group discussion

I'm starting this in a new thread because I'd love to start up a conversation outside of the specific book discussion we're having this month. The question has come up basically asking how much license should an author of historical fiction be able to take with the subject matter? There are always going to be some people who don't seek out the "truth" of the matter beyond what they read in The Other Boleyn Girl or whatever the newest hottest historical fiction book is. How much of a duty, if any, does the historical fiction author owe to her actual historical subjects and to "staying true" to the actual course of events?

Here's an edited version of what I thought in the other thread to kick us off:

I think the line between (lines among?) fiction, non-fiction, and historical fiction are quite tenuous and I wonder if the author has any responsibility at all to be accurate in the historical fiction setting.

I mean, part of the reason an author writes fiction rather than non-fiction is to be able to fill in the blanks of things we don't know. But doesn't the author also have the right to explore explore the "could-have-beens"? If not, then why bother with historical fiction at all? As we all know, the true story of Henry's court or any royal family is pretty much drama filled enough without having to veer off into the fiction realm. Why don't authors just write non-fiction if historical fiction is meant to be the same thing?

Clearly it's because historical fiction is permitted to be different than what happened in real life. Historical fiction authors might have some duty to the truth that does not exist in other literary circles, but I don't think that their duty extends any further than a robust author's note, acknowledging the differences and pointing people to additional non-fiction resources. If people want to get all of their historical knowledge from historical fiction, they should do so with caution. Just like Wikipedia shouldn't be cited in a research paper, I would find highly suspect the person arguing that something actually happened and then based that argument on a novel. For example.

I don't know - I'm still working it all out in my head, but I think that some license has to be given to the historical novelist as an artist to allow them to explore not only blanks and gaps in literature, but also the extremes. Fiction is fiction, whether it's deemed "historical" or not, and we as readers signed up for that when we bought or borrowed our books from the fiction section rather than the non-fiction.

Any other thoughts?

Hi - I'm a newbie to this group; I just joined Goodreads about 2 months or so ago and I've been reading your posts with interest. I tend to agree with Emily about this. While I deplore the fact that historical fiction is all the history some people will read, at the same time at least they are reading something historical! I was a bookseller for many years and I feel the same way about this as I felt about Oprah's Book Club; my staff used to high-mindedly complain about people "slavishly reading what Oprah told them to" and my response was along the lines of, "Hey, she's got people who never read anything but Silhouette romances reading Toni Morrison, don't knock it!" (Not that there's anything wrong with a romance occasionally but you know what I mean :)).

That said, what I have issues with are films/TV shows that take liberties with the truth. There are no robust afterwords here and people think these things are facts. Best examples I can think of off the top of my head are Braveheart, where you are left assuming that Wm. Wallace had an affair with Isabella the so-called "She-Wolf of France", who was actually only 12 during the time of the movie and probably never met him; and The Tudors, where they made Henry's sisters into one person and married her to a totally different monarch. I'm not saying these things don't make good story lines, but somehow it should be said that they are just that: story lines.

Okay, I think I've blathered on enough for my first post, except to say that, if I am allowed to vote, I would like to vote for The Sunne in Splendour also; I've been meaning to read it for years so this would be a good spur to do so. Thanks for "listening"........Patricia

I like a fair bit of the "historical" in my historical fiction. If the writer is going to depart from the standard timeline, I really prefer if there's an Author's Note explaining WHY. I don't have any problem with it, if there's a good explanation.

With the Tudors, "a good storyline" is not a good explanation! The real story is quite exciting enough, thank you.

Also, there's the "flinch test," which is probably different for all of us.

I'm so glad you started a separate thread for this Emily! Like Susanna, I like my historical fiction to be pretty historical, which is why I love Jean Plaidy (I'm sure there are other authors who do a lot of research as well - Plaidy just happens to be the author I read the most of at this time). I think I'm ok with an author going off on "what could have been" tangents if there is a good author's note at the end offering some sort of explanation and/or offering non-fiction suggestions for people to read if they want more of the real story.

Welcome to the group Patricia! I like your point about people at least broadening what they read due to Oprah, and in the case of historical fiction, I would have to say Phillipa Gregory. There seem to be a ton of people who read The Other Boleyn Girl who might not have ever picked up a book about the Tudors otherwise.

