When historical facts stand in the way...

rtilryarms, what's the problem? "Historical Fiction," an oxymoron? I have always enjoyed the Shaara's books about the Civil War. They get the facts right, but their stuff (and stuff like their's) is only one part of the genre. More often than not, historical fiction could be better described "period fiction."

The word "fiction" is in the title.

I'm writing about the mid to late Nineteenth Century and using the events that occurred as background, but I'm not going to let the facts get in the way of the story. I'm not going to pass it off as history. It's a novel, a lie that would have gotten me in big trouble with the nuns in school. Now I write it, so it's okay. Go with what you've written. To hell with the facts.

The real kicker is when you do a whole lot of research and realize that many of the "legitimate" historical accounts probably should have been labeled Historical Fiction. It gives me great respect for real historians who have to wade through all the slanted accounts of the past.

I think that this...

becomes a personal thing.

Is it a short story you've written or chapter one of a novel? Readers seem to be more forgiving of alterations to history in short stories.

Shakespeare altered facts in most of his historical plays. He had a story to tell and a censor to please. Most of his audience would have been aware of the changes.

If your story, rtilryarms, depends on altering the year to make it historically correct, then a note to the reader, explaining you knew this but needed to adapt the facts for the fiction, is acceptable for many readers. They hate it if you're plain wrong, but will forgive a genuine 'creative' error made in full awareness of the error.

There are modern historical novels where their authors have moved important historical days and dates. 'Captain Correlli's Mandolin' I think is one.

And as for Hollywood films! They never get it right. For example, the ex-WW11 men I know tell me 'Saving Private Ryan' is totally and utterly fiction.

There's also a branch of speculative fiction for alternate histories. If the story you want to tell doesn't match real history, place it on an alternate Earth where events occurred differently. Use our world's history as a starting point and go for it. For the purists, you can add an appendix indicating which events are different.

I second pdr's suggestion to use the section and make a note to the reader about the deliberate error. However, my feeling is that if you do this, you probably ought to do it more than one place - make it more "creative" shall we say. Or, at a minimum, have a few more explanatory notes. Puma

The real kicker is when you do a whole lot of research and realize that many of the "legitimate" historical accounts probably should have been labeled Historical Fiction. It gives me great respect for real historians who have to wade through all the slanted accounts of the past.

Click to expand...

Yah, that drives me crazy. My historical research is from the early Roman Empire. It's exciting to read stuff written by people at the time, but then the modern historians have to come along and say, "Yes, but it's mostly propaganda." Grrr. How do they know that for sure though? Then there are the things you learn that fit in perfectly with your plot only to discover later that modern historians have decided the earlier information was wrong. NOOoooooo!

The cinematic version of Searching for Bobby Fischer completely rewrote the final match between the kid and his rival, not only the moves themselves but the final result as well. No one viewing this movie, except rabid chess purists cared.

It's highly unlikely that William Wallace ever bedded the Princess of Wales, let alone seed her with an heir to the throne of England. As well, he lost the battle of Falkirk not due to Scottish treachery, but superior English tactics and weaponry (schiltrons were wonderful against cavalry, but quite useless when pitted against the Welsh longbow). Yet none of that is truly compelling drama.

For me, the story comes first, and then you find the bits of history that support the story, and then, when all else fails, you make the rest up.

It's highly unlikely that William Wallace ever bedded the Princess of Wales, let alone seed her with an heir to the throne of England.

Click to expand...

I have to admit that sort of thing drives me crazy, mostly because there are a lot of people out there who will take it as the truth. Years ago I started looking stuff up after every historical movie to find out what really happened--or at least the historians' best guess as to what really happened.

Then there is the movie...

I heard an author speak at a conference a couple of years ago. He didn't write historical fiction. He wrote mainstream commercial stuff. He also wrote film scripts for other people's novels. He said that directors seldom if ever read the novel, and more often than not tell the script writer to add or change elements of the story. I was appalled at first, then realized the ugly truth. When you sell the film rights to your story, it's not your story anymore. The scary part is that a lot of people are going to judge your novel by the movie, not what is in print. Of course, it would be a great thing to have to worry about... you gotta sell the book first!

And be sure to sell the book before even thinking about selling film rights - or your book will never ever be your book. Puma

My feeling is that if you're going to write historical fiction, you have an obligation to make it as accurate as possible. Mistakes will doubtless creep in, but dates and events should not be moved around arbitrarily. Otherwise, you're writing speculative fiction, not historical. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't the same thing.

rtilryarms, perhaps you can either find an appropriate sporting event and headlines from the year you want to write about, or move the action of your story to the year that these things did take place in. I did something similar in my first book--moved the action a few weeks to fix something I'd previously got wrong. It was a struggle at first to get everything in place, but when I did it actually worked much better than the original.

Good luck with it!

I sympathize, Mike. I wrote more than 10,000 thousand words on my WIP based on an understanding of the historical events during WWII. It worked. But I found out later that I was off -- the dates were fine but the locations(!) were off, and that made some of the traveling and timeframes all wrong. It's very frustrating and I had to start over, and I couldn't continue until I fixed it. However, since I chose to write a story with a historical background, I have to keep it accurate.

