Known Historical Characters - another thread....

Fictitious characters meeting documented historical characters has been a mainstay of historical fiction. The only cautions are to make sure you don't put the known characters in places or situations that aren't documented - examples - you can't have your Governor make a visit to a small town to check on something - unless it's documented that he did, but, you can have your Governor pass through the small town and have some conversation there if it is possible he went through the town on the way to someplace else.

Second caution is to keep the historical personages true to their known characteristics - don't make them boozing, wenching blaggards unless they were. But even there another caution because Australia's history is short - always remember the potential for lawsuits if you paint someone with descendants in an unfavorable light (and it's not well documented.)

Other than that, yes, do use real people in your story - it adds another level of interest and richness. Puma

Puma is a genius. Listen to the wise words of Puma.

I agree. Use there real names, where you can. Of course it is going to add a whole new layer of research to your book...

One thing I would also say is, "Use known historical characters like seasoning; sparingly."

That is, think of yourself or, to the extent possible, a modern person in a roughly equivalent position to your historical MC. Take my MC, who's a teacher in a poor part of Manchester with a mother who owns a corner shop. Both take an interest in radical politics; one of her sisters is a talented, but very far from first-class, musician. Whether she's operating in 2010 or 1887 she's not going to be bumping into the equivalents of Oscar Wilde, Lily Langtry, the Prince of Wales, Bismarck, the Empress of Austria and Thomas Hardy.

She might see prominent politicians, but they'll be on the platforms of structured meetings and surrounded by their minders off duty. Her sister might get tickets to concerts where famous musicians perform, maybe even get autographs at the stage door. But (then as now) it isn't going to happen often and it's going to be a big deal for the characters when it does.

One of the things I often find frustrating about historical novels is famous people apparently being thrown into the mix because they're recognisable, when an original character might serve their plot function better.

Puma said:

Fictitious characters meeting documented historical characters has been a mainstay of historical fiction. The only cautions are to make sure you don't put the known characters in places or situations that aren't documented - examples - you can't have your Governor make a visit to a small town to check on something - unless it's documented that he did, but, you can have your Governor pass through the small town and have some conversation there if it is possible he went through the town on the way to someplace else.

Second caution is to keep the historical personages true to their known characteristics - don't make them boozing, wenching blaggards unless they were. But even there another caution because Australia's history is short - always remember the potential for lawsuits if you paint someone with descendants in an unfavorable light (and it's not well documented.)

Other than that, yes, do use real people in your story - it adds another level of interest and richness. Puma

Click to expand...

I actually like using historical characters but letting them be nothing like history remembers them, as to make a point about how dodgy available data is. I can't go overboard of-course. I can't have Aristotle be an idiot. But having famous victorious military command decisions be nothing but a misunderstanding is always fun. Undeserved fame is always ripe for exploration. It's lucky that I love doing research

Both my past and WIP historical MCs are sparsely documented, which gives me much leeway to create their motives and actions in the context of the times.

I have found different interpretations by historians and contemporaries of the major historical characters, and I feel free to select and use those that suit the story I want to tell.

Yeah, don't make up goofy stuff like, you know, an important person, say, a former president who hunts werewolves or vampires.

ETA: After all, you'll want this novel on the bestsellers' list, right?

Silliness aside, I expect your novel is a serious endeavor, cooeedownunder. I agree with the others above that for seriousness keeping the real person historically accurate is important.

cooeedownunder said:

We’ve had very similar chats regarding this, but possibly not quiet the same. The last one here was about using historical characters as POV characters. I have a story where some of the events did happen, but every character mentioned is fictitious, apart from the mention of His Majesty George Rex, but I am wondering if anyone has thoughts about fictitious characters meeting historical characters?

Click to expand...

I had this happen in my medieval novel. Edward III participated in a tournament hosted by one of my characters. They exchanged a few words but I kept it brief. Edward III was well known for his jousting so I couldn't let the opportunity pass.

cooeedownunder said:

I have a bit of unique situation - at one stage the population was only around 6000 and well contained within certain areas at this time, the Governor, soldier's and marines, would have known or known of almost every individual.

Click to expand...

Sounds like a very interesting situation. It may be handy to NOT have much info so the writer can "explore." But a situation like this, where there may be all sorts of information and situations that you can base your characters and situations off of, sounds fascinating to research.

I have my characters engaged in actual historical battles and meeting real historical people, but the only famous one is John Hunt Morgan. I've done a good deal of research into the regiments they're enrolled in and have, I hope, a fair idea of the soldiers they would be fighting with. I cover myself by saying all historical personages are used fictitiously, but I still try to capture their actual personalities when I can.

I think it makes the history part of the novel more grounded, so if I were you, sure I'd use the governor's real name and try to treat him as a real person who happens to have an encounter with a fictional character, if that makes any sense at all.

