Historical Accuracy vs Versimilitude

Zelenka · Feb 1, 2009

pdr said:
Nope. I really hate all that ghastly Mallory induced slop about the lantern bearers of civilisation (as they knew it) against the barbarian hoards.

Sounds like the author needs a kick. Susanna Gregory is an other one who keeps stopping the story with excess detail. I've just read one of her books and won't be reading another.

Oh dear, does she? I've got a whole load of her books sitting on the to-read pile (albeit all from charity shops). I thought I'd give the Restoration ones a try first but I haven't got round to it (supposed to be working on my final dissertation on English law in the 17th century... notice I'm on here though...

)

HeronW · Feb 1, 2009

If it's 'Historical Fiction' the fiction part is likely to relate to the history as commonly accepted--whether true or not. Despite artifacts, documents, archeological sites--these only show a small part of what was, the rest must be speculation.

Puma · Feb 1, 2009

Going back to the post by Mennon/Scott - he mentioned a conflict he'd created that isn't in the record. Think about how many things happen in a week these days that will never go in the history books. Then think about who recorded historical events for posterity back in the historical periods we're writing about. I think (but not positive), the Hatfield/McCoy feud here in the US might get mentioned in history books - but how many events like this were there back through time that weren't written down - I suspect quite a few. In my opinion there's lots of room for extra small scale events that aren't in the record that if used to promote the fictional story, and don't interfere with the accurate history, will make for much better reads. In thoughts, desires, etc. people back then were much like people today - and people continually create conflicts of one kind or another. Puma

Zelenka · Feb 1, 2009

Puma said:
Going back to the post by Mennon/Scott - he mentioned a conflict he'd created that isn't in the record. Think about how many things happen in a week these days that will never go in the history books. Then think about who recorded historical events for posterity back in the historical periods we're writing about. I think (but not positive), the Hatfield/McCoy feud here in the US might get mentioned in history books - but how many events like this were there back through time that weren't written down - I suspect quite a few. In my opinion there's lots of room for extra small scale events that aren't in the record that if used to promote the fictional story, and don't interfere with the accurate history, will make for much better reads. In thoughts, desires, etc. people back then were much like people today - and people continually create conflicts of one kind or another. Puma

I think it all adds to the 'real' feeling within the book - taking a list of dates or historical facts and turning them into something that the reader can relate to, get that sense of it being a real time and those being real people, not just names in a textbook.

Going back to the thing about whether the character would notice the details or not though - one thing I've come across is the difficulty where the fact is something the POV character would take forgranted but the reader wouldn't know what it is, for instance a specific term or maybe a reference to something from the period. Hard to know whether to explain a bit, which risks info-dumping, or to put in the reference the way the character would, which would risk the reader having to go google.

pdr · Feb 1, 2009

Oh yes you are!

I'm not responsible for educating readers,

Since when do we have to separate education from entertainment? Does entertainment have to be all froth?

The best writing does both and without hitting the reader on the head with laboured points, excessive pernickerty details or authorial intrusions.

And Jess, yes, I had been told Gregory was a good read. It's personal, of course, our reactions to books, but I found the details were all the wrong ones for me as I read, and overloaded at times with extra explanations about things the reader didn't need - a Puma case of things the writer needed to know, but didn't need to pass on.

I had writerly problems with her use of POV too it wasn't omniscient enough or close 3rd enough but sort of jolted between the two.

ishtar'sgate · Feb 2, 2009

donroc said:
In the end, before publication, my publisher, who knows her avians, caught my mention of a bird that was not indigenous to the area. That is the sort of error I miss when I read HF by other authors.

What the heck is it with birds? A reader caught my mistake in having a North American robin in an English garden.
I try to be as accurate as possible and am not interested in reading books that are classified as 'historical's but make little attempt to be true to a given period. To my mind that's just lazy writing. Research is time-consuming and sometimes tedious but I love to learn new things from writers who've obviously studied their history.

angeliz2k · Feb 3, 2009

ishtar'sgate said:
What the heck is it with birds? A reader caught my mistake in having a North American robin in an English garden.
I try to be as accurate as possible and am not interested in reading books that are classified as 'historical's but make little attempt to be true to a given period. To my mind that's just lazy writing. Research is time-consuming and sometimes tedious but I love to learn new things from writers who've obviously studied their history.

Mind you, that's not even a historical error. It could happen in a modern-day setting, too.

