Making up characters...

I have characters interacting with actual people of the era in many of my WIPs.
E.g., A woman coming into contact with an actual prince or king of the 18th century. She also comes into contact with a fictional prime minister of the same era. (I just replaced him with some one that suited the plot better.)

I like to read about real non-fictional characters and their roles, but I will gladly accept fictional ones in place of non-fictional ones throughout the story, also.

One of my favorite authors (Susan Johnson) loves to mix her MC's with non-fictional characters/events, though she adds footnotes, explaining who/what they are/were, and their role in history.

Hopes this makes sense.....little sleep and coherent thoughts don't mix too well with me.

BTW...go to bed!!

As long as you stay out of top positions, I think you should be fine. Start fiddling with Hitler and FDR and you are off in Alternate-History land. But you can certainly put another airman on the Enola Gay or have another admiral or two in the Navy. People who are going to be offended by those transgression are probably going to be offended by anything that isn't verifiable; such folks are looking for dramatizations, not fiction.

for me it would depend. As a 'scholar' I have specific eras of interest. Say...the Elizabethan age. Would I accept a ficitonal character as a lover of Queen Elizabeth? Perhaps. it would depend upon how it was handled. As long as the basic HISTORY was correct, I could deal with an additonal character or two. However, I find it very difficult sometimes to accept ficitonalized accounts of historical characters (The Other Boleyn Girl comes to mind at the moment) if I don't find them credibly done.

As a writer, on the other hand, go for it.

Yeah, I think the position of the person is important. I would say the simplest test would be whether an intelligent person with a general knowledge of history (but hasn't researched the period) could pick out which characters are added... if they can, you're maybe moving into alternate history.

Obviously, if the character you add isn't significant or famous enough to be known by historians today, go right ahead!

Historial precedents, I feel, should be maintained. i.e., known facts of history.
Beyond that, fiction takes over.

None of us can know everything about every born person.

Great question.
I'm pretty hardcore. I think that is because, while by night I am a novelist, by day I am a historian. I try to introduce as few totally unattested characters as possible into my historical fiction. But these are usually my main characters. And because I work on the Middle Ages, I have a lot of room to play with even non-fictional characters. Plus, using real people can help enormously with plotting!

I don't think I'd hesitate to invent a high ranking WWII officer if I needed him to play a particular fictional role that was otherwise unattested. Not sure I'd mess with the highest generals or admirals because they are pretty well known. But as a reader and a historian, I'd rather read a story with an invented character who behaves true to his role, plus whatever groovy plot the author adds, than read about a historical character who behaves contrary to known facts and generally accepted interpretations.

I think that it is hard to find a middle ground, especially if your readers have more than a basic knowledge of the time period or event. Fictional characters that interact, but mainly react, to well know figures and events...Good. Alternate fiction that completely rewrites the fate of the world (I am thinking Eric flint and his masterful 1632) great! In between....eh. As a reader, I would be annoyed that you dabbled with changing events and creating a basic plotline contrary to history, but were too lazy redo the whole thing entirely.
And now that I think about 1632 with a writer's hat on....all I can say is wow. His entire premise is so ludicrous, it almost seems as if it was some bet, dare, or writer's prompt grown out of control. I really have to say though (for never previously having known alternate history books existed), while reading the book, I found myself more knowledgeable about the general time period, wholly engrossed in the story, and not realizing how absolutely weird the plot was. That's some good writing for you, right there.

True. I don't think you can write fiction for historians, as that would sorely limit any historically set novel. I think as long as it was not ignoring/supplanting/unrealistically altering any well known figures...you could get away with insertions that could feel very natural.

I think if you're going to stick in an extra Lt. General that would probably be fine as long as he doesnt do things that people know a real person did. ie try the assassination attempt on Hitler as opposed to who really did it. Also, of course, there is the waiver in the front of the book. "This is a work of fiction, certain liberties were taken, etc." That covers a lot of things.

My only suggestion is to pick up a historical fiction sometime and name check to see if the people actually existed. I've read a few Naval novels, but not having a great historical knowledge of the Naval Chain of Command during WWII, I didn't know if the names were made up or not. Nor did I care. It was the story that mattered.




(This is so cool! I finally got to answer a question from Ray instead of it being vice versa!)

Well, you could make it a secret nobody knew. I mean, it would be possible to write about Hitler's lover if he'd kept it secret, or a general in the Japanese army during WWII that was erased from the history books because he shamed the nation.

Anything's possible, as long as you spin it the right way.

hitler's mistress? not a problem. it wouldn't surprise me if he was banging half of berlin just because he could. i know i would.

a fictional lt. gen.? again, not a problem, though, as mentioned, i would make mention of that in the notes.

fictionalizing real characters? as long as it's not libelous, i don't think there's much to worry about. then again, 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' might help, lol.

obviously you can't screw around with actual events and dates, like lincoln's assassination.

by the same token, take a movie like '300.' pretty okay movie, not great. you certainly wouldn't want to use that as a basis for your history essay, that's for sure. they went way beyond the 'facts' on that one.

'titanic' was a great example of incorporating fiction and history. i'm sure that if someone ever decided to look up these characters they'd come up empty, but capt. smith, astor, molly brown, etc., you can't say they weren't there. duh, eh?

'braveheart' was hardly a shining example of history coming to life, either. neither was 'gladiator.' both played fairly fast and loose with history, making sure only certain historic facts were adhered to.

Philippa Gregory's novels are something like this. She writes about what is known to be true, then adds her own twist of what might be true.

preyer said:

fictionalizing real characters? as long as it's not libelous, i don't think there's much to worry about. then again, 'names have been changed to protect the innocent' might help, lol.

