Historian, Historiographer or Storyteller?
When writing historical fiction, one treads a narrow and slippery path.
The "historical" component of the phrase requires at least some loose, vague adherence to a time period. The "fiction" part gives one a bit of leeway, but that is not a privilege that should be abused.
Historiography – the rigorous academic inquiry into the methodology of historical research as a professional discipline – is usually ignored in this eternal internal debate.
And that would be fine except for one thing: a lot of people get most of their sense of history from fiction.
I haven't yet found a credible study on this, but anecdotally we all know that if a famous movie has been made or a popular book has been written about an event or era, people are much more familiar with it. The opposite is equally and uncomfortably true: historical events of terrible importance and deep significance are frequently overlooked or forgotten because no Hollywood studio or New York publishing house turned them into a blockbuster or a bestseller. Even worse, a wildly inaccurate or misleading book or movie could (and does) permanently distort the perception of a profoundly meaningful moment in history.
This fact places a strange and unexpected burden upon the writer of historical fiction. Like any artist, he or she should be expected to ignore this burden and just produce art, but it's an interesting factor to consider anyway.
My own philosophy when it comes to this dilemma is to always honor the spirit of the time and attempt to capture the color and flavor of the greater zeitgeist to the best of my ability while telling the story I want to tell. I never mess with the big stuff unless altering history is a central premise of the book (as it is with the "Cyanide of the Masses" trilogy).
I think the greatest compliment that could be paid to the author of a work of historical fiction is that someone somewhere is motivated to learn more about the reality behind the story, whether it's a quick check through Google or Wikipedia or a visit to a university library or state archive. To inflame someone's curiosity is a great achievement, and one of the best ways is to inspire someone to ask, "did that really happen?"
The "historical" component of the phrase requires at least some loose, vague adherence to a time period. The "fiction" part gives one a bit of leeway, but that is not a privilege that should be abused.
Historiography – the rigorous academic inquiry into the methodology of historical research as a professional discipline – is usually ignored in this eternal internal debate.
And that would be fine except for one thing: a lot of people get most of their sense of history from fiction.
I haven't yet found a credible study on this, but anecdotally we all know that if a famous movie has been made or a popular book has been written about an event or era, people are much more familiar with it. The opposite is equally and uncomfortably true: historical events of terrible importance and deep significance are frequently overlooked or forgotten because no Hollywood studio or New York publishing house turned them into a blockbuster or a bestseller. Even worse, a wildly inaccurate or misleading book or movie could (and does) permanently distort the perception of a profoundly meaningful moment in history.
This fact places a strange and unexpected burden upon the writer of historical fiction. Like any artist, he or she should be expected to ignore this burden and just produce art, but it's an interesting factor to consider anyway.
My own philosophy when it comes to this dilemma is to always honor the spirit of the time and attempt to capture the color and flavor of the greater zeitgeist to the best of my ability while telling the story I want to tell. I never mess with the big stuff unless altering history is a central premise of the book (as it is with the "Cyanide of the Masses" trilogy).
I think the greatest compliment that could be paid to the author of a work of historical fiction is that someone somewhere is motivated to learn more about the reality behind the story, whether it's a quick check through Google or Wikipedia or a visit to a university library or state archive. To inflame someone's curiosity is a great achievement, and one of the best ways is to inspire someone to ask, "did that really happen?"
No comments have been added yet.
Upside-down, Inside-out, and Backwards
My blog about books, writing, and the creative process.
- Austin Scott Collins's profile
- 28 followers