It's pretty nitpicky, I think, to care whether a bird mentioned once is indiginous to the climate or not. That's an example of a small problem that, while regrettable, can't always be avoided and that doesn't mess with the story. Unless this robin plays a pivotal part in the plot, which is another story altogether!

BarbaraKE · Feb 3, 2009

ishtar'sgate said:
What the heck is it with birds? A reader caught my mistake in having a North American robin in an English garden.

The problem I have (as a reader) with details like this is that it jars me out of the story. Personally, I wouldn't have caught this (about robins in England). But if I come across something I know is not true, I immediately fall out of the story and it takes me a few minutes to get back into it.

Same with movies.

MaryMumsy · Feb 3, 2009

I have a reasonably broad, but shallow background in history. If something strikes me as wrong, I feel the author didn't do their research. It diminishes my enjoyment of the book. My 'robin' issue is saguaro cacti. There is a fairly small geographic area where they grow, and it does NOT include any part of Texas or Utah or Colorado or Nevada or New Mexico (no matter what some authors think).

MM

Puma · Feb 3, 2009

Does or doesn't, Mary? I've only seen saquaros in Arizona and California (but I've never been to southern New Mexico). Puma

pdr · Feb 3, 2009

If...

you are writing about someone else's culture and country they will be narked if you get the little details wrong.

How many times have I heard indignant Scots, Irish, or New Zealanders complain bitterly about the cheek of writer XYZ or ABC, who writes about their history/country but doesn't get it right?

You're the outsider daring to use their history, countryside, or stories and you are treading on a sensitive area. It is 'theirs' not yours, and making basic errors, from that point of view, does look like cultural vandalism.

lkp · Feb 4, 2009

Memnon624 said:
I have a strange relationship with historical accuracy. I like it; I admire it in the works of others and I strive for it in my own work . . . but I've sworn to never let historical accuracy get in the way of me telling a good story. If I need something to be changed, compressed, moved, or fabricated whole-cloth I'll do it and beg forgiveness in an author's note. For example: in Men of Bronze I created an entire urban fight sequence involving chariots and infantry that never happened -- that couldn't possibly have happened even if the Egyptians and Greeks were so inclined -- and I never thought twice about it. It worked for the characters and for the plot, but it made a mockery of historical accuracy . . . and still it received a favorable review from KMT: The Modern Journal of Ancient Egypt (a magazine whose readers and contributors include an extraordinary number of Egyptologists and knowledgeable lay-folk).

I wanted to think about this post for a while before I replied to it (much cut from the original post btw that I agree with in an uncomplicated way, esp. the part about not letting laziness masquerade as research).

An urban fight sequence that never happened --- we all write things like that.
An urban fight sequence that *could* never have happened. Hmm, how do I feel about that? Is it okay to write in an event that could never have happened for the sake of the story?

You know, I feel just fine about that. We're writing fiction here. This is the historical novel forum, not the history forum. Fiction is the art of telling the truth through lies.* All that matters is that truth, namely the story we are trying to tell. I am passionately devoted to that truth, to telling that truth.

The big question for us as novelists comes when we try to decide which lies are essential for the purpose of creating that truth we are trying to build, and which are just...lies. I don't think there is any a priori rule of thumb for determining that (though i think that is what many of us have been trying to do here and and in other threads. I think that decision resides in the art and skill of the novelist and whether it has worked or not resides in the judgement of the readers. And by readers I mean first agents who may want to sign us or not, then editors who decide whether to purchase us or not and finally the broader reading public who buys our books or doesn't and enjoys them or doesn't.

Though his book didn't work for me, Falcones's book worked for hundreds of thousands of others and I'm a fool if I don't learn from what he did well. Scott's book worked for a gaggle of Egyptologists, and that's all he really needs to know.

If I write a novel that is historically accurate but no one wants to buy it or read it, I haven't told a story that is true enough to resonate, no matter how factual it may be. I haven't done my job.

