Writing the world

I guess we're all in unfamiliar territory when writing about the past. Having said that, I must admit I've never written any historical fiction myself, but I'm a big fan of reading it. I'm from Australia, so we obviously don't have as much of a history as the UK or the US. But as much as I love Australian history, I also love reading historical fiction from other places, particularly the UK (most likely because that's where we all came from). I find that I identify with it, for some reason, and just feel quite comfortable reading it.

One day I'd love to try some historical writing, but at the moment, I'm quite content reading it. But I think many of us tend to identify with either a particular place or a particular time in history, for reasons that are many and varied. I'm particularly drawn to 18th and 19th century England, for reasons I can't explain, but also anything from the settlement of Australia onwards. I'm not that drawn to American history because I guess it's not part of my heritage. I'm still certainly interested in it though. But I love all history.

So when I do finally write my "great historical novel or short story" I don't know where it will be set. All I know is that I love reading historical fact and fiction, and I only hope that one day I can write something as good as all those pieces of writing that are out there now.

Having read since childhood historicals set outside the USA -- again mentioning Costain, Sabatini, Shellabarger among so many others (and films made from their works), and more recently Dunnett -- and having a degree in History, European emphasis, I felt comfortable writing my magnum opus set in 17th century Spain, my MC being a little known historical figure present at the center of action and events who left very little paper trail there.

I am certain I would be more lost for a while if I tackled something set in Asia, non-colonial Africa, or pre-Columbus Western Hemisphere. However, one's imagination and belief in self, research skills, and tenacity can overcome all fears and obstacles up to obtaining agent/publisher.

Do not worry about English-speaking writers living in Spain. I am certain the percentages of poor, mediocre, talented, and genius writers are the same there as anywhere else.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

I can't deny that it helps to have lived or visited the place I want to write about, even though I'm not entirely convinced that you have to have done so in order to write about it. I've been quite fortunate in my life that I've been able to travel quite extensively, and so far anywhere I've chosen to write about, I've been able to at least remember a few details that struck me when I was there.

I've never written a historical story set somewhere I've never been, simply because at the moment my interest was in British history, but I have written some modern day stories set in, for instance, Russia and Poland, Washington DC, and other places I've never been. I tackled that with research, as many travel guides as I could lay my hands on (for pictures more than the information in them), as many descriptions of the place as I could find etc. I think those turned out all right. People from the US read my story that roamed all across America and no one complained of any inconsistencies, at least, even in the parts I'd never visited.

In those days, too, I didn't have the internet to help me out. Nowadays it's a lot easier (and cheaper) to get pictures and to talk to people who are actually from the place too.

Saying all that, though, I am still far more comfortable with my semi-historical-semi-fantasy story set in Edinburgh and anything I write that takes place in London, because I know I know those places well and the atmosphere in place comes easily to me when I'm writing. I think a big part of having 'confidence' in writing a particular place or time or profession even comes from whether or not you feel you are in the right position to write them. I know I've been made to feel like I had no right to write about, for instance, England because I'm Scottish, and that made me worry a lot about detail for a while. Thing is, though, I think that the most important thing is the story, in historical fiction or otherwise. Atmosphere and local colour can add to that, and having your details right means there's less chance of a knowledgable reader being jarred out of the story, but I'd rather read something that's engaging than something that's 100% accurate but has no plot and no likeable characters. You have to research well wherever you're writing about, and having been there can give you an added edge, but I think if you've got a passion for the place and time, then you should write about it.

That's my tuppence' worth anyway.

PastMidnight said:

I can't help but doubt my own writing and think that there are plenty of English-speaking writers in Spain who could do a much better job of telling the story.

Click to expand...

What?

They'd be writing in Spanish. They are writing in Spanish.

The reason all the books you read are set in the UK and North America, is beacuse you only read English (I assume).

But realise that in any country where there are writers, some of these writers will be writing historicals. Historicals set in that country. And writing them in their own language.

...To be bought by the people who give-a-damn -- the people whose history it is.

I think in the ideal world (meaning we have the time and money to travel anywhere we're interested in) it would be nice to be able to go to a country and absorb the 'feel' of it -- the sights, sounds, smells, weather, flora, culture, etc.

But that's not realistic for me right now, and I'm going to do the best that I can with research and talking to people that DO know the feel of the place - at least the modern place, since I'm writing about ancient Sparta. I've been to Rome, and I don't know how much that trip would help me if I wanted to write a book on ancient Rome. Modern Rome is just so different now, with cars whizzing by the coliseum and such.

