Historical Accuracy in Fiction

[[deleted user]]

It's probably been about a decade since I read it, so some of the details are kind of hazy. Pierre made a big impression on me, though. I also remember getting good laughs out of his depiction of Napoleon. I think I should re-read it too.

[Dawn]

I got the impression that Tolstoy didn't care much for Napoleon considering how the characters talked about him. :)

[Bryn]

@Dawn, after I accused 'War and Peace' of inaccuracy. I know nothing about the battles or the battlefields, or historical detail at that level.

I just wonder how Tolstoy gets away with his comic-strip Napoleon? I don't have fixed ideas on Napoleon, but I know this one didn't exist, because he's impossible. He couldn't have led a dog down the street, never mind an army.

So, it's a novel, with interpretations, like others. His theory sections rub me the wrong way, too, as I don't believe his views on history: so I can't forget that this IS a view of history.

Like every other novel. :)

[[deleted user]]

That was definitely my impression as well. I guess it's understandable coming from a Russian perspective.(not that I've heard of many people caring much for Napoleon)

[Bryn]

@Derek I ought to have laughed, that's healthy, instead of getting disgusted.

[[deleted user]]

@Bryn. I can understand why it might rub people the wrong way. If I read it today, at age 40, I might not think it was so funny. Also, I completely agree with the point you made earlier. Napoleon had to be more competent than Tolstoy depicted him. It couldn't have been all luck. That being said, I still really liked the book at the time when I read it.

[Gordon]

To quote Bernard Cornwell:
"understand that your job is not to be an historian, but to be a storyteller"

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/writin...

[Simona]

Derek wrote: "That was definitely my impression as well. I guess it's understandable coming from a Russian perspective.(not that I've heard of many people caring much for Napoleon)"

I see that you don't know many Frenchmen...:)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Gordon wrote: "To quote Bernard Cornwell:
"understand that your job is not to be an historian, but to be a storyteller"

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/writin..."

While I am a Bernard Cornwell fan...or at least...I am a fan of certain books and series' of his....I don't think Bernard Cornwell is one of the best writers all of the time.

So, I hate to say this. I feel like I am betraying an author I am a fan of, but I feel just because I am a fan that doesn't mean I should not speak on something like this.... his wisdom on writing is only as good as the next authors.
There is also such an excess of emphasised historical fact in many of BC's books that it actually contradicts him saying that.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Gordon wrote: "To quote Bernard Cornwell:
"understand that your job is not to be an historian, but to be a storyteller"

http://www.bernardcornwell.net/writin..."

While I am a Bernard Cornwe..."

I too am a BC fan, but he has his faults. After all, he tributes historical victories and acts to his fictitious character. How much of a liberty with the truth is that? But he writes a good story

[Gordon]

Paula wrote: "I too am a BC fan, but he has his faults. After all, he tributes historical victories and acts to his fictitious character. How much of a liberty with the truth is that? But he writes a good story "


Sure, I know where you're coming from. Perhaps the quote is taken out of context a bit. As I see it, it's a matter of priorities rather than a black and white decision. For me, the primary priority is storytelling, with historical accuracy a very close second. If I reach a point where I have to sacrifice one or the other, I tend to choose in favour of the story (not always, but often) and make sure to convey this to the reader in the historical note at the end of the tale.

[Kate]

What I admire about Cornwell is that he isn't bothered by accusations of fudging historical truth, or by making mistakes. If somebody pounces on him with a "You said it was ____ in this book, but ____ in the other book!" or "You changed historical record here!" then his answer tends to run a short gamut between, "Yeah, guess I got that wrong" and "Yep, I changed that for the story." He puts himself as a storyteller first, and he doesn't twist into knots if he makes the occasional mistake. It's a good attitude for a writer to have, if they don't want to be driven utterly crazy!

[Ndf]

Gordon wrote: "Perhaps the quote is taken out of context a bit."

It is a little, because what I think Cornwell is really saying there is, if you want to appeal to a broad audience, sell lots of books, write books that people want to read and be successful as a writer of Historical Fiction ...you have to be a story teller.

That’s slightly different to saying the telling of a fictional story should take precedence over historical facts. The two can be combined and balanced very successfully and I think Cornwell is an extremely good example of a writer who does just that.

