Historical fiction and real characters

Well, I'm writing about real characters. Basically EVERYONE was a real, living human being at one point and wrote a memoir. Ahem. It was trendy . . . So I've been having trouble keeping to that while making a story. I don't want to change history, I want to bring it to life. It's just so hard! Especially when reports contradict each other, and oh boy do hey contradict each other in my case.

It was so much easier writing about the 1st century AD. Two of my main characters were historical figures but aren't even known by name. So I had LOTS of leeway. It was awfully nice.

Alexandre Dumas had no problems playing fast and loose with historical facts and figures... And he's still a top seller.

This is a touch question for me. The problems I have with re-enactment, as you call it, are ethical, in the sense that no matter how meticulously I research the historical figures who appear in my books, I am still making things up about them, things that might be totally wrong. Is it right to attribute thoughts and words and actions that might affect their reputations to people who are dead and cannot defend themselves if I get it wrong? It is impossible to avoid using historical figures in historical fiction, but this niggling fear bothers me as I write these characters. I mean, we can't take living people or even the recently dead and make characters out of them; why is it okay to do this with someone who's been dead a few hundred years just because they can't sue us for defamy?

People I've discussed this with say that it's okay because readers know they are reading fiction and not straight history. Nevertheless, that intellectual knowledge won't necessarily keep them from incorporating elements of the fictional portraits they've read into their mental constructs of historical figures. I've just finished reading Michelle Moran's Nefertiti, for example, and despite what further facts I might learn about Nefertiti in the future, I'll always picture her first as the selfish girl the novel portrays.

I try to avoid the problem by having my main characters be entirely fictional, since it is for the main characters that a writer must make up the greatest amount of personal material. That being said, however, I've heard editors at HF conferences say that they and their readership much prefer books about what they call "marquee names" -- recognizable figures from history whom readers recognize and want to know more about. In fact, I recently received a rejection on my manuscript from an editor who claimed to love the writing and story but passed because she "prefers her HF to be about queens and princesses." I've learned my lesson--in my next book historical characters will figure much more prominently than they do in my first manuscript. I'll have to be as accurate as I can and hope I get it right.

I've discussed this issue in more depth on my blog, if anyone's interested.
http://writingren.blogspot.com/search/label/ethics

Does anyone else have problems with this, or am I just neurotic?

Julianne, I feel exactly the same way about using real figures and attributing personalities and motives to them. I do it, but I also prefer to make them secondary characters. And I make sure I ground the personalities I invent for them in the actions and words I can research.

Frankly though, I also prefer to *read* historical fiction that is primarily about invented characters. Sometimes when I read novels abut historical figures, after the first few chapters (which are often invented stories about unknowable childhoods) I get the feeling the authors are ticking historical events off a list to get to the end. I read two novels last year about royal women in distant times and places that really disappointed me for this reason. Let's face it, real people's lives don't usually follow a compelling narrative arc, and either an author will follow the history, and possibly create something a little dull that doesn't hang together as a plot, or will invent wildly in order to build thrilling climaxes at the appropriate narrative moment. And because of the ethical reasons Julianne mentioned, I don't much like to write the latter *or* read it. YMMV, and I know there are exceptions.

We've been over this ground in the past, and it always seems to fall to personal preference. Some people prefer to read/write historical fiction involving actual historical figures, and others want fictional characters in historical settings.

Personally, I prefer writing about actual historical figures. Then again, I'm writing about events which transpired in the 3rd century B.C., and the material available on even the most prominent figures of the time is sorely lacking. Consider my principal character - Publius Cornelius Scipio. Even though he is one of the most prominent Romans to live during the Republican era, very little is known about him prior to 210 B.C. In the span of years my story covers - 218 to 216 B.C. - he appears only twice. Nobody can say with certainty where he was or what he was doing between those two appearances.

For me, that's where the fiction is. With someone like Scipio, the few mentions are kind of like signposts. We know he was here at this point, and there at that point. But what happened in between? Where was he when all this other stuff was going on? What happened that led him from point A to point B?

In my case, I don't think "historical re-enactment" is a fitting term at all. Yes, you are portraying actual events and actual people, but applying your own take on their motives, thoughts, relationships, and at times, whole periods of their lives. That's where the fiction comes in.

My MC is historical, but no book, monograph, or article has been written about him according to my research. He appears only in encyclopediae and in sentences in assorted books. I had a ball filling in the large lacunae.

murmel said:

I horded every bit of information I could get a hold of, stood in front of his picture, boots, and other items displayed in the Cameron clan museum and still am afraid that I get anything wrong.

Click to expand...

Who's to know? If you have all the information you can get om a person, it's simply a matter of interpretation.

Here are the definitions as I see them.

History - Non-fiction. Just the facts, plus perhaps some conjecture on the historian's part.

