Creative Licence or Just Plain Idiocy?
If you've read any of my series, Her Majesty's Secret Servants, you'll know I'm all for creative licence in fiction. I've always liked "what if" and "coulda been" scenarios, as long as the basic historical facts are adhered to. For instance, the whole concept of Victoria having childhood friends she adored and trusted goes against what history tells us. She grew up isolated in Kensington Palace and strictly controlled by her ambitious mother. Ok, but SECRET friends is the operative word here, and during the course of the books I explain how the Sutherland sisters are connected to Victoria, and why it was so important their identities remained a secret. In everything else about Victoria, I stuck very closely to the truth based on my research. Thus, Her Majesty's Secret Servants becomes a possibility, at least in the realm of fiction.
What I didn't do was have Victoria secretly married or secretly an unwed mother, or put her in places or situations she couldn't possibly have been in. If I had I'd have been committing the unpardonable sin of lying to my readers. Even in Outrageously Yours, the science I included was as close to the possibilities of the times as my very unscientific mind could muster (except, of course, for one very special feat achieved by my hero, but we won't go into that). 
The other day I saw a certain movie that I'd seen advertised and praised. I went with high hopes and an open mind inspired by the casting, if nothing else. And if not for that cast and their talents, I'm sure I would have walked out long before the very unsatisfying conclusion. I can't tell you how long I spent just trying to match up what they were telling me with what I know to be true. It was like trying to assemble a puzzle with pieces that simply don't fit no matter how you turn them. What was supposed to be a revealing look at one of literature's most beloved individuals was somehow turned into a sordid, pointless, sad piece of sensationalism with no, and I do mean no redeemable characters, or message. And for that I paid $10.50.
If you want to know exactly what I'm talking about, read this recent New York Times article, which states it all beautifully. It's a bit long, but once you start I think you'll want to finish it. The writer voices the issue with wit, style and razor-sharp honesty.
It's one thing to rewrite history for entertainment value – um, Robin Hood, Men In Tights? – but at least be honest about it and don't try to pass it off as a serious theory and historically possible.
So how much creative licence is OK? Where should the line be drawn? And how do I get my money back?
Tagged: Her Majesty's Secret Servants, historical accuracy, movies, New York Times, OUTRAGEOUSLY YOURS, Queen Victoria