Yes, nothing yanks the legitimacy rug from under a good piece than finding out the context is wrong. I love feeling comfortable that I'm learning while enjoying.

You're a noble artiste not to shoehorn it, sir.

That gets up my nose...

the1dsquared. If only films would simply run a notice saying that the events in the film are not historically correct! I wouldn't then spend my time snorting in disgust and making rude comments about the incorrect clothes, events, manners and stupidities.

Have a look at this book, rtilryarms.

The Conjuror's Bird by Martin Davies. He takes the life of Joseph Banks and weaves a story around some of the blanks in Banks' life. He tells us this and gives the facts he started off with but his novel is his own creation. It is called an historical mystery by the publisher.

Been there, Still there...

Hey! I absolutely sympathize! I've been there and am still there! Still, those writing novels set 1800s and before tend to fare far better than those writing historicals set 1900s onwards. I myself am writing a World War II historical romance and let me tell you, it's damn hard! There are several facts that don't coincide and since it's a little more recent than other historical periods, there are people who have been through that and will be quick to see the errors of one's work. So, in short, it's hard to make things up! What's more, my novel's like a diary, with actual dates (month, day, year) and places (though I try to avoid this by saying *somewhere in XYZ...*). I've actually revised and or deleted WHOLE chapters because of historical inconsistencies. The only advantage I seem to see (technically) is that being more recent, more facts are available. As for other advantages, I'm writing what I love (WWII era and romance) so that's a plus! If you love the subject you're writing about esp. history, then, stick to it Good luck!

Been there, Still there...

As for advice...well, don't have much except stick to it. And I'd just like to say thanks for this thread! I found it helpful too

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.

One of my ancestors was in a duel back in 1836. There are 4 written accounts of the event by educated people who were there when it happened. They only agree about who the participants were. It could be 4 different gun-fights.

Mayor of Moronia said:

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.

One of my ancestors was in a duel back in 1836. There are 4 written accounts of the event by educated people who were there when it happened. They only agree about who the participants were. It could be 4 different gun-fights.

Click to expand...

I think the phenomenon you're talking about is more individual interpretation than actual lying. The latter could be true, but everyone sees things differently even when viewing the exact same event, as you have mentioned.

Mayor of Moronia said:

Keep in mind that the historical records are often flawed and wrong. People lie! People get confused.

Click to expand...

I can especially relate to this. Yes, people lie about their pasts in a futile attempt to change what cannot be changed, to put others or themselves on a pedestal, and for propaganda purposes. People get confused too, especially during the war. I've read books stating this hospital was bombed on March 29, and another, March 30, yet another, March 28 and April 1! Aggh! The confusion historians bring upon the researching writers! Even interviews are not as reliable!

The only thing historical novel writers like myself can hope is that what we imagine coincides a little with what happened. Then, there's also crossing your fingers and hoping to God no one would see the historical flaws.

And I'd like to share a recent experience of mine. I've been working with a wonderful historian who's helping me iron out the creases but I think I just got hit with the big wall to climb! 5 WHOLE CHAPTERS IN NEED OF REVISION BECAUSE OF DATE AND HISTORICAL INCONSISTENCIES! AAAARGHH! I need a Midol...

Ethics

This is coming from a consumer of historical fiction as opposed to a practitioner of it, but my thought is that changing certain facts when writing a historical novel is probably inevitable. Sometimes, authors can stick to the original facts, like Jeff Shaara does, but changes are often necessary.

HOWEVER...I think ethics demand that, when the author must change the facts, that he or she do so with respect to the parties involved in that historical event.

I think the movie "Gladiator" crosses that line, by having Commodus murder his father Marcus Aerilius (sp?). That never happened. Granted, Commodus was not a nice fellow in real history, but he never killed his own father. And his own father never tried to keep the throne from him. Rather, they shared power the last years of Aerilius' life.

The same holds true in many of Oliver Stone's films - though thankfully not in his latest, "World Trade Center." Stone has a habit of changing events, facts, characters, etc. to advance an agenda. This should not be.

And, of course, there's the "DaVinci Code," which gets so many facts wrong, that I can't even list them all.

On the other side of the coin, the most recent "Alamo" film stays more or less true to the history as we know it. There's so much we don't know about what happened within the walls of the real Alamo in those 13 days, and there's controversy surrounding much of what we thought we did know. But the film makers stayed true to the nature of the participants and the overall facts of the event - as best they could.

In "Amistad," many facts were changed, including John Quincy Adams' speech to the Supreme Court at the end. The real speech was far more technical and lengthy - not nearly as eloquent. But the change was very consistent with what happened. The speech that the filmmakers gave Anthony Hopkins (who played Adams) was PERFECTLY consistent with the sentiments expressed by Adams all his political life, and summed up very well the case as Adams undoubtedly saw it. So...the changes were, in my opinion, appropriate and justified.

So....ETHICALLY, I believe the historical fiction author should stay true to at least the SPIRIT of history. If he or she has to change some things, those changes should be consistent with the story. Never should such changes impugn the character of the actual participants of the event or be made simply to undermine a particular philosophy, faith, or value system.