Historical Fiction - Historical setting, possibly historical events and/or characters, told in narrative format and with creative extrapolation of unknowables (motives, thoughts, etc).

Alternate/Alternative History - Picks a departure point where events diverge from established history and extrapolates events forward based on the new circumstances.

I have considered this point myself, as several historical figures appear in my novel. They are not my MCs, but as I am writing about the Surete in its formative years, it would be illogical to consider that they would not come in frequent contact with the leader of the Surete and some of the agents from that time period.
All I can hope to do is be as respectful (what is respectful to a man who escaped prison dressed in a nun's habit, anyway) as I can.

And then there's creative non-fiction - and I think I'm probably leaning more into that category even though my novel is classified as fiction. My characters are real - all of them - with the exception of a couple bit players; the events are real, except where there was no historical record to cover the gaps. Looking at what I wrote now, I'd call it tedious and I wouldn't recommend it. Even two hundred years after the fact, there are so many things to consider - if you paint this character as a wimp, if you give some impression that she was a bit loose, will their descendants have a fit? If you can't find out exactly where he was deployed during the War of 1812 - will someone else know or find out and accuse you of insufficient research? There are risks in writing about real people - but I'm glad I did (and I don't think I'll do it again). Puma

Had to review...

an American history mystery last year. It had an Irish IRA type hero and the plot was that Queen Victoria (who figured prominently in the book) murdered her husband and sent out a gang to hunt down the hero because he knew how and why!

Sigh!
There will be people reading that who will believe it to be true!

Writing about real people is biography. I can't make myself call it fiction.

A name in the footnotes of history, someone whom no one knows anything about, is fair game. But only if there is something about the place or time around that character which sparks off that creative urge. Then you write an author's note saying XYZ was born in Flanders in ? and is mentioned in ABC but that the rest of hir life is a mystery you've had fun filling in.

Writing about real people with well documented lives, and turning them into monsters, murderers, sluts and whores when their documented lives show them differently, seems more like the writing that fan fiction people do than historical fiction.

There's a terrible trend in historical novels at the moment where the publishers seem to have thought that it's like celebrity fiction only without the legal problems. They will publish anything with a well known historical person featured as MC, or leading minor character, because it sells. And writers are leaping on to the bandwagon and producing rubbish like the book I reviewed, because they can get into print.

Writers are divided on this. I'd prefer to have my novel unpublished and continue to write honest historical fiction than write in a load of old codswallop about Oliver Cromwell and Charles 1 in order to make my book sell!

pdr said:

Writing about real people with well documented lives, and turning them into monsters, murders, sluts and whores when their documented lives show them differently, seems more like the writing that fan fiction people do than historical fiction.

Writers are divided on this. I'd prefer to have my novel unpublished and continue to write honest historical fiction than write in a load of old codswallop about Oliver Cromwell and Charles 1 in order to make my book sell!

Click to expand...

Again, well-trodden ground.

I'll maintain my earlier perspective. It's unfair to write off all historicals using actual, documented figures as characters.

The examples you give, pdr, are examples of bad, lazy, exploitative historicals. But just because you've noticed a correlation, that doesn't mean there's causation.

I'd point to Robert Graves, or Michael Shaara, or Colleen McCullough, or any other number of authors who've used prominent figures as their MCs, and done so quite well.

I could say the same about "unknown" characters. I've read plenty of terrible historicals that use the unknown slave/friend/priest/monk/secretary/you get the idea who just happened to witness all the major events of the time. In my opinion, I think it can at times enable laziness. By using the unknown soldier who is a friend of the super-famous guy, an author avoids having to really get into super-famous guy's head. This isn't always the case, but I've seen it happen often enough that I'm wary of historicals narrated by random unknowns close to persons of renown.

In the end, I firmly believe it comes down to the respect given to the history, the respect given to the characters (real or invented), and, most importantly, to the STORY. Without that, what's the point, one way or another?

Theodore Roosevelt is the antagonist is my alternate history WIP. Until now, I hadn't even thought about the ethics of portraying him as a dangerous madman, and now that I do think about it, I find that it doesn't really bother me. I certainly don't mean any disrespect to old TR. He was one awesome dude in my opinion. I'm only playing a game of "what if" and having a little fun with a great personality. (However, I do plan on an author's note to explain where my fiction differs from the actual history.)

The problem I am having is in making sure that my very fictional characters can hold their own against President Roosevelt. He was such a big big personality with such a fascinating life that everyone I've created seems insubstantial (and frankly kind of boring) in comparison. I'm having to work much harder at giving my MCs complete histories and rounded personalities.

pdr said:

Writing about real people with well documented lives, and turning them into monsters, murders, sluts and whores when their documented lives show them differently, seems more like the writing that fan fiction people do than historical fiction.

Click to expand...