Click to expand...

I thought you couldn't libel the dead.

maestrowork said:

I know, it's fiction! Still, I do wonder... what is the feeling about fictional characters in a historical setting, in a real organization. I mean, for example, a general in the Japanese army during WWII or a lover of Hitler who never existed. Would the readers say, "There is no such person in history" or would they accept that it's just a fictional character even if the story is set against a historical backdrop? Or does it depend on the character... the higher the position the less tolerant the readers could be? For example, you can't make up a different President of the US during WWII... Thoughts?

For something like Letters to Iwo Jima... must all the main characters be real "historical" figures?

Click to expand...

Good question. Probably as many answers as there are writers and readers, though. For myself I have no problem adding fictional characters to history. The more research you do the more you find 'factual' discrepancies. Besides, no one is going to know the names of ALL the generals in the Japanese army. I'm sure men were killed and others hastily thrust into their positions. Most people are familiar with only ONE of Hitler's lovers. There could easily have been more. As long as you're not trying to make people believe Hitler never existed or a US President never existed, there is a lot of latitude for introducing fictional characters.
Linnea

I'm just reading Master and Commander. At the beginning is a note from Patrick O'Brian stating that most of the characters are fictional, and that he even changed some historical events around to suit his story better. Nothing major, just a few battles fought at different times and suchlike. Bernard Cornwell has done the same with his Sharpe books.
Seems to have worked ok for them.

I think that as long as the characters are presented in such a way as to create the impression that they could’ve actually been there, it’s fine. Believeable and plausible characters raise the enjoyability of the story. The more plausible the character and situation, the better.

Of course, the more prominent a position, the less plausibility there will be due to their heightened status in history.

For instance, a secret lover of Hitler, close and intimate to the ruler, that nobody else knew about would be fine, but an Eva Braun clone, who fills her function in history etc. would not be. Even better would be if actual facts could be manipulated to make it seem as if it were entirely possible (like Dan Brown did.)

By this I mean, if for instance, there were actually records of Hitler going off to an unknown location in offical records etc. a writer could twist that into a premise that included a secret lover of Hitler and it would raise the story’s cachet. People would see it and enter reading already predisposed to believe it might be true or, at the least, plausible.

As far as Lt. Generals – this is a kinda iffy case, depending on the treatment. I’m not sure of the situation during WW2 but Lt. General is a pretty rarified rank. Also keep in mind that Lt. Generals are usually in charge of extremely large theatres of operations and so are far removed from the nitty gritty of day-to-day wartime/frontline operations. And they’re usually much older gentlemen.

Of course, the final solution is up to you, but it might be better to use a Watson solution. What I mean is - use a narrator of a lower, more common rank to show the higher ranked character – the way Doyle uses Watson to showcase Holmes. (Of course this may not be possible due to your story but it’s just a suggestion.)


I only say this because one of the allures of historical fiction is the realism. Readers like the sense of being in the shoes of someone who MIGHT’Ve actually been there and so they get an insider’s glimpse into actual events.

I think the closer a historical’s story is to real life, the more intriguing people will find it. The story in Titanic was obviously fiction but it fit perfectly within the structure of actual events. You were drawn into the fictive dream and could believe that it might’ve happened. You witnessed an actual historic event through the eyes of two people who might’ve really been there. If the writer's had used the Captain as the protagonist, I don't think it would have been as successful.

Another example of how a good blend of fact and fiction raises the intrigue factor of a story is The DaVinci Code. Actual facts and historical figures were used but distorted to fit within the frameowrk of the story. This made it seem so “possible” that some came to believe it might be true etc.

Ok, I'm rambling.

Good luck with your story, Ray.

'braveheart' was hardly a shining example of history coming to life, either. neither was 'gladiator.' both played fairly fast and loose with history

Braveheart annoyed the hell out of me. It was a well-done movie and made lots of money, but there was no real reason to totally screw up the history it seemed like except for a total lack of respect for the view and for history. Wallace had a child with Isabella of France? I BEG your pardon?

But I think (my own opinion) that movie goers will accept this kind of thing more than book readers will. I am WAY too likely to fire up the internet and check on characters in a book and varify its accuracy. But that's me.

I would hesitate to play too very fast and loose with REAL characters in a novel. Minor changes, such as changing the date of a battle unless it's a major on in WWII which is after all only somewhat out of living memory for older people, won't get any argument. If you say someone other than Dietrich Bonhoeffer and the Abwehr were involved in the attempted Hitler assassination, you'll run into more trouble. We book readers can be a picky lot.

I've read stories where there exists characters so bloody real, that I've actually looked up the person only to find they were completely fictional.
THIS is fantastic writing/creating.
Study your era. Know every aspect of the non-fictional person you'll have in your story so that when you introduce your fictional character, it will be such a natural blend, readers won't 'hiccup', but more than likely do what I've caught myself doing: Google this fascinating person....only to find out...it was nothing more than fabulous imagry.

My point, exactly.

'I thought you couldn't libel the dead.' ~ you can speak ill of the dead. seriously, though, i think you can run into some legal problems with descendants, no? too, don't forget that not all historic figures are actually dead.

i did a thing where i used actual people (minour historic people few people would otherwise ever hear spoken of) as characters, some not too long dead. and while i think those people's historic contributions are up for interpretation to the extent that you don't make them out to be something they weren't, i made them out to be good guys. i had a bit of research indicating their basic personalities and extrapolated from that certain mannerisms. in short, i didn't pilfer his memory in order to bastardize the real person. were i do make a congressional medal of honor winner out to be a psycho child molestor and he wasn't, his children might, and rightfully so, burn my ass over that.