I was pretty intimidated to write my Sparta story at first, but at the time I was reading Diana Gabaldon's Outlander, and I found out she had never been to Scotland until AFTER that book was published. That was very encouraging and helped me see that careful research and a passion for your place/era can go a long way and be sufficient to write a good, authentic-feeling story in your chosen setting. And don't forget that in these modern days we have movies and videos and photographs. Those go a LONG way. As writers we're creating the illusion of reality. As long as it's convincing enough for our readers to suspend disbelief, it's good enough. I don't think having visited the actual place makes or breaks the ability to do that.

Finally, I think it's simply another expression of the writer's ability to find the 'realness' and essence of whatever they're writing about. We do that with characters and situations all of the time. I'm not male, yet I write male characters. How do I do that? I extrapolate what I DO know about the human male and go from there! I've not been in most of the situations I write about either, but I take what I know about human interplay and experience, and then I extrapolate.

So, bottom line is explore and research whatever you can to get to the essence of your place, and then do it!

c.e.

PastMidnight said:

Well, naturally I would assume that most of the people writing in Spain and about Spain are writing in Spanish.
...

I suppose another point, going off of what donroc said about there being the same number of poor, mediocre and great writers in any country and culture, there may be many other excellent writers living in Spain who want to write for an English-speaking audience about Spanish history, but perhaps none want to write about the same event that I do or even necessarily have the same passion to tell that story.

Click to expand...

It did make me wonder whether anyone's ever read a historical set in their own country but written by a foreigner. I don't think I have.

(I did think of Kazuo Ishiguro's The Remains of the Day, but a quick Google informs me that he moved to the UK when he was 6, so I don't think it really counts.)

Okay, I'm being dim. Obviously I read Diana Gabaldon's series, at least part of which is set in the UK.

I often have this problem. I come up with an idea for an historical novel, I invent characters. Then I realize that I know almost nothing about the period except for a few names and dates. The minutiae of everyday life: The clothes people wore, the right money to pay for items, and you have to get these right.

My solution is to create fictional countries which fit roughly with the period but give scope for invention. Also, a fictional country has a fictional history which no one can pick you up on. So if you want a revolution, a scandal, an assassination or a door that opens inwards you can have one.

My previous novel was set in a rural area that hasn't changed a lot out in the woods, in the last 150 years. Well, there's more woods today, a different mix of wildlife, a few foreign species of plants and animals have naturalized, and many of the ambient sounds have changed, but that kind of stuff is what research is for. So yes, in that case, actually knowing the place today is useful, though I think most of the information could still be accomplished through research.

But there are some historical places where there's really nothing left to see.

My WIP is set in what's now Chinatown, New York, over a hundred years ago. Other than a few street names and historic buildings, there's just no there there, anymore. Can't imagine it would be of any help to visit the area and try to imagine it without skyscrapers, cars, Chinese culture, etc. A few minutes on the internet, though, brings up period maps, period hotel guides, period photographs and paintings, descriptions by those who walked the streets in the same era as my characters--way more than I can use.

The farther back in time, the more human intervention has affected the landscape, and the more the culture has changed, the less useful it seems to visit the place, compared to researching what it once was.

girlyswot said:

It did make me wonder whether anyone's ever read a historical set in their own country but written by a foreigner. I don't think I have.

Click to expand...

I have. Not entirely set there, and sometimes not featuring the country itself, just my countrymen of the past. Rarely is it convincing.

One guy almost pulled it off (Robert Low in The Whale Road). People like Bernard Cornwell have failed miserably in the attempt.

...Though no one will ever know. Except for the handful of people, like me, who are actually from there :-/

PastMidnight said:

I'm not sure that I agree with you that the only people who give a damn are those who are descended from such a history. Or perhaps I am misunderstanding your point, Willowmound.

Click to expand...

No, you understood me completely.

Would you read a novel about the founding of Azerbaijan, by their great folk hero? Maybe you would. Maybe I would. But would you get it?

I'm Norwegian. I've just stared working on the second draft of my historical set in Norway. I'm writing this in Norwegian. That was a conscious choice. I write as easily in either language. I chose Norwegian because of my subject matter. I make cultural references that are familiar to Norwegians, but wouldn't be to anyone else. I do some light educating on the origin of certain place names. Interesting (I hope!) to those who know the place -- pretty much "meh" to those who don't.

For example.

I could go on.

This is what I mean by "who gives-a-damn".

