How do you all balance history to fiction?

I couldn't really say, since my historical fiction is based around fictional characters rather than actual ones, but the usual answer would be when you need to fill in the gaps or when you need to streamline something for the sake of narrative.

I'd say it depends on your goals for the story.

Is your goal to dramatize historical events, or are you telling a fictional story set against the backdrop of a historical event?

If your primary goal is to dramatize real events, are your primary characters historical personages, or are you telling the story through fictional characters who interact with historical figures?

The more you are trying to stick to real events and real people, the less scope you have to make things up. You can invent conversations, for instance, if there's no record of what someone said on a given occasion. You could also insert supporting characters who might not have appeared in historical records. You can take liberties with aspects of a real person's life that might not have been documented, like their home life or childhood or recreational activities, as long as it doesn't contradict what's actually known about the person.

Note that the above assumes your goal is historical accuracy. I've seen TV shows that take enormous artistic license with historical fact. The Showtime series Masters of Sex, for instance, changed the names and ages of one of the main characters' children, and had famous people like the Shah of Iran appear in situations that were completely contrary to the historical record. I gave up on the show because the inaccuracies annoyed me, but the producers evidently saw no problem with it.

If, on the other hand, you're writing a fictional story that is only "based on" historical events, and you're clear about that, you can invent as much as you want.

I try to keep as close to the facts and actual happenings as much as possible. It's those parts between the big factual events that I fill in with fiction. With those, I still try to use facts as my basis. I take into account everything I know about the timeline, the parties involved, and all other facts. Doing that, yes it's still fiction, but it seems to flow and line up with everything else fairly good. You kind of figure out what needs to happen or what probably happened between the stuff you actually know.

Think of history as a character and not a boundary or limitation.

Also, why are you writing this particular topic? What is your personal interpretation of the events?

Illuminating the past is more than recounting facts and dates read in books, it's about interpreting what may or may not have happened in your point of view. This is why we can find ten different books (novels and non-fiction) about Anne Boleyn. Authors and readers are engaged in a fascinating (to them) dialogue about her life and times.

Tampa? 1910? No one is going to know whether you were accurate or not. You can use real events as inspiration, and make up whatever you want, as long as you don't have Genghis Khan show up or anything like that.

TV? Pardon my stereotype, but, your goal is to entertain, not to educate, right? It doesn't matter if half the events in your story are contrary to what really happened. Sometimes people read historical fiction for a combination of entertainment and education, so you want to get 90% of the facts right or you're miseducating them. But this is not one of those times, right?

One thing that I have found works best in any historical medium, especially "recent" history as this would fall into, is really getting into the era. What I mean by that is, learn about everyday life in that era and area. What restaurants were popular then? What kind of clothes? What was the local political scene like at the time/place? I once heard an author mention the notion of "wrapping yourself up" in the setting. I like that terminology. Read some works about past time periods, stuff like Philip K. Dick's Mani n the high Castle, for an idea of how to really wrap the setting around the reader (yes this is an alternative history BUT his writing style illustrates well the point I'm trying to make). Of course the amount of detail you go into depends on the story. Jean M Auel went all-in in her Earth's Children books, right down to describing bathroom habits. That may not be the level of detail that works for you. Regardless, details are still good.

In other words, get into it. The goal of any story is to wrap the reader up in the setting, so as an author, do the same. Those little details, even if not pertinent to your story as a whole, will add up to making it more memorable.

morngnstar said:

Tampa? 1910? No one is going to know whether you were accurate or not.

Click to expand...

Several years ago I went to a talk in London, the guest was Steven Saylor, author of the Gordianus the Finder series set in ancient Rome. In one of the books Gordianus ate some cherries. Mr Saylor got a letter telling him that cherries were not available in Rome at that time. Thing is that there is always some one out there who knows stuff and will hammer you with it.

I hate it when films/books/tv series seriously alter the character of a person who lived. One example of this is 'From Hell' 2001 film based on the White Chapel Murders, more commonly called Jack the Ripper. Johnny Depp plays Inspector Frederick Abberline as a drug riddled psychic, which he was not. It is either going to bother the viewer, if they know about the real Abberline or not bother them if they don't. I think it depends on the skill of the script writer in portraying the character and the skill of the actor playing the part. Also, I don't think it is important to use the real name of an historic person if their character is going to be changed out of recognition.

With respect, morngnstar, and I know the post is old, but that's the reason so many historical shows fail: because they don't respect the history, and they're frankly lazy about getting it right because they don't respect their audience enough to believe their audience will notice and care. Well, they do. Look, some gaffs are inevitable because we're only human, and a little tweak here or there isn't necessarily a death knell. But every writer of historically based fiction should make every effort to get it right. The goal is to entertain, but to do it with integrity. And ideally, yes, you're educating your audience at the same time.

Angeliz, may I go on record as one wanting to see, someday, your trunked Brittania 60 AD novel? This period of time is just fascinating for me as a reader.