I don't entirely disagree with this, but I can think of some "fan fiction" I have loved. Nobody could mistake Anno Dracula by Kim Newman for history (I would hope!) but does it qualify as historical fiction?

It seems very simple...

for me.

Fiction is something created by a writer. It's a story made up by the writer.
Historical fiction uses history as a setting and sparking off point to tell a story. Mention might be made of real people to add verisimilitude, but they are names mentioned not active characters.

If the writer uses actual people, and actual events, and retells them accurately, as shown in documents/research materials, then the writer is using facts.
I would call this biography.

If the writer uses actual people, and actual events, deals with the facts, but writes about them as if it's a story, then these books are faction or creative non-fiction.

Anything else is really another form of fan fiction of the 'let's take Harry Potter (substitute known historical figure) and write some slash about him' ilk.

I could say the same about "unknown" characters. I've read plenty of terrible historicals that use the unknown slave/friend/priest/monk/secretary/you get the idea who just happened to witness all the major events of the time.

I agree. Historical fiction isn't about retelling historical events. It's about the created stories of people struggling as we do to live a reasonable life in different times. It's about a writer looking at human nature and telling a story about it set in a different time from the writer's.

Doogs, I think the characters you are working with are a long way off and not that well documented. You can have writerly fun with them. But you are retelling history. So I would call your work faction not fiction.

Doogs, I think the characters you are working with are a long way off and not that well documented. You can have writerly fun with them. But you are retelling history. So I would call your work faction not fiction.[/quote]


So, pdr, does that mean you would classify the work of such authors as Mary Renault and Anya Seton, just to choose two at random - as faction?

Sorry, Julie, but...

the only Anya Seyton I recall trying to read as a teenager was, I think, 'The Turquoise' - is that right? It was, to me at the time, awfully turgid, melodramatic slop and I couldn't finish it. I don't remember it being historical as such. I've never tried any of her other books.

Which books of Mary Renault do you mean?

I think an example of what I call historical fiction you have read is Rosemary Sutcliff's 'Warrior Scarlet' or 'The Mark of the Horse Lord'.

'I Claudius' and 'Claudius the God' were remarkable. Think I'd classify them as faction, which can be a brilliant combination of writer's creativity with facts.

pdr said:

Doogs, I think the characters you are working with are a long way off and not that well documented. You can have writerly fun with them. But you are retelling history. So I would call your work faction not fiction.

Click to expand...

Okay. I'm still not sure where this need to draw distinctions (that don't exist in the marketplace) comes from. Guess I'll chalk it up to humanity's constant need to group and categorize.

murmel said:

It's lousy writing that makes any genre miserable.

Click to expand...

THIS.

Though with historical fiction, faction, what-have-you, lousy research can also generate a misery all its own.

pdr said:

There's a terrible trend in historical novels at the moment where the publishers seem to have thought that it's like celebrity fiction only without the legal problems. They will publish anything with a well known historical person featured as MC, or leading minor character, because it sells. And writers are leaping on to the bandwagon and producing rubbish like the book I reviewed, because they can get into print.

Click to expand...

This is SO true!

I also totally agree with your definition of historical fiction: "It's about a writer looking at human nature and telling a story about it set in a different time from the writer's." The point isn't to retell history or embellish it, but to explore how people faced the challenges of the past and what their experiences have to say about human nature in general. That is what I'm looking for when I read HF; learning the facts of history or a person's biography is an added benefit, but not the reason for picking up a novel rather than a history book.

Is faction a currently used term? I've never heard it used before.

Actually...

I'm still not sure where this need to draw distinctions (that don't exist in the marketplace) comes from.

...a lot of readers would like to make them.

There's nothing wrong with faction at all. Many of my favourite books, like 'Longitude', are faction. I enjoy the facts well written into a story more than the straight listing of factual happenings in a history text.

But it is confusing having things like Romance or faction/creative non-fiction labelled as historical fiction. When the lines are so blurry it's hard to know what is real and what isn't.

And, of course, we all agree that sloppy research and poor writing make a bad book. Alas for historical fiction there are too many such books actually published and called historical fiction.

Yes, faction is a term in use in literary journals but not much used in America I believe. I think you use the term creative non-fiction.

When I first joined AW two years ago, one of my initial queries was whether my historical novel with real people was non-fiction or fiction. The answer I received (condensed) was that since I didn't know exactly what was said and done, it was fiction. And that, puts a very tight restraint on the definition of historic non-fiction. Puma

I have a query, then. My WIP involves real people and actual events, but the MCs and the main storyline are fictional. Therefore, is it faction or fiction... and what is faction, anyway?
I agree with pdr's statement

historical fiction isn't about retelling historical events. It's about the created stories of people struggling as we do to live a reasonable life in different times. It's about a writer looking at human nature and telling a story about it set in a different time from the writer's.

Click to expand...

That's my aim for my WIP, that's what I want to do - and what I hope I'm doing.

B