I think I personally have less of a problem with tv shows and movies that are historically inaccurate because for some reason I expect less from them then I do from books. I don't really know why that is - I just know that by the time The Tudors series introduced Henry's "sister" as a combination of Mary and Margaret, I was kind of ok with it, whereas had that happened in a book I would have been really annoyed. I guess I figure tv shows and movies are limited in what they can show due to time restraints, so I don't mind as much when they take liberties with historical fact. A book, on the other hand, could simply add more pages and make sure that Mary and Margaret were separate people (I haven't actually read a book that combined them into one person).

I will just copy here my post from another thread. By the way, Sara, I believe you have the cutest picture in all of Goodreads! Is this your cat?

I believe it is totally fine for a historical novelist to "fill the blanks" and there are a lot of them in every possible historical setting. So if a novelist takes one side in a good faith historical controversy, or adds events that are fictional, but consistent with ascertained fact, that's all right. That's even what HF is all about.

I draw the line when the novelist herself believes something is true, or and then writes the contrary in a novel. As you point out, some readers trust the accuracy of historical novels, and it is not fair to deceive them on purpose.

That's an excellent point, Catherine - I really, really don't like it when an author believes one thing to be the truth of the matter, and writes something completely different.

Susanna and Catherine, I can totally see that point, but I wonder where else the historian can explore how things might have been if not in the fictional genre? I don't know, I go back and forth on the issue. I'd hate for someone's only exposure to history to be something universally agreed to be wrong or untrue, but at the same time, if someone wants to write a novel as if Henry had been a monogamous man, why not? Or should they just lose the ability to call it "historical fiction" at that point?

I don't mind when author's take historical liberties (even extreme ones, such as The Other Boleyn Girl) if the book is well written and interesting. That kind of writing is really what got me into history in general because I wanted to learn the truth of the matter, or at least the credible theories. My own personal issue though is that I do prefer when historical fiction contains true historical characters. I'm not really a big fan of historical fiction that makes up major characters and gives them important roles interacting with real historical figures. But that is just personal preference. :)

Emily, sure you can make Henry VIII a monogamous, family-oriented, warm and fuzzy type of man. There is a name for it: alternate history, and I find it quite fun as long as the writer makes it clear to her readers.

Amanda, I believe most historical fiction contains a mix of fictional and historical characters. At least that's what I do. You mean you like only historical characters in your HF? I can see why, but it creates a huge challenge for a writer. After all, we write fiction!

I've been fascinated by this thread and would like to share my point of view, as a new author of historical fiction. I completely agree that an author's note, separating the truth from the fiction, is worthwhile - even necessary. In spite of all of the research I've done, I would never hesitate to say that my book is fiction. There are things - what people where thinking, feeling, saying in private - that simply can not be known, and fiction is about filling in those gaps in a satisfying manner.

That said, an author needs to make choices. There are so many different versions of the same story in non-fiction sources, and an author needs to choose which story to tell. Is it the story that I believe, with all certainty, actually happened? There is no way to know for certain. But it's the version I found the most fascinating, the one I thought would suit the story best. While I can't imagine writing something that I find completely historically inaccurate or contradictory, I also think that an author can, and must, make choices that benefit the story.

I hope I've explained this clearly!

I just finished The Queen's Man: A Medieval Mystery, yesterday, and I really liked Sharon Kay Penman's author's note. She put pretty clearly what was historically true, and made it clear that the main characters (except the members of the royal family) were invented. I like it when the author states it plainly like that.

Exactly, Alisa and Susanna. An author should enjoy a great deal of creative freedom, provided that she make clear in her historical note what is history and what is fiction.
I haven't read Boleyn Girl. Did Philippa Gregory make it clear that she was taking great liberties with the character of Anne B?

Hi Catherine:

I write historical fiction to as a hobby. :) Generally speaking I prefer to use mostly real historical figures. I generally *prefer* when fictional characters are kept to minor characters, although there are certainly exceptions to this rule that are very well done.

For example, one of the first Tudor fiction books I read (and still one of my favorites) is The Autobiography of Henry VIII by Margaret George. I think she made up very few characters for that book. In fact, none come to mind.

