Leeway with history

Canadian author Jack Hodgins' novel Invention of the World was originally meant to be a pure historical account of the 1920s cult begun on Vancouver Island by a man known as Brother Twelve. Hodgins encountered constant contradictions in his research, and an accurate account of events proved so elusive that he wrote a book about the subjectivity of truth, and kept only those details which suited the story's ends—that is, the ones that contradicted.

When I began writing about a Malay legend based on historical events, the meagre accounts of which were contradictory, I found myself facing the same dilemma. Hodgins' freedom to choose the details which meet the needs of the story influenced many of my decisions. I ended up shifting several characters' lifetimes forward fifty years so they overlapped a well-documented event—the 1511 Portuguese conquest of Malacca.

For the purposes of my story this suited perfectly, though it's not actually accurate. Ultimately, the author needs to weigh historical accuracy against the net effect of the story.

If it serves the story's purposes, are historical details fair game?

I'd say if you're using real historial figures and events, you need to be factual as best as you can. Some people are going to hold you accountable for getting your facts right. Everything else can be fictional, of course. For example, if you're writing about Lincoln, you should get his date of birth, birth place, date and cause of death, etc. correctly. But if you're writing about him having a friend called Bud Wiser, it's fair game.

Some people may not even notice historial inaccuracy in your novel until it's pointed out to them.

That's what happened with Braveheart. (I know, it's a movie, but still.) I thought all of that was exactly the way it happened until I read about the inaccuracies in it. It's STILL a good STORY!

Still, maestro's advice is sound. Always assume your readers know at least the BASICS on these figures.

What I've seen happen in historical romances is the author writes an endnote that briefly explains the inconsistencies between actual history and the novel.

As a reader, I really don't care that much (unless it's about a really well known figure or event). It's the story that counts. At the same time, the endnotes impress me, because I think, "Here is an author who's done her (or his) homework. I can trust this person about the other details in the novel."

history

Where the truth isn't known, you do the best you can. When writing an alternate history, you change whatever you want.

But changing the period when a real person lived would turn a novel into an instant wallbanger for me.

I hate it when a historical point is changed just because the writer wanted to write a story and didn't know how to make it work using real history. Few things stop me from reading faster than running into such an error.

Interesting question.

I think it depends on your main purpose. If it's to write a novel with historic tielines, then it's perfectly okay to fiddle with the details. But if you're trying to write a "historical novel" then you need to stick closer to the actual facts.

I'm just a newbie here, but in my opinion, if the story is good, you can always confess your sins in the "Forward" to the novel. That way it's all on the table and readers know to indulge at their own risk.

Facts are the province of historians: Legends are the province of story tellers.

I read a lot of historical fiction at one time, and even the most accurate had disclaimers, qualifications, and explanations of inconsistencies in the back.

Much of our so called history is more legend than fact. Criminals touted as "bringing law and order to the west" and victims touted as criminals. What was the shoot out at the OK corral?

Didn't bother Shakespeare, don't see why it should bother us. Does anyone think I.Q. was an accurate depiction of Einstein?

I do think the author should have some kind of postscript for those who are interested stating exactly what liberties were taken for those who are interested, but I don't think the author should apologize for them.

Yeah, they got away with it with Forrest Gump.

I like doing that too. Creating characters to live out certain key moments in history.

I make up my own characters and try to fit them as best as I can to the history prescribed. If the event doesn't work for one, then it may for another.

There's a lot more leg room for fiddling with details, than when dealing with actual historical figures.

I think history was created for us to keep recreating it.

Of course, I did this one chapter of my novel that mostly takes place at the Who concert in 1982. Now, I either made it up, or remembered hearing that it took place in October in London, but I can't be sure. I also don't know what order they played the songs in because I wasn't born yet. I only talk about what is heard. Describe the feelings of each character, rather than risk any litigation for copyright infringement. But each song description is distinct and not knowing the order, I went with a few songs that fit the story better. As of right now, the novel is WIP, so I'm going to just write it, and worry about post-scripts and forwards and the legal stuff later. Like anything else.

And, no, it didn't bother Shakespeare at the time. Back in the day when the descendents of said person would not only sue your socks off, but probably kill you. But Shakespeare had a way of making the most depraved characters look like heroes in their own eyes, so it was okay.