Unless I also am misunderstanding, I must disagree with limiting writing and reading historical fiction to one's ethnic/tribal origins. That implies one can also only write believable characters and stories of one's sex and race.

I am a born and raised American whose grandparents were of Eastern European origin. Regardless, I have written a novel set in 17th century Spain based on extensive research, ROCAMORA. It will be released later this year, and I confidently leave it to the reader to decide if I have captured the sights, smells, and behavior of the times as successfully as those English speaking writers who came before me and who also had tread in foreign waters of other centuries -- again Sabatini, Costain, Shellabarger, Clavell and so many others.

www.donaldmichaelplatt

This is...

a topic I feel very strongly about.

'...as historical writers, we should be bringing to life lesser known time periods in lesser known parts of the world...'

No! Please only write what you love and feel impelled to write about. There are enough history texts about. Novels are stories about people, write honestly from the heart.

I'm not comfortable writing about places that I've never lived in or visited for a significant amount of time. I'm not comfortable writing about cultures that I am not part of.

I wish other writers would feel this too.

Girlyswot made a comment about not reading a book about one's country by a foreigner. I review historical novels and I've had to read many set in historical UK, written by Americans. Americans are foreigners as far as the British and New Zealand cultures go and it shows. It shows, for example in the lack of understanding about class and social structure when writing about Britain, the misunderstandings about the mindset of a European society, the levels of formality needed, the language differences which come from upbringing not just education. The differences in religion, even things like regional variations. 'Oh England is too small to have regional differences,' one American author told me. Huh!

I am sure that the best historicals about a country are those written by the people themselves and translated into English.

I am bicultural with roots firmly in two cultures. I have lived and worked in many countries, am currently working in Japan - five years now - which gives me real insights into cultural differences. Japan is not another country, it is truly, so different as to be another planet, and very difficult for an easy going Kiwi to adapt to. I would never dream of writing about Japan as if I were Japanese and have been horrified reviewing some of the historicals written by foreigners and set in Japan. The mistakes, particularly in the social order and about the Samurais, are glaring.

You can write about other countries from a visitor's point of view, and have your writer's cake and eat it too. That works. I will do that about Japan one day as there are so many lovely stories crying out to be told.

I believe that the internet has done a great deal of harm to the quality of historical writing. Apart from the dubius quality of much stuff on the net, I want to tell every writer, tattoo it on their foreheads, that researching another country is not just internet pictures and paintings, or internet documents for the written word. There is far more to research than the written word. I've had clashes here with Americans who feel that their research from documents on the internet gives them the full picture and understanding of all aspects of a culture. That they 'know' the culture because they've read documents and therefore 'done' their research.

If you must write about another country without visiting, or attempting to touch, taste, and feel their culture, in their country, then you need to understand that you are treading on their toes, dealing with their precious history and legends, and that you are bloody arrogant and rude in presuming to do so. Unless you have the humility to say that you write about them, and their country, from love of their history, and that you know you can never truly understand, but will try, then stick to your own country.

Wow. I wish to sign my name to everything pdr said in the above post. This is how I feel precisely.

PastMidnight, what I mean is that, if I were to write about Norway in English, I would have to limit myself, or explain things I otherwise wouldn't need to. I'm not saying I won't ever do that -- only that most writers probably would rather write for the audience they knew wanted the story, than for an audience who might not.

Besides, most writers are only truly comfortable writing in their native tongue. There are exceptions to this, and I am one of them, but we are far between I think.

And: Books can be translated. The fact that so few historicals are, I think says something about the market.

Willowmound said:

PastMidnight, what I mean is that, if I were to write about Norway in English, I would have to limit myself, or explain things I otherwise wouldn't need to. I'm not saying I won't ever do that -- only that most writers probably would rather write for the audience they knew wanted the story, than for an audience who might not.

Besides, most writers are only truly comfortable writing in their native tongue. There are exceptions to this, and I am one of them, but we are far between I think.

And: Books can be translated. The fact that so few historicals are, I think says something about the market.

Click to expand...

That's a good point. I was just thinking about my WIP set in Scotland and the amount of references in it that probably would only strike a Scottish reader that I've had to explain out if I want it to appeal to an English or American audience too (and that's just writing within English). It's a very different mindset to writing for a group from the same background.

