In search of historical accuracy...

Prince_Alecksiiz · Mar 1, 2018

Simply put: how far should one go when writing historical fiction in terms of portraying major (or even minor, though not obscure or the largely inconsequential) historical events accurately?

As a reader, is it fair to criticise an author for essentially (and in all earnestness) making free with historical personalities by giving/taking credit for certain achievements or inaccurate portrayal of events (not talking about exaggeration, as this would be unreasonable), when it is clear that it is a work of fiction with a historical background? However, do authors have a responsibility to be fair in representing long dead individuals (by fair, I mean honestly, even when considering revisionist, within reason of course, perspectives)?

I ask his because my first completed novel was essentially an overly long reaction to a work of historical fiction which, upon conclusion, left me little short of raging. My novel (something I now regret publishing for a multitude of reasons) drew every event therein from primary (what few exist in the public domain that are easily accessible by laymen) and secondary (again, what few of those exist, too) sources. A fiction was created around it, to be sure, and a lot of characters (because not much is known about them outside of their names and a couple of political appointments), if they weren't entirely fictional, received a lot of backstory/relationships/functions within the story that cannot be verified either way so that yes, it is clearly fictional, but parallel to this is an accurate timeline, technological, geopolitical and geographic basis, and everything of relevance that happened historically (with one exception) happened within the story, involving the people who were involved historically and only including other (historical) characters if I could prove they weren't undeniably elsewhere. Where anything was not historically accurate (including many interpersonal relationships, a secret society, an adoption argument, one event that was put back two years etc. etc.), I pointed this out in an extensive appendix that clarified every bit of terminology, naming convention and label involved.

Main question, because this will continue to plague me: did I go too far?

Edit - apologies to both readers & mods, if a mod would care to shift this to the Historical Fiction board...? v.v

AwP_writer · Mar 1, 2018

I don't see a problem with doing all that if you're willing to put the effort in, I approve. Just be aware that only a relatively small percentage of readers are likely to notice or care.

Lakey · Mar 2, 2018

We talk about this frequently in the Historical Fiction area - there are a couple of great threads about it from the not-too-distant past.

With respect to the work you describe, I don’t think you “went too far” - I think you did what a lot of authors of historical fiction do, as a matter of fact. For example, Elizabeth’s Wein’s wonderful novels about World War II include thorough afterwords in which she explains her sources and inspirations, and also accounts for the liberties that she took in constructing her stories. You might find those interesting to read as one data point of the kind of thing you’re asking about.

My own opinion is that how closely you want to hew to historical events depends upon who you are and what kind of story you want to tell. For instance, my own novel is about ordinary people and what goes on inside their heads, so I’m more concerned about capturing a historical gestalt than with reproducing events and personalities who are part of a historical record. That said, given who I am, I’m still somewhat careful about language and cultural references. It bothers me, for example, to have a character mention play that didn’t come out until the year after my novel takes place; though I might never come across a reader who would notice it or be bothered by it.

In contrast, I recently read Mary Renault’s series on Alexander the Great, and by following along with Wikipedia I learned that nearly all the events she portrays, writ large, are recounted in Plutarch and Diodorus and other sources of the day. Still, she has considerable latitude to paint in the details of those events, and the way she chooses to do that is the beauty of her work.

OneWhoWrites · Mar 2, 2018

There are two things to keep in mind other than accuracy when writing historical fiction: perception and modern sensibilities

This isn't a perfect example of perception, but the Kraken, for example, is based on Norse Mythology rather than Greek. People think it's Greek because of Clash of the Titans. I know of someone who added Krakens to their Greek-inspired world because they knew people would expect them there, despite not actually being Greek.

As for modern sensibilities, it may be true that for most of human history that women tended to stay at home and raise children, but if you write a historical novel where all the women do that and the men are out having adventures, you may find people don't like reading about that sort of thing. "It's historically accurate" would not be a defense in this case.

AW Admin · Mar 2, 2018

I'm going to shift this to Round Table, since it's a topic with broad implications, beyond historical fiction.

Anna Iguana · Mar 2, 2018

AwP_writer said:
I don't see a problem with doing all that if you're willing to put the effort in, I approve. Just be aware that only a relatively small percentage of readers are likely to notice or care.

+1.

I think readers and authors probably both run the gamut from caring deeply about historical accuracy (not me, but possibly you, OP) to caring not at all about historical accuracy (me). It seems like this might have a dynamic similar to genre... just let people know what to expect from your book, so readers who will love your book can find it, and the readers who want something different can keep browsing.

Roxxsmom · Mar 2, 2018

OneWhoWrites said:
There are two things to keep in mind other than accuracy when writing historical fiction: perception and modern sensibilities

This isn't a perfect example of perception, but the Kraken, for example, is based on Norse Mythology rather than Greek. People think it's Greek because of Clash of the Titans. I know of someone who added Krakens to their Greek-inspired world because they knew people would expect them there, despite not actually being Greek.

As for modern sensibilities, it may be true that for most of human history that women tended to stay at home and raise children, but if you write a historical novel where all the women do that and the men are out having adventures, you may find people don't like reading about that sort of thing. "It's historically accurate" would not be a defense in this case.

It also wouldn't be strictly true, because women have always done a lot more than just raise kids. Most people made their livings from agriculture, and women had plenty of jobs on a farm. In cities, women were often involved in crafts and in running businesses. Even when cultural norms put women at the center of home and family, most had a lot of work to do, and many helped run the family businesses, or had particular crafts they performed. And there were always some who stepped outside of the norms for their time and place, even ones who saw combat.

When writing historical fiction that is intended to reflect the actual world (as opposed to alternative histories or historical fantasies or fantasies set in secondary worlds that are simply influenced by a given historical era), I think it's important to be as accurate as possible in terms of historical events, well-known historical figures, and the overall way society was organized, but it's equally important not to assume that modern perceptions of what a certain era was like is the whole story, or even accurate. And of course it makes sense for a writer who is catering to modern audiences with modern sensibilities to have characters who may not be average for their time and place in every way.

For instance, a story where the protagonist is a woman who meekly accepts being beaten by her husband, because legally it was his right to do so in that time and place, might be hard for many of us to swallow (even if we know she had fewer options than a modern woman would in that situation). We'd likely want some kind of transformative or transcendent arc for her, just as we want to see a slave character find freedom (or maybe lead a slave uprising), and we want to see the servant character rise above pulling his forelock and saying "yes sir."

Unless the story is meant to be an unblinking examination of those social norms and the effects they have on people (like with Remains of the Day), again through a modern filter.

It's also possible for a character who is closer to typical for their time and place to have wants, needs, and conflicts that are still interesting. The worst sin of much historical fantasy and HF that purports to be realistic about gender roles and multiculturalism etc. is the erasure of people and experiences within those contexts. Women, aside from the rare rebel, are nearly invisible, or just props.

One can also write stories that take some liberties within the gaps of what is known about a given historical event, location, or person, of course.

I sometimes wonder if future writers of historical fiction will argue that people like any of us are unrealistic, because we are all outside the average or norm for our era in one way or another.

In search of historical accuracy...

Prince_Alecksiiz

AwP_writer

Lakey

professional dilettante

OneWhoWrites

AW Admin

Anna Iguana

reading all the things

Roxxsmom

Beastly Fido