For an exception, and here I will sound like a HUGE nerd, I used to LOVE the young adult Historical Fiction books by Ann Rinaldi that took place in Colonial or Civil War America. (And, yes, admittedly I still love them!) She often used characters based on people who really lived, but who history tells us very little or nearly nothing about and filled in those blanks while using them as "vehicles" for getting to know the major historical characters she had them interacting with. Or, sometimes she would make characters up for that same purpose. It worked fine, and I still enjoy the fact that they are geared at a target audience about 12 years younger than myself haha! So it can go either way, to be fair.

Catherine -

Gregory has an author's note at the end of The Other Boleyn Girl, which in part reads "I have followed Warnicke's original and provocative thesis" that there was a homosexual ring around Anne, etc. etc.

To me this translates as "I was looking for a really juicy plotline and grabbed on to this theory no matter what most historians think of it because it would really sell the book."

She then lists some useful sources for the Tudor period.

Oh I see, Catherine. But I have read that Gregory also writes that the accusations of adultery and incest against Anne were true, while in fact no creditable historian, to my knowledge, believes so. Again, I haven't read the book but if it were the fact, it would be akin to defaming a real person. Frankly, I don't like it, especially with regard to a tragic figure like Anne. Maybe that's why I never wanted to read the book.

Amanda - What kind of HF do you write?

And both of you: about using historical characters in fiction, we had a great discussion the other day at Writing the Renaissance, the blog of Julianne Douglas (which, by the way, I highly recommend.)
http://writingren.blogspot.com...

The first HF piece I ever wrote was based on having read Margaret George's books. I wrote about John of Gaunt. (Sort of like Katherine by Anya Seton but mostly from his perspective; at the time I had never even heard of that book.) I was only 16 and I would probably be embarrassed to read it now, although I think it was a good effort for a high school student. :)

I write mostly about England/royalty (Edward III to Elizabeth I) or colonial America. I don't think I could ever get anything published though. I would love to read your book!

I LOVED Margaret George's Henry VIII book! It's one of my all-time favorites - not only impeccably researched, but she makes a believable case, I think, for Henry's version of events.

As for The Other Boleyn Girl...I don't begrudge Ms. Gregory finding a storyline that she knew would be juicy and good for her novel, but...I guess I would feel better if she said "this is well researched, but yes, it is fiction."

My first book - The Blood Confession - is YA historical fantasy. The next one, due out next spring, is historical fiction about Catherine Howard:) For more details please visit my website, which is slowly being updated: www.alisalibby.com.

Amanda - did you ever try to get an agent? I describe my own journey to publication on my website www.catherinedelors.com. It's tough, but it can happen.
And Alisa, I am going to your website!

My mom had a lot of Jean Plaidy books when I was young. The first one I read was Queen of This Realm (about Elizabeth I). Maybe I was spoiled early on by Plaidy, because, as someone pointed out earlier, her novels are very well researched.

I think authors of historical fiction (are you listening, screenwriters of The Tudors?!) have a certain responsibility to fulfill both expectations: the historical and the fiction. Some liberty with events is to be expected to a degree, but I think there is definitely a limit. This is especially true because many people assume what they read is true, even if it does have the "fiction" label attached.

Wow, I love that there are so many authors and writers and want-to-be authors here! I would love to try writing some historical fiction, but it's never gone much farther then that yet (although I have started to look into the process).

Catherine, that's really interesting about alternate history - that would be a lot of fun to read (as long as the reader knew ahead of time that it was alternate history). Are there any titles or authors of alternate history that you would recommend? Oh, as for my picture, I borrowed it from kittenwar.com (which is the most adorable website ever!).

Well, Sara, recently I read "The Plot against America" by Philip Roth.

Very interesting concept: what if Lindy, instead of Roosevelt, had been elected President? I really liked the first part, on how the life of an ordinary Jewish family in NJ is gradually and dramatically affected by the turn of events.
OTOH, though Roth is a capable writer and I enjoyed his other novels, he lost me at the end of the book, where it flounders into tabloid territory. Maybe that was deliberate, but I felt it was over the top. This illustrates the difficulty of the genre.

And I'll go visit kittenwar.com. If you are a cat person, you might enjoy this as well:
http://blog.catherinedelors.co...

Thanks Catherine, I'll definitely check out the blog (I'm a huge cat person!).