I still have a bit of a problem saying people 'should never' write something if they have a real interest in the period and place, but I agree that writer would have to allow for the fact that their writing may not be so accurate as a native writer's or as someone who has lived / visited the place. I do know a few people though who have an absolute passion for certain countries and periods in history but find it financially impossible at the moment to visit those places in person, and it would seem horrid to me to tell them just stop writing when they have such a desire to do so. All of them, though, acknowledge that they would be able to capture the place far better if they could go there.

As I said, I do prefer to write about places I've actually lived or visited, which is why I tend to set things in London a lot as I probably know that city better than anywhere else. Even then, though, it's been a bit difficult to write about 'historical' London as it has changed so much over the centuries. That's when I worry about atmosphere because so much of it has to be based on research. Perhaps I can draw on experiences elsewhere, for instance any really bad smell I know

For an example, I'm writing (slowly) a few scenes set in the Middle Temple in the 1600s, only half the buildings involved are no longer standing and changed quite dramatically (mostly by falling or burning down) over the first 30 years of that century. In the end I had to make a map of the place as it was, from old descriptions and what few drawings I could find, to keep things right. I can use my experience of being in the Temple area as it is now to perhaps add to the atmosphere, but a great deal of it isn't applicable to the historical area. I had the same problem with London Bridge, for the scene I had taking place there. Walking along London Bridge today is hardly comparable to going along it in the 1600s.

The way I found to tackle it was to think in the same way that I think of the worlds in my fantasy WIPs, where there is no actual place in physical existence to draw on, so I have to look to similar experiences elsewhere to add that little bit of atmosphere if there is nothing else.

Yes, the market has been atrocious regarding historicals, domestic and in translation. There was a time when great historicals were translated, but that was in the so called golden age of historical novels when the "current market then dictated...".

I remember reading and enjoying in translation Sinkiewicz'(sp?) QUO VADIS?, Lion Feuchtwanger's historicals set in the time of Josephus, late medieval and Goya's Spain among other places and times, Franz Werfel's FORTY DAYS AT MUSA DAGH, and others, all of which I enjoyed.

I'll gladly risk being called "bloody arrogant and rude" and you may add presumptuous too. We writers all should have skin thick enough to handle negative comments. If I did not have the belief and confidence in myself to write historical FICTION in a different time and in a foreign setting, I should never write. And pity us Yanks. Although we have have a rich history, it is relatively short compared to some of yours and the rest of the world's.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

After reading this thread, I only have one question in mind: How does visiting modern Rome tell you anything about how either the Roman Empire or Republic was? Sure, some of the buildings still stand, but how they thought, what was important to them, who they WERE isn't there. You're getting modern impressions and that's all. What was is gone and physically being there thousands of years later isn't going to change that.

Writing good historicals is far more than reading a few things on the internet and looking at pictures. It's far more than reading a lifetime of textbooks or research of any variety. It's the art of taking those facts into oneself and dramatizing something of the sense of the people, cultures, mindsets that formed those facts that history recorded. It's bringing some sense of the humanity into the fore and reminding modern readers that no matter how distant, no matter what the culture or the events, history is still made up of people. Historical fiction breathed life into the rote of dates and battles for me, and that is the experience I attempt to share in the scope of my work.

It doesn't matter whether I have blood or citizenship ties to a place, whether I'm reading or writing. I'm a Yank of UK-European who's rarely traveled out of her state of residence, but feel no restrictions about where or when I can write because of this. If someone wants to call that arrogance, that's fine. I honestly don't care. My purpose in writing historical venues is to bring something in that era to life for the readers, and if it sparks a real interest in discovering more about that time, or anything else in history, in a reader than that's just the biggest compliment I can receive. This is what historical fiction did to me.

As for the suggestion in the OP that we're obligated as historical writers to bring to light lesser done places or histories, I don't agree. If there isn't something or someone that I can connect with personally from those places and times, then it's not something I can do justice to and shouldn't try. That's far more insulting to the history than ignoring it, and does far more damage.

My other, lesser, reason for not writing about some of those times and places is simply that I don't think there's a market for it. I see the books on various times and places that fascinate me (such as the Borgia era) on the remander tables far more than on the shelves, which tells me that while such things can be bought and published, they don't sell well to the public. If I want a viable career in this writing field, that is a consideration. Do I follow the stories I love in the less popular times and places, or do I follow the stories I love in the more popular times and places? Especially when I'm attempting to start my career, as I am? Presently, this is my choice and I'm opting for the one that will give me the best chance to establish myself. Likely that others are making the same choice, given their own goals and ability to acheive those goals.

