How much creative license to take in HF?

Dave.C.Robinson said:

For me it's all about verisimilitude. It's not so much that I have to get all the details right (especially in an alternate version of history), but that it has to feel right. It's that feeling that everything holds together as a piece that I'm striving for.

Click to expand...

Yep, it's all about "truthiness." And a good story.

Great thread, lots of interesting points! I think that striving for historical accuracy is a lot of the fun of writing a historical novel - it gives a structure and a framework to play around with, somewhat in the way that writing poems with strict structure and meter can lead to wonderful creative results. If you lose believability, I think you tend to lose sophisticated readers, much like in a contemporary novel it's harder to get lost in the story if you can't imagine characters really doing and saying those things, if it isn't true to human psychology and true to contemporary life. But on the other hand, it's fiction, so you have to make up stuff that didn't happen. There's a wonderful, fun tension in aiming to write untrue things within a structure of true historical facts.

So, for example, I have characters who belong to a heretical religious group that actually existed (the Vaudois or Waldensians of Savoy), but they didn't exist in the geographical area where I've put them (the Aravis mountains). So I invented a hidden village for them, that never would have made it into history books, because the fictional characters decided to escape religious persecution by keeping the location of their village a secret.

On the topic of religion in earlier eras and women being anachronistically liberated, I modeled some characters on Enlightenment-era writers who were explicitly Deists or atheists, and stole biographical details of actual women of the period who followed unusual paths with their lives relative to most women of their day. My strategy has been to try to create plausible characters by basing them on real people, but give them fictional names so I have the freedom to make characters meet each other who probably would never have met in real life, and I can also subtract inconvenient but true details. For example, I have a character inspired by the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, but I didn't give him the urinary tract disorder that made the real Rousseau shun a lot of social situations, because I wanted him to play an active role in his scenes. I have a female character inspired by a real painter, meeting another female character inspired by a famous salonniere, and I make the salonniere about twenty years older than the painter. In real life the salonniere was more like forty years older, but I wanted them to have less of an age difference so the characters could believably relate to one another better. My goal has been that someone familiar with these historical figures would be able to recognize the inspirations behind the characters from the biographical details, but can also forgive the way their fictionalized versions are changed for the sake of the story because I'm giving them different names and tweaking the details to make them similar but not the same. I guess it remains to be seen whether that strategy will work, if the book ever gets published and read by people who know a lot about eighteenth-century Europe ...

I don't think I've ever participated (much) on this forum, although I've been writing mostly historical fiction ever since I first started! I've written mostly about historical fiction set in Guyana, South America, and a little in India.

Now I have a contract for my first WWII novel and I'm hugely excited and up to my ears in research! The novel is going well but I began having doubts today regarding this particular question.

Here's the historical fact I want to change:
My book is set in France during WWII; it's about the Resistance, a British agent who helps them, and so on.
The climax of the story is that the agent blows up an important German bridge over the Rhein in the last year of war. So I began researching bridges that might have been blown up, or wondering if I should just invent a bridge. It was very difficult to find such info; not even Wikipedia was very helpful, but eventually I found a snippet of information, and following that, on a German site, I found the facts. The bridge in question is perfect for my story. And it WAS blown up in 1945.
The only thing is, the Germans blew it up themselves. So I was wondering if it is OK to change that fact and have my agent blow it up. As I said, it's a very obscure fact and I'm now comfortable with the latter scenario -- would you be, in reading that book?

angeliz2k said:

Atlantic12, you make a good point. Religion was very much part of everyday life until recently. People learned the Bible and went to church every Sunday (speaking from a Christian POV). Even those who weren't particularly religious would have grown up in a world where religion was part of the common culture. These days, that is very much not the case, and that's reflected in literature, even historical fiction. I think that 1. the writers just aren't as familiar with the religious aspect and aren't comfortable getting into it, 2. they may personally have a distaste for that kind of religious content, 3. they may think that readers won't appreciate the religious content if they do put it in, or 4. they really aren't aware of the role that religion played.

I'm not a particularly religious person, and most of my characters are not very religious. I was raised going to church and Sunday school, so I'm fairly familiar with the Christian tradition, so I can work in references and religious thought here and there. However, I'm working on rewriting a WIP where one character is a Quaker and very much guided by his Quaker ideals. I'm trying to consciously build in that religious factor without overdoing it.

Click to expand...

I can vouch for this, and I find it a bit irksome, reading novels set in the recent past (that being up to the 1960's) when religion is completely ignored; and it doesn't even have to be explicitely HF. An example of this is the Cazalet Chronicles, a family saga and series which I absolutely loved -- except for this one ommission. The novel spans WW2 and there's a subpolt of a family member who is a soldier going missing, and the anguish of the other family members. But not once is it mentioned that they prayed: desperately! Which they would certainly have done. In fact, nobody ever goes to church, even though the daily life of several families is chronicled. So it's a sin of omission rather than commision and probably most modern readers wouldn't even notice it. But I did.