I joined Goodreads two days ago and this group moments ago. Yikes, am I the only guy here?

As a child, whenever I read HF and saw a costume film, I would go to the library and look up the history.

I have a B.A. in History, emphasis European, and taught the subject for 20 years.

I am bothered by sloppy research and appreciate an Author's or Historical Note section where the writer explains the discrepancies, as I have done.

Hollywood offends me more than most authors. As an example, Gladiator was an historical mish-mash, but to see a real travesty on historical characters and events, watch The Santa Fe Trail.

I hope I am not seeming to be self-aggrandizing when I say that I like to think my HF "Rocamora" set in 17th century Spain to be released in late September, will pass the smell test.

I am sorry that Dorothy Dunnett is no longer with us.

Welcome to the group Donald! Don't worry, there are other guys here (although they are outnumbered). Where did you teach at? I have a B.A. in History as well and took as many European classes as I could. I'm also bothered by sloppy research (some historical fiction is so bad that I wonder why the author bothers to use historical figures at all - for me, books like that would be much better if they were flat out fiction with purely fictional characters set in a historical timeframe). I'll have to give your book a try!

Thank you, Sara, for the welcome.

I taught A.P. European History at Farifax High School in West Hollywood, CA. Feel free to check out my bio/profile.

I shall let you know when ROCAMORA is available

I think that an author who writes HF should have liberty to "fill in the gaps"; private conversations, scenes that forward the plot, etc... "God is in the details". If the author puts in historical snippets of details from costume to known customs, daily life and little bits of historical language, and puts certain key events around the main characters, the novel works. They don't have to be grandiose, but as a reader my expectation is that they should be correct or as close to it as possible. If I read that Henry VIII has consumed yet another large Turkey leg (not indigenous to England in the 16th c.), I feel that the author has failed the reader by giving them inaccurate information.

I also think that some of the responsibility falls upon the reader to find out more about a topic that interests them and not to assume that everything they read in HF is historical fact.

I think that an author who chooses to write HF and not fiction or Romance that centers on a specific time period needs to be well read on the historical subject including any of the unpleasant aspects of it if it is relevant to the story, and have a good handle on the socio-political aspects. They also have a duty to keep a proper time line. Historical events (battles, marriages, etc...) shouldn't be altered or shifted in time without explanation in a notes section.

One of the reasons I adore SKP, is that she tells you exactly where she deviated in time. She's informs the readers about character additions and even name changes to keep the reader's confusion level down when a book is riddled with common names such as Anne, Edward, and George.

I'm a historical interpretor and my area of specialty is the latter half of the fifteenth century surrounding the Valois Dukes of Burgundy, specifically Philippe the Good and Charles the Bold, which ties into the War of the Roses and the camps of Lancaster and York, Louis XI and the Holy Roman Empire. I tend to get somewhat testy when I come across sloppy research in a historical novel that cites a lot of primary and secondary sources in their bibliography, but after reading the novel, I question if the author even bothered reading them (if it has to do with Burgundy, I have many if not more of the sources than most HF authors list), or ignored the historical facts to push a tenuous plot. To me at that point it ceases being historical and falls into the realm of alternate reality like Harry Turtledove's alternate reality fiction "The Guns of the South".

Recently I've read a lot of reviews of historical novels where a one or two star rating was given because the reader cited that the "historical novel" got bogged down in too much history. ??? Eh?? Isn't that part of the charm of a historical novel;the history? (sorry...I digress)

Welcome Donald.

I concur in regard to Hollywood. From a medieval perspective, I have a two word title for you..."BRAVE HEART".

I have a question for you writers out there (or just generally those who know more about this subject than me) - how exactly does a book get labeled historical fiction as opposed to just fiction? Does the author or publisher just pick the distinction?

Jenn, what's a historical interpretor? It sounds fascinating (even though I don't know what it is)! I was a history major, so I love hearing about people actually doing things involving history - it seems like so much fun.

Sara - great question and I am interested in hearing the answer from someone out there. I wonder the same thing about "Young Adult Fiction" since many of my favorite books are classified that way, but are just as good if not better than a lot of "Adult Fiction" I read.

That's a good question too - I like a lot of Young Adult Fiction as well.