Wow. I know I'm new at all of this, but there are some strong, exclusionary sentiments being expressed here, and I wonder if we’re losing sight of a few things. We’re writing stories. Fictional stories. We’re doing it to entertain people. Books will rise or sink on their own merits. If books are poorly researched or poorly written, then hopefully they will be weeded out before any of the words make it onto a printed page. If not, then no one has to buy or read them, and we always have the option of closing them and setting them down.


There’s also a difference between callous disregard for another culture, and an author who has given a sincere effort, but maybe missed something culturally specific that only a native would know or understand. Is the second really such a cardinal sin, if the story is compelling? Again, it’s entertainment.

I was born and raised in Southern California, and if I chose to write a historical about the Cahuilla or the Chumash Native Americans, then I would be just as out of my culture as I am in ancient Sparta. Location is not everything. Even the colors of the sunsets here have changed due to pollution. But if I did careful preparation, I bet plenty of non-Chumash or Cahuilla would be willing to read a good story about those tribes and could come away with greater appreciation and understanding of those peoples, even if there might be certain inaccuracies due to the limitations of research. Is that such a horrible thing? And again, it’s entertainment.

I met a Greek (Not American with Greek heritage, but Greek) physician at a medical conference, and my husband mentioned to him that I was writing a novel based in ancient Sparta. His response was excitement and sincere gladness that I was attempting this project. He gave me his email and told me he has contacts in the Greek embassy that would be GLAD to help me in any way that they could. That doesn’t sound like resentment for an arrogant American presuming to write another culture. He was flattered and excited that I would devote so much time and effort to bring an aspect of that culture alive on the page. I would hope that’s how most people think.



c.e.

In following this thread I am reminded of a book I first read as a teenager: Desiree by Annemarie Selinko. Desiree Clary was first engaged to Napoleon and later married Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte who served in Napoleon's army. He was later elected by the Swedish parliament to become King of Sweden. I loved it even though I knew it was not always historically accurate.

Annemarie Selinko was born in Austria, married a Dane, and her most famous novel is about a Frenchwoman who became a Queen of Sweden. And it worked for me, because it was a great story, and she told it incredibly well. It led me to make quite an extensive study of the French Imperial period, and the Buonaparte and Bernadotte families.

DeleyanLee said:

After reading this thread, I only have one question in mind: How does visiting modern Rome tell you anything about how either the Roman Empire or Republic was? Sure, some of the buildings still stand, but how they thought, what was important to them, who they WERE isn't there.

Click to expand...

That's a problem I see also. I agree that England today is more like England 200 years ago than any other culture, America is more like America, Japan is more like Japan, and so forth.

But they're only relatively similar. In actuality, they're still very different. Being a modern American doesn't mean I'm guaranteed insight into the culture of America even 150 years ago. Most of what I spend my time researching, in fact, is the difference in culture between now and then.

In one sentence I can take care of practical stuff like travel or communication: "She rode the cars to Washington City," or "He sent a telegram to Boston." Even though, yes, it takes peering at period train schedules, pictures of stations, lists of telegraph offices and costs to get it right and make sure I'm not overlooking something.

But what's more interesting to the reader, I hope, is how a woman, deeply affected by the Seneca Falls convention in 1848 in her teens, is conflicted about marrying the man she loves because it will mean giving up part of her identity. And that's just a subplot.

Attitudes toward immigrants, religion, death, the role of the government, social status, women's roles, sex, raising of children, crime, violence, you name it--all have changed in any culture over several generations, and all affect who people were and are.

I agree with what pdr said, and add:

A two-week visit to a foreign country does not make you an expert or give you an understanding of or feeling for the culture.

I read in one historical, written by an American, that a man rode from Plymouth to London in an hour. Hah! Credibility blown, I didn't read on.

"The past is a foreign country; they do things differently there." L.P. Hartley

I, for one, would have to dive into as much research to write a story that takes place 200 years ago in the Illinois country (where I am born and bred) as I would for a story that takes place 200 years ago in Spain.

I have come to accept that no matter how in-depth my research, no matter how thorough my understanding and how close I am to my time period or geographical location, I am still at the mercy of my own perceptions, and I am either bound to get something wrong, or a reader will perceive that I have gotten something wrong.

If a British writer has the chops to write a great book about the American Civil War - why shouldn't he/she? Why put limits on creativity?

C.E.Lawson is right in reminding us that we are writing fiction and not a history text. As a huge fan of historic fiction, I am willing to forgive errors, gaffs and gaps in exchange for a great story, characters that resound, and a writer who is able to sweep me away.