Other than what everyone else has said about sticking to historical fact etc, I like historical cameos turning up in books, but what does nark me every so often is when the main character ends up having met every single interesting person from their chosen era. It starts to feel a bit like namesdropping then. A book I read recently set in the mid 19th century was particularly bad for that. By the end of it I think the main character was bestest ever buds with everyone who wrote a book or made a scientific discovery between 1810 and 1860. I think that just goes in with what everyone else is saying about accuracy and believability though. If it's a character that maybe readers wouldn't know so well or that isn't well documented, you could even add a note to the book to say who they really were. I've come across some interesting historical figures I hadn't previously heard of from authors doing that in historical novels.

Hope some of that rambling helps.
J

Yeah, getting basic facts right lends a lot of credibility to your work.

For instance, the MIP I'm research right now deals with the Spiritualism movement in England in the late 1880's. I think Spiritualism in Victorian England and my mind immediately leaps to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. However, he didn't become involved heavily with the movement until the early 1900's--a full 20 years later. Though once he became involved, Doyle would be a natch for my hero to seek out and have a discussion with, but it's totally wrong for the facts.

It was a fun idea, but not all ideas can be included in the work.

Puma said:

Fictitious characters meeting documented historical characters has been a mainstay of historical fiction. The only cautions are to make sure you don't put the known characters in places or situations that aren't documented - examples - you can't have your Governor make a visit to a small town to check on something - unless it's documented that he did, but, you can have your Governor pass through the small town and have some conversation there if it is possible he went through the town on the way to someplace else.

Click to expand...

I don't quite agree with that at all. I think you CAN have a governor pass through a town without it being documented that he did so--as long as it doesn't contradict known facts.

With many historical characters, there are periods (sometimes lengthy periods) when it isn't known exactly where they were or what they were doing. It is certainly within the acceptable to fill that in with plausible actions. I see no reason why it should make a difference whether the historical personage is a main or secondary or tertiary character. However, I also agree with whoever mentioned that just throwing in a lot of historical characters for name dropping is annoying. They should relate to the story.

I reread your initial post and pondered your above post. Is there any way to include real people from that era, but people that are rather minor--like these persons that were punished? I mean a real person who's included in the governor's and his wife's diaries.

If the diaries mention what was done to this minor real person, then you can make up fictional characters with a fictional way how this real person got to this point. (I did something like this for my second novel and I am SO tickled with it.)

Hm. I would have named the real establishment - corporations aren't people, after all. I probably would have used an unnamed or fictional flogger, though, unless the person was already well known.

I've already been contacted by descendants of people mentioned in my book, and it isn't even published yet. The Internet makes that so much easier these days.

Still, these decisions are yours to make - what you choose will make the flavor of your book.

The Flashman Books of George MacDonald Fraser (GMF) are a really good example of mixing factual history and fiction. The books were incredibly well researched and all of them have lots of notes at the back. Some of my writing was inspired by GMFs work and I find using real events and real people helps my work. I am not saying it improves my writing but it helps me to give a frame to some story lines.

I think...

cooee, that Oz and NZ are a little different. Even today we can meet our Governor General with much more ease than happens elsewhere.

Your character being present when the Govenor is, might well have happened.

So long as you remember the geography.

Yours is a much larger country than mine and you'd have to have your characters in the same part of whatever state you've set the novel in. I'd have to remember that the Governor must be on the same island!

For your novel I think the real name of the real Governor would be a plus.

cooeedownunder said:

We had a rebellion where many men were punished by various means. I have no trouble having my fictitious character receiving a flogging for being involved in this rebellion, but I'm not sure that I could used the real charachters names that authorised or carried out the real floggings when I have a fictious character receiving a flogging - when it is documented who ordered these floggings and who was flogged.

Another example - I have a documented man made disaster where those who died are named. I have fictious charachters killed, but in turn I avoided naming the real name of the establishment and its owner.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I see the issue. You are writing historical fiction, right ?

What you are saying is that because 'Fred' kept a diary, everyone is forbidden from writing fiction about them ? Because we would be able to compare the fiction to their diary and realise that it is fiction?

So what? We already know it is fiction !

If 'Fred' used to flog people, then why not include a scene when 'Fred' flogs your main character ? It doesn't matter that it didn't happen in real life - your main character is fictional after all !

I'd be more worried about keeping to the spirit and feel of history.

I'd go ahead and name the establishment as well. After all, by saying that people died in a fire at the Woolloomoolo hotel in 1801 you aren't implying that the modern hotel has inadequate safety provisions - it's just a historical tidbit.

Good luck !

Mac
(PS: And you can add a discussion of how history was different to your story in one of those fascinating addendums that good historical fiction has)