*Paraphrased from Laurie Groff, though I doubt she invented it

Puma · Feb 4, 2009

Going back to pdr's comments about those who write about countries and get it wrong - that goes back to the age-old "write about what you know". At what point does a historical fiction writer know enough about a foreign country or ancient culture to "get it right"?

re lkp's comment - "If I write a novel that is historically accurate but no one wants to buy it or read it, I haven't told a story that is true enough to resonate, no matter how factual it may be." I don't think the issue is that it isn't true enough to resonate; I think the issue is it's not entertaining enough to prompt sales. As we've discussed before, readers want to be entertained; they want to escape - if they happen to learn a little about history in the process, that's a bonus. Puma

lkp · Feb 4, 2009

I think readers read for many reasons, entertainment certainly being by far the biggest one, but entertainment is a big umbrella term that can cover all kinds of experiences. If a mindless escape is all you want, there are easier ways to get it than through a book, so I give readers a little more credit. I do believe that books that are widely successful are successful because they tell a story that is compelling. There are different ways to be compelling I grant you; I know which I am aiming at. But in all cases, I believe the story is what's at the centre.

donroc · Feb 4, 2009

Puma said:
Going back to pdr's comments about those who write about countries and get it wrong - that goes back to the age-old "write about what you know". At what point does a historical fiction writer know enough about a foreign country or ancient culture to "get it right"?

Based on my travels overseas and chats with those from foreign countries, a writer of HF -- say a History major as well -- who does much study and research may know more about a country's history and geography than the overwhelming majority of its population.

GirlWithPoisonPen · Feb 4, 2009

My problem with the "write about what you know" stance is that nobody would ever write about anything other than their daily lives. There would be no history books. Since none of us have lived in ancient Egypt or Medieval France or Victorian England, we're not allowed to write about it?

We should try and get the details right to the best of our abilities. The past belongs to all of us and it's a wonderful place to roam. No one should be shut out of writing a story about another time or culture, because they haven't lived it or can't claim to be descendant.

Also what does it mean to get it "right"? History is a series of interpretations. One person's celebratory tale is another person's insult.

Puma · Feb 4, 2009

I agree with you donroc. Unfortunately, I don't think that's the norm.

Realize, lkp, I'm from the days before every house had a TV. Reading was the primary source of entertainment back then. My first experience with a memorable story was books in the Augustus series by LeGrand - today I can't remember what the story line was in the books, whether there was even any plot, but I could tell you a lot about the settings because they transported me to a different world than the one I lived in. And, that's true for the "good" books I've read since then. In almost all cases I remember the setting and period but couldn't tell you much at all about the main character or the story line. If I say the word Scaramouche I have an immediate visual image of the time and place, but that's it (book was read 50 years ago). Puma

lkp · Feb 4, 2009

Hi Puma, I realize I should clarify that for me when I say "story" I don't just mean "plot" --- I also mean all those other things like setting, time, place, mood, voice, character, theme, etc and the way they all work together. In the way you so beautifully describe here, the actual plot can be the least memorable part of a book that we find vivid, compelling, evocative, true --- but I wonder if, at the time, you would have read those LeGrand books if they had contained no plot.

I also want to vehemently agree with what PoisonPen says above about history being about interpretations. We tend to be as wedded to our interpretations of the facts of history as we are to the facts themselves --- but it doesn't mean ours is the only view.

pdr · Feb 4, 2009

Intreptation...

is interpretation.

Basic facts are basic facts. Details tend to be basic facts, and if a writer does superficial research, and misses the basic facts, then there will be reader problems.

The past belongs to all of us and it's a wonderful place to roam.

Well, yes, if you're going to write historical fantasy, alternative history or Romantic historical fantasy.

Not necessarily if you are writing historical novels.

lkp · Feb 4, 2009

I think people who write alternative history need an even tighter grasp on actual history than other kinds of historical novelists because they need to know how that one big change to the record they are making will affect everything else. You need a really tight grip on your period to be able to pull that off convincingly.

Anyway, that reminded me of something else I've been mulling over for a long while that I wanted to try out on all of you --- I think some will say "yes yes!" and others will say "yick," which is fine --- and that is, of all the many and varied fiction genres and subgenres that exist, the one that is closest to historical fiction, is fantasy (I might say SF too, if I ever read it).

They both rely hugely on world building. In fantasy, you invent the big parameters of your world yourself, but once you've invented them everything else you create, from your characters to your plot to the details of your world has to be in harmony with those big parameters or the illusion will fall apart.

In historical fiction, you may get most of those big parameters through other people's historical research, but you soon find you have huge gaps you need to fill (at least this is true for people writing premodern HF. maybe for more recent HF the problem is weeding those parameters down to a manageable number). Everything you use to add texture to the historical world you are building must make sense within those parameters.

Memnon624 · Feb 4, 2009

Anyway, that reminded me of something else I've been mulling over for a long while that I wanted to try out on all of you --- I think some will say "yes yes!" and others will say "yick," which is fine --- and that is, of all the many and varied fiction genres and subgenres that exist, the one that is closest to historical fiction, is fantasy (I might say SF too, if I ever read it).