When I grew up in the 50's and 60's it was taken for granted that people belonged to a religion. Schools began with prayers, hymns and Bible readings in predominately Christian countries, and nobody objected. People went to church on Sudnays, and put on their best clothes. They said grace before meals.

In my case, my parents were atheists and thus very unconventional. They were regarded with disapproval from most quarters. We lived in a multicultural society and everyone was either Christian, Hindu or Muslim. As it was a British colony the public schools were of course Christian... that would be absolutely forbidden today!

One of the reasons the series Call the Midwife worked so well is that it realistically shows how religion for many ordinary people provided the backdrop and very present daily anchor in normal lives. It's what I myself experienced.

Criccieth said:

Another element that grates for me regarding female characters in historical fiction is the "my MFC is strong-willed and determined so she's not going to learn silly stuff like spinning or knitting or sewing or childcare". As others have pointed out elsewhere online - that's a bit like a modern teenager saying that because they're strong-willed and individualistic they're not going to learn how to use a mobile, a laptop, a TV remove or a washing machine. It doesn't make you amazing - it makes you look really weird, and frankly cripples you in the world you live in. I also frankly find it insulting to the women of the day - it's similar to saying that a modern self-employed-working-parent does nothing worth talking about.

Click to expand...

autumnleaf said:

You've touched on one of my bugbears, the idea that anything "traditionally feminine" is inferior, even those tasks are literally keeping the family alive. Without the "feminine" arts of sewing, preparing food, and childcare, you're freezing, starving, and digging a grave for the toddler that wandered off and fell down the well.

Click to expand...

Criccieth said:

Indeed. Many years ago I went to a "Women in Science" conference for 16-18 year old young women taking what are now called STEM subjects. We had a talk from an older male Oxbridge lecturer who put forward the (new to me then) argument that modern sexism is partly rooted in the fact that back in our caveman days women were simply too valuable to risk doing the very dangerous hunting. Men were more expendable, as one can repopulate a tribe with two men and a handful of women, but not the other way round. Culture and religion then effectively over-lay this practical division of labour. I've always thought there was a point there. The world over, men may do the "protection" duty and in many parts of the world they earn the greater per-diem amount but it's the "feminine" labour keeping families and communities alive.

In fairness, of course, a historical piece that reduced men to nothing other than Grunt Soldiers with no care or love for their children and no ability in or appreciation of the practicalities of running the home etc would annoy me too. I'm sure, just like men today, that there were men who belittled what their wives did but I'm also sure that there were many men who were fully aware that their wives took an equal or even greater role in the running of the business that was day-to-day life. When you consider how hard it is to run a home and look after a family today, and then you consider that even something as simple as keeping the kids clothed was far more complex back then, it's amazing we survived for a species for as long as we have.
entire business empire.

Click to expand...

Thank you! This is a MAJOR pet peeve of mine , and many contemporary authors are guilty of it. Women for me have always been the backbone of society; those so-denigrated traditional roles have in all societies been absolutely necessary for the very survival of society, and it's been mostly women who have provided this foundation to everything else. They should be honoured, not dismissed. The emphasis on kick-ass women, the constant mocking of "50's housewives" gets on my nerve. At least in Europe, those 50's (or earlier) housewives worked extraordinary hard just to maintain life; they were courageous and strong in ways we can't even imagine today; we are so spoilt!

Right now I am reading a marvellous book as part of my research; it's called A Very Private Diary -- a Nurse in Wartime, by Mary Morris, and it is exactly that, a memoir of a WW2 nurse. I'm a reasonably succesful and very independebt modern woman but reading this woman's story of what those nurses did, well, it makes me feel very humble and almost useless in comparison. Their role was every bit as important as those of the soldiers who actually fought. And the 40's housewives who somehow kept everything functioning back home: they deserve admiration, as they were anyting but weak, submissive housewives. (side note: Why are war stories and movies almost always about the men, the soldiers? hmmmm...)

aruna said:

I found a snippet of information, and following that, on a German site, I found the facts. The bridge in question is perfect for my story. And it WAS blown up in 1945.
The only thing is, the Germany blew it up themselves. So I was wondering if it is OK to change that fact and have my agent blow it up. As I said, it's a very obscure fact and I'm now comfortable with the latter scenarion -- would you be, in reading that book?

Click to expand...

If it makes sense for your story, write it how it makes sense! And what if the Germans WANTED to blow it up but your agent arrived first, not knowing about that? What if rumours stated that Germans blew it up... because your agent was good and knew how to create this doubt?

Thanks, yes, a lot of options are open!

I'm assuming that this obscure bridge is of some strategic significance, or the Germans wouldn't have blown it up.

In any case, it's gone, so you're not really tampering with history. The obscurity works in your favour. I think it's called 'the fog of war'.