Sometimes characters can be based on several historical figures at a time. Like Mel Gibson's character in The Patriot(lame movie) was based on 3 different people that fought in the American Revolution.

yeah, why are we so forgiving of movies than we are with one person doing all the research themselves for a book? i mean, these movie studios have *teams* of specific researchers that *still* gets things totally screwed up, and often on very basic things, too. 'braveheart,' while a good flick, is pretty damn screwed up. 'the patriot' just sucked (i'm just agreeing with that sentiment, though that's another thing often done, combining several 'real' people into one character). maybe the worst of them all is 'gladiator.' there is *always* some expert out there that can't wait to point out the most trivial flaws, like how they didn't invest stirrups until such-and-such a year so it would be impossible for maximus to be using them. it can get ridiculous: i searched and searched until finally learning that a pistol from 1692 were sometimes made with armoury numbers, a kind of serial number. if i didn't, though, some jack-ass would get on amazon.com comment section and lambast me for the whole world to see because i didn't do my homework to the nth degree.

i think a forward or some other kind of list and/or admission of inconsistencies, lies, etc., is only going to buy you so much leeway with the audience. all it takes is one big error to destroy your credibility because a reader might like to feel superior to the writer that way. things i'm not sure about i'll slur over, like i couldn't tell you the difference, if there is one, between a taper and a rushlight, so i avoid my character staring at it for hours and describing every detail about the damn thing. but, if in the first paragraph your guy pops open the front hood of his '71 beetle to check his radiator, then hops back in and puts his automatic transmission in drive, i'm done with that story right there because there's no reason for me to believe you can string together an effective emotional or psychological response from me by reading on.

i guess that's why the devil is in the details, eh?

as a reader, i appreciate spot-on detail. my opinion is that for my money the author should know *beyond* a reasonable expectation recorded details, otherwise stay the hell out of history, it's screwed-up enough without your ham head muddying things up (comment not directed at you, lol). on the flip-side, if you use a historical figure and give them an accurate characterization with accurate details though the events are up for conjecture, nothing wrong with that, eh? i'd say if your assumptions are logical, the audience will play along. i'm hoping that's true for the story i'm doing now where shakespeare is a hoax and the real bard is edward de vere (baconians... please. i eat bacon for breakfast.)

It drove Mark Twain to distraction that on the one hand people would tear apart and find his most insignificant errors, but could not see a joke if he hit them upside the head with a bucket.

They noticed in one piece he'd accidently had the sun set in the wrong direction, but wrote about the discovery of a petrified man, and described the man in detail as having one thumb placed against his nose, fingers spread, and the thumb of the other hand against the little finger: not one person seemed to realize it was a joke and the "petrified man" was giving a double handed nose thumb.

One of the most common literary crimes of the modern world is the tendency to "write classics for children" and distroy all value in the writing for the sake of "writing down to the kids."

Prime example is the number of authors who rewrite Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn for "young readers" as "adventure stories" and totally dispose of all the wonderful humor that makes the stories classic.

Then few read the original because "Oh, yeah, I read that as a kid."

No you didn't. You might as well have read a Cliff Note.

yeah, why are we so forgiving of movies than we are with one person doing all the research themselves for a book?

Click to expand...

Excellent question and well worth exploring.

The answer also explains why Shakespeare could get away with what he did; he was a playwright, not a novelist: The big budget movie maker of his day.

I believe the answer lies within sensory experience. When you watch a movie you see it, you hear it, you "experience" the movie at a much more visceral level. You accept it because you experience it at a much more instinctive level.

It takes a certain type of person to notice tiny flaws in a movie, and most are not interested in developing those traits.

But a novel:

A person has more choices: You can jump in with both feet and let your imagination run with the author; wrap yourself childishly in the world the author creates: You can see a novel as structure, form, ideas, and concepts; filled with characters and times and places and events: You can see a novel as a series of words and sentences and paragraphs.

The sad part is that people will jump in with both feet and accept without questions the things told them by advertisers, politicians, and other manipulators, so long as they claim to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. When a writer comes along and says, "Lets weave a fantasy together" those same people say, "Not with you, you aren't any good at it. I found a fact that was wrong. I found a misplaced adverb."

