path to publication.