Thank you for the welcome, Jenn.

I also saw a newspaper review of an historical novel in which it was criticized for having too much history. It might be a case, though, of the author doing too much telling rather than showing.

The writer MUST thoroughly research daily life in the era as well as the general history and bios of principal historic figures appearing in the novel.

Author's and Historical notes can indeed explain why the writer added, ignored, or altered specific events.

Hi Sara,

the basic definitions of Interpretor and Interpretation are:

Interpretation is a planned effort to create for the visitor an understanding of the history and significance of events, people, and objects.

The interpretor is an individual who translates material culture and human or natural phenomena to the public in a meaningful, provocative, and interesting way.

I my case, the living history interpretation group that I am with presents to the museum going public, a snap shot in time of a Burgundian Ordinance Company of Charles the Bold. The material objects from a full reproduction suit of plate armour, to weaponry, and clothing is shown. In a museum full of objects that were meant to be used, we can show the public how it worked and allow them to interact with it rather than view it from behind a glass case.

On the note of Historical Fiction vs. Fiction... How I personally define it (I'm not in the writing community) has to do with time, place, and people.

Anne Bolyn was a real person. She lived in Tudor England. There is a historic record of her existence and the events that occurred around her.

Fiction might be simply the day in the life of a completely fictitious person. Even though they might live in modern day Manhattan in the 21st century, nothing else about them is real.

But I can see where the lines being drawn can be a little close.

I think the difference between the adult vs young adult categories the simplicity or complexity of the language used and content.

Hi Donald,

I agree. The novel that I am currently reading does more telling than showing. I'm having a really difficult time getting a feeling for the heroine of the piece.

Please do let us know when your book is available.

So would interpretation be similar to reenacting (I apologize if that's not a term you use or like to be compared to - I realize reenactors probably do it more for their own enjoyment, and it seems like what you are doing is more to educate other people) or to what people see at living history museums (I guess the one that comes to mind is Williamsburg, VA - I've never been there, but it seems like they teach people about Colonial America by actually performing tasks and things as they would have happened in that time period)? Those just happen to be the things that pop in my head that compare to what you are describing. It sounds like it would be very interesting and a lot of fun!

Sometimes re-enactment is used to cover the same thing.

In my lexicon, re-enactment can be education oriented and demonstrate some of the same tasks, but the goal isn't always about sharing history with or educating the public. Many times it's about re-enacting the exact events of a specific day in time or just for fun; the more "hard core" re-enactors will give a full first person interpretation and remain "in character" for the public; it's a little harder the farther you step back in time. Gettysburg springs to mind where all the units know exactly where they were at the beginning of July and what happened. The event tends to be scripted, though occasionally the participants get caught up in the moment and "ignore" the script.

My husband is part of an artillery unit that re-enacts the American Civil War (ACW). The people in the battery know the history, but they are more interested in the canon. First person interpretation is not in their blood, so they go through the motions but don't necessarily know much more about the other aspects of society and material culture. My husband on the other hand has Card de visits (authentic photos of people that represent his family) he has real 19th century mechanic pencils and while in camp, writes letters to his "family". When visitors to the camp ask him questions, he can answer almost anything that his "character or persona" would have known. If he doesn't, he says "I don't know".

It is a lot of fun. :)

Jenn -

I totally thought that content/language would have been a divider for adult vs. young adult works, too, but then as I started reading more and more, it just didn't really prove true. A book like The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, which is set during WWII and told from the perspective of Death is certainly not light and it's probably one of the most beautifully written books I've read in a long time. I suppose I can see that the plots may be more simplistic. But anyway, this is off-topic. :)

Emily,

The Book Thief is the same book i recently read that had me immediately asking why it was classified as YA Fiction.

Historical Novel Society Discusses the issue with links to essays.

Here's a site with a definition of Young Adult literature.

Jenn, I shall with drums, brass, and fireworks. So far, it is 30 September, but getting in Books in Print and the on line sites can be thwarted by glitches.

My publisher just update my web site www,donaldmichaelplatt.com and profile page on myspace.

Jenn, that Historical Novel Society site is really cool. I can't believe how many historical novels they review each year!

Just making myself useful. ;)

I have to get a copy of "The Last Queen" so I can read along with the group.