[Gordon]

Ndf wrote: "The two can be combined and balanced very successfully and I think Cornwell is an extremely good example of a writer who does just that."

Indeed. Balance is the key word.

[Rob]

I find most authors who can write with a historically authentic voice tend to be weak storytellers, and most who can tell a strong story are poor writers and historians. Cornwell is one of the few who is quite good at both.

[Ndf]

Paula wrote: "After all, he tributes historical victories and acts to his fictitious character. How much of a liberty with the truth is that?"

Does he? I’m not sure he does.

If you’ve read his series on Sharpe for example set during the Peninsular War and specifically the land battles between the opposing Armies of Wellington and Napolean, it would become fairly clear through Cornwell’s writing why Wellington was ultimately triumphant over an adversary that had by far the greater numerical advantage. I’m not just talking specifically about Waterloo but about a number of battles fought across Spain and France against French Armies.

Why was Wellington so successful when so many before him were not? The reasons are numerous but are all explained in some detail throughout the book series.

None of the reasons I might add had anything to do with Richard Sharpe and his merry band of Chosen Men who were merely the conduit through which Cornwell interwove his fictional stories with known, researched and verified historical facts.

That it was Richard Sharpe who captured the French Eagle in place of the historically correct person does not in any way change the reasons for why Wellington was victorious at Waterloo.

There has to be a certain amount of fact filtering by readers of Historical Fiction I think, to sort the wheat from the chaff. What are the important facts and what are the unimportant ones?

[Gordon]

Ndf wrote: "There has to be a certain amount of fact filtering by readers of Historical Fiction I think, to sort the wheat from the chaff. What are the important facts and what are the unimportant ones?"

This question is subjective - and there lies the eternal difficulty!

[Darcy]

Therein lies the issue: while some feel it is the author's moral duty to ensure as much of the history is accurate as possible, some feel its the reader's responsibility to suss the truth of an event or a person.

At what point is the author writing to tell a story that a reader can enjoy without either one is wondering whether there is enough 'truth' to be 'entertained'?

Should writing historical fiction be work for both the author and the reader? Who assigns these roles and who ensures we're all doing our part properly?

Clearly some authors lean more toward including as much 'authentic' information for the period written of, while others privilege the story itself, just as some readers want a bit of education or validation of their own knowledge stores, while others seek an escape to palace that simply gives the impression of another place and time. Thus, the different combinations of wants and gets allows for a variation of pleased and displeased readers and authors.

[Paula]

Ndf wrote: "Paula wrote: "After all, he tributes historical victories and acts to his fictitious character. How much of a liberty with the truth is that?"

Does he? I’m not sure he does.

If you’ve read his se..."

I was actually referring to his Uhtred series. I should have been more specific. He has Uhtred responsible for most of Alfred's achievements.

[Paula]

As a historical fiction novelist myself, i do feel that I have a certain amount of responsibility to uphold the integrity of historical characters by not defaming them by having them do things that are vile and ignominious,just as I mentioned earlier in the thread. If you must include a child rapist or a drunken wife beater in your story, why not have a fictional character behave in this way. This is an extreme case of course but i think you all get my point. And I think the responsibility lies with the author to ensure that an historical note enlightens the reader as to what if any fictitious or conjectured facts are in the book.

[Paula]

Kate wrote: "What I admire about Cornwell is that he isn't bothered by accusations of fudging historical truth, or by making mistakes. If somebody pounces on him with a "You said it was ____ in this book, but ..."

He usually explains his fudging in a historical note also.

[Judith]

Paula wrote: "As a historical fiction novelist myself, i do feel that I have a certain amount of responsibility to uphold the integrity of historical characters by not defaming them by having them do things that..."

But then there are some notoriously nasty historical characters that are such fun to malign--with perfect justification fr. the historical record. I write about Agamemnon and Achilles--not historical exactly, I realize, by narrow definitions, lots of myth/legend mixed in here--but Agamemnon's greed and self-centeredness is fun to write. Homer certainly showed it clearly. Anyone who can go on and on about how much he enjoys dragging to bed a young girl against her will--to her father no less, deserves some maligning. And there are certainly other examples across history.

[Paula]

Yes, if its clearly evidenced then I dont have a problem with that. If someone was a monster in real life then its fair to portray him like that in my book. I'm referring to outrageous malignings that are so obviously not true.