So, your guy blew up the bridge, but the Germans are the 'official' destroyers. During the war, maybe your guy was too good an agent to have a target put on his back. Maybe his bosses didn't want the enemy to know he was in area at that time.
On the German side, they didn't want the embarrassment, the blow to their people's confidence. I assume there was some plan to blow the bridge if it looked like the Allies were about to use it. Maybe the guy in charge of defending the bridge would rather be blamed for blowing up the bridge prematurely than for letting an enemy agent get close enough to do it. 'Berlin will not be pleased.'

So, it suits everyone if the story goes out that the bridge was destroyed by the Germans. Only your readers will know the truth.

aruna said:

An example of this is the Cazalet Chronicles, a family saga and series which I absolutely loved -- except for this one ommission. The novel spans WW2 and there's a subpolt of a family member who is a soldier going missing, and the anguish of the other family members. But not once is it mentioned that they prayed: desperately! Which they would certainly have done. In fact, nobody ever goes to church, even though the daily life of several families is chronicled. So it's a sin of omission rather than commision and probably most modern readers wouldn't even notice it. But I did.

Click to expand...

What? Not even for a little dramatic characterization?
Lady's maid comes in "We're all so worried about your son, ma'am. Elsie even lit a candle for him at her church."

I was a kid in those 60's. We were technically Catholic, but my parents were unbelievers, each for their own reasons. I remember learning the Lord's Prayer in school, where it was how we started the day. I also learned that rote prayer is meaningless, just another thing you do. Like roll call. (We maddened one teacher by, as a class, trying to see how fast we could say it.) There was a Catholic church, an Anglican one, and I presume if other groups wanted to gather in His Name, they did it in someone's living room or a rented space. I don't really notice not seeing it in books, in the same way that I don't really notice the smoking that would have been everywhere at the time. Or, people using bathrooms.
It would provide an interesting sense of time and place, though.

frimble3 said:

I'm assuming that this obscure bridge is of some strategic significance, or the Germans wouldn't have blown it up.

In any case, it's gone, so you're not really tampering with history. The obscurity works in your favour. I think it's called 'the fog of war'.

So, your guy blew up the bridge, but the Germans are the 'official' destroyers. During the war, maybe your guy was too good an agent to have a target put on his back. Maybe his bosses didn't want the enemy to know he was in area at that time.
On the German side, they didn't want the embarrassment, the blow to their people's confidence. I assume there was some plan to blow the bridge if it looked like the Allies were about to use it. Maybe the guy in charge of defending the bridge would rather be blamed for blowing up the bridge prematurely than for letting an enemy agent get close enough to do it. 'Berlin will not be pleased.'

So, it suits everyone if the story goes out that the bridge was destroyed by the Germans. Only your readers will know the truth.

Click to expand...

Brilliant ideas, and I will work in something of this sort. One small detail: by "guy" is a woman, recruited by the SOE because she speaks not only English but German, French and Alsatian!

Then the Germans would probably blow up their own bridge, or at least tell it that way, than admit that a woman blew it up. (BTW, when you said 'British agent', I automatically think 'James Bond' no matter how era-inappropriate that might be.) I have read some excellent stories of female Allied agents doing exceptional things.

It's true. I have bought some fantastic books for my research; this one for instance: A Life in Secrets

Once rumored to have been the inspiration for Ian Fleming’s Miss Moneypenny, Vera Atkins climbed her way to the top in the Special Operations Executive, or SOE: Britain’s secret service created to help build up, organize, and arm the resistance in the Nazi-occupied countries.

Click to expand...

Or this: The heroines of SOE, Britains secret women in France

Britain’s war in the shadows of male spies and subterfuge in the heart of occupied France is a story well known, but what of the women who also risked their lives for Britain and the liberation of France? In 1942 a desperate need for new recruits, saw SOE turn to a previously overlooked group – women.

Click to expand...

And several more. Also the "Resistance" fiction of Christopher Nicole, who has a trilogy out that first alerted me to these women, as women play major roles (however, this being a male writer, they are INCREDIBLY beautiful and all men desire them! )

I can't wait to read these books; they have given my WIP a whole new dimension, as I had no idea what I was going to write. Now I'm excited!

Hm, speaking of lady spies, there's a wonderful book by Kate Quinn about women spies in France during WW1 (there is WW2 stuff, too; there are two timelines). It's The Alice Network.

Thanks, just bought it!.There are lots of non-fiction books about SEO woman spies and I can't wait to get my teeth into them. Another one is Lonely Courage.
Mine is a different as it is set in a not terrbly well known, but very important part of France: the Alsace.

Sorry to be coming to this so late:

Alessandra Kelley said:

The European observers didn’t seem to notice unveiled women on the streets, even though a significant percentage of the population would have been women from religions and traditions that did not veil, or women of lower classes or professions who did not bother. .

Click to expand...

Is it possible that the European observers didn't make note of unveiled women on the streets because, for them, it was the default? On the other hand, heavily veiled women would have been noticeably different from home. Much like today.