I noticed the same thing with magic: Let someone say, "Hey, look at the illusions I can create," and people fight like dogs over the last soup bone to show where his illusion was imperfect.

Yet someone can walk in and say, "Hey, my name is Uri Geller, I can do real magic," and those same people swoon and say, "worship at this man's feet, he is real," yet he never did half of what a good illusionist can do, and never did it half as well.

okay, well, not exactly along the same lines, but i found it oddly disturbing once a few years back when i picked up a new kiddie 'star wars' book and there weren't people getting blasted to pieces, planets exploding, and basically all the violence that might ever lead a child to believe that people so much as stub a toe in war. despite those omissions, the story itself was significantly altered for the barney set. here i'm wondering if i could sell 'caligula' to toddlers and get away with it.

political correctness just isn't dumbing kids down in terms of pop culture. i was shocked several years ago when my 6th grade nephew said he'd never heard of the holocaust. i think i asked him if they still forced him to make indian head-dresses out of construction paper for thanksgiving and eat processed turkey from meat chippings. ah, i guess the truth is best suited for those who have to go looking for it, eh? you sure as hell won't learn it in school, at church, from your parents, or from movies... maybe you can learn some in a book, ya think?

hopefully some parent-controlled historical society won't change attila the hun into a flying nun spreading tofu seeds to the heathens, such as:

and romulus said unto remus: brother! let us put down our pipes and unsafe chariots and hug yonder trees, for there will sprout a great city and its name shall be rome.'

'verily! thy truly art thou brother's keeper. (insert generic name for a diety) bless america!'

and so it was that over that spot there was borne a great bright rainbow, and from that swath dropped a plentitude of brightly coloured, chewy, tart candies, and their names were skittles. and from those planted candies grew democracy. and from democracy there came the electoral college, which smote down the evil tyrant, ming the merciless and his allies dracula, frankenstein's monster, and the republicans.

so (insert generic name for a diety) ordained romulus wed, and so was born woman, and her name was pamela sue anderson lee rock mcguillicutty, and she was plentiful to all.

but that is another story....

A digression, but...

I believe the answer lies within sensory experience. When you watch a movie you see it, you hear it, you "experience" the movie at a much more visceral level. You accept it because you experience it at a much more instinctive level.

Click to expand...

A penetrating analysis, WA. I think I agree with you.

Historical Accuracy

I'd say it partially depends on the audience you have in mind.

Some people want to read a romance/horror/ adventure in a historical setting, and are not so concerned with accuracy (though I have read books where accuracy was retained in historical horror; haven't read enough of the other two to know).

Other people explore history through novels, finding it makes the past more accessible and human. I think that kind of audience appreciates as much accuracy as possible.

From what you've said your book is likely to be targeted at the latter audience. I'd agree with what others have suggested, if you mention the changes you've made in the book along with any other interesting notes, I think people will trust you and the story you're telling. I think doing the research (and it sounds like you've done that) is the most important part of creating that trust.

Re: Historical Accuracy

one story i was working on involved accurate writing of 1692 colonial america. while i was rather impressed with myself for being fairly close to the mark, i thought, it was unreadable. i think i finally settled on words like 'wyth' instead of 'with' just to have *some* semblence of the day, but drew the line at 'fafter' for 'father.' (they were diary excerpts, so i thought i'd make them pretty accurate. silly me.) i think la belle something...26 is right, your audience will probably dictate how much accuracy it needs.

i love the ones where i learn something, but it's not like i'm being explained to like a child. had i not read any parke godwyn, there's no way i'd ever know william the conqueror came from normandy (not france) and whupped up on the english at the battle of hastings in 1066. ain't no way in hell i'd have ever remembered reading that from a history book. but i do like knowing that junk. it makes me sound smarter than i actually am. and it only took a 400 page book to pound it into my head. he's known for his research, though, and how he puts it all together.

on the flip side, i read on that was totally entertaining, but it had edgar a. poe team up with davy crocket to solve a crime in baltimore. as a result of his adventures, poe gains all the inspiration he needs to write his best stories. yeah, pretty historically accurate, but on the far end of the scale in terms of plausibility. you could almost hear the details creak as they're being strained as you turned the page.