My editor in the UK is a proponent of this idea. He believes there's quite a bit of overlap in the readership of fantasy and that of historical fiction set in Antiquity (he tends to focus mostly on HF with a "Pressfieldian" flair, and he's Steve Erikson's editor, to boot). So count me as among the "yes yes!" crowd

Scott

PastMidnight · Feb 5, 2009

pdr said:
Basic facts are basic facts. Details tend to be basic facts, and if a writer does superficial research, and misses the basic facts, then there will be reader problems.

True, true, although is it not worth mentioning that, sometimes, even those we take for granted as "basic facts" can change over time? Landscape, weather patterns, language, attitude, mores.... I had American beta readers gently correct my American character who said he had just gotten back from a week of skisport, by letting me know that it's just called "skiing" in the U.S. But it was "skisport" at the time and place my character wrote that line. Still, it was a perfectly understandable thing for them to have tagged.

I'm sure I'll get disagreement here, but it's a question worth considering. Natives or those otherwise firmly enmeshed in a particular culture carry assumptions with them about "the way things are" and may not always be aware of "the way things were". Yes, there are plenty of examples such as the ones pdr is talking about, where very common errors are made by those outside of a particular culture or setting. However, as a reader, I don't automatically dismiss a book written by an "outsider". I argue that, for all of those "outsiders" who do shoddy research, there are even more who do extra research, not having the same assumptions as a "native". They meticulously research details that a "native" wouldn't think of (but, in some cases, probably should).

I think that's why this old argument of "don't write outside of your own little world" always rankles so when it comes up on here, because I suspect most of us on this forum fall under the second group. When writing about a place or people different from our own, we apply the same zealousness in research when writing about a time different from our own.

lkp · Feb 5, 2009

Unless we're writing memoir, we're all outsiders. As I've said before: the past is a foreign country. No one owns the past.

Lord knows, I know vastly more about the Spanish Middle Ages than Falcones, whose book inspired me to write this thread no matter what blood flows in his veins and how often he has trod the streets of Barcelona.

Puma · Feb 5, 2009

I think you can split "write what you know" into different components - one being research into the period which the majority who pop into this historical forum are well into; donroc hit on another major component and that's experiencing the place you're writing about first hand. You can look at pictures and maps of places, read reports of storms there, but that's not the same as being there and getting the feel for the way the sun feels, how the rain sounds, seeing the scenery beside the road and getting its smell. We have similar experiences in our own locations, but they're not exactly the same as they are elsewhere - and this is where I'd be a duck out of water if I tried to write about locations other than Ohio or places in the US where I've spent a fair amount of time. So, unless I can spend an adequate amount of time experiencing a place, I wouldn't begin to think of writing about it.

lkp - you may have hit on why I quit reading historical fiction - I absolutely detest fantasy and spacey-journal type sci-fi. I want reality, I want truth, I want honesty. I'd much rather read about a real mass-murderer than a wicked troll that carries off fair maidens. I tolerate sci-fi a little more than fantasy - but you'll never find me in either section of the bookstore. Puma

Zelenka · Feb 5, 2009

Re fantasy and historical fiction, I agree that there are similar approaches used in both. I write historical fantasy and straightforward fantasy, but I'm not so keen on the Tolkien-based elves and trolls etc fantasy stories. I prefer those that have a feeling of reality about them, which I know sounds silly, but if the author has created their world with proper rules and boundaries and has added the details, you can get a fantasy book where it feels real. A great deal of the time, the best fantasy books are those where the author has had a background in history, in fact, because they have the grounding in how societies worked, how technology developed, etc. to make the unreal feel real.

With my own book, the main reason I'm so keen to get the research spot on is because it's a fantasy. I want mine to feel as real as if I were writing straightforward historical fiction. It's, I suppose, more occult than fantasy, but still. If you don't like fantasy full stop, then I probably won't achieve that for you, but hopefully some people will enjoy the book.

Historical Accuracy vs Versimilitude

Going home!

Down Under Fan

Retired and loving it!

Going home!

living in the past

never mind the shorty

the original blond bombshell

Retired and loving it!

Retired and loving it!

Historicals and Horror rule

Mata Hari

Retired and loving it!

A Boy and his Orc . . .

Oponionated

Retired and loving it!

Going home!