[Sanne]

Paula wrote: "Yes, if its clearly evidenced then I dont have a problem with that. If someone was a monster in real life then its fair to portray him like that in my book. I'm referring to outrageous malignings t..."

So what about things that we don't think of as malignous, but which are most likely untrue? For example Edward II: he's quite often (if not always) depicted as being homosexual in fiction. Yet there's every reason to assume that all instances of stories of him being gay were part of a slander campaign to justify his deposition by Isabella and Mortimer. So is it a writer's responsibility to not depict him as gay? Or is it alright to do that, knowing it'll contribute to the already omnipresent picture of him being gay in popular culture?

[Inna]

Thinking about it, I can live with some inaccuracy as far as facts are concerned if it is not too blatant. What I expect is that the author will faithfully express the spirit of the time/place, as far as we can know it. The one thing I absolutely hate in a historical novel is when the protagonists seem very similar to my next-door neighbors and action is utilized to disguise the fact that the author did not make a real effort to understand how that time/place differs from ours.

[Judith]

Inna wrote: "Thinking about it, I can live with some inaccuracy as far as facts are concerned if it is not too blatant. What I expect is that the author will faithfully express the spirit of the time/place, as ..."

I do enjoy books that so fully enter into the minds of the period that we come to see someone as sympathetic who holds historically accurate, but now unpopular beliefs. If an author can immerse you to that extent and be brave about showing the people of a particular time and place as they would have been, then that's pretty amazing to read. I admire that level of craft. But it is easier, but not good, as a writer to see the world through our own viewpoints and want to modernize the views of our characters to fit our current ideas. But then, there are also many universal sensibilities that don't change over time, and sometimes we need to be reminded of that also through the books we read--that human beings share a great deal across time and place.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Inna wrote: "Thinking about it, I can live with some inaccuracy as far as facts are concerned if it is not too blatant. What I expect is that the author will faithfully express the spirit of the time/place, as ..."

Inna, I could not agree more. The majority of us can live with some inaccuracy. Unless the author is a specialist in the era, then we as readers understand that some small inaccuracies might slip through
Naturally there will be some readers who just want to pick, pick, pick. And these readers will drive authors crazy as they are also generally the readers who will contact authors to have a whinge.

I too cannot stand generic characters or over action stories that are written that way to cover up the authors laziness when it came to research.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Being an author is a job. It may be part time, it may not pay much for some, but it is a job. If you choose to be a plumber or a butcher shouldn't you know your trade and do your best to know how to appeal to as many customers as possible?

If an authors main focus is just writing a story and picking a time to set it in, then readers will sense that and the atmosphere will be compromised. Readers, even ones who don't know history in detail, are not all stupid. The author might be able to slip a lot passed some readers, but if they want to be a valid and respected author, and to make a living out of what they do, they must do more than just lay a story over a patchy and weak historical background.

Generic backgrounds and detail are for the romance genre or the pulp fiction historical action sub genre. Where the theme is a love story (historical romance) or heaps of blood and guts and swearing and machismo (a lot of action adventure historical fiction), and the setting is basic in detail and could be any time and place.
Take the historical romance reader...
The historical romance reader doesn't care if the story is set in 1067 and the author has the hero living in a 12th century style Norman stone castle. When the castle should be an earthern motte and bailey with a timber castle atop it. The motte and bailey with timber tower atop is not as romantic as a grey stone castle so the author uses the historically inaccurate structure to fit the fairytale love story. And the historical romance reader cares not, because they are only there for the heaving bosoms and bulging loins.

But the majority of the readers of historical fiction 'do' care and will notice. Because, whether they realise or not and whether authors want to accept it or not, most do buy HF for the historical setting first and foremost...eg...."oh, I like Romans I'll buy this book"....or...."oh this is set in the French Revolution. Awesome. I'll buy it. Hope it is good".

If an author chooses to write an historical fiction then, in my opinion, his or her first focus should be the history. You won't be able to get your characters right or your scenery right unless you know your history.
History first. Story second. People don't pick up a historical fiction for the story. If they did then they would not seek out the genre, they would not seek out books set in history.
Historical fiction readers, even the ones who don't realise there is a historical fiction genre, are attracted to history and they want to read a story set in it. So get the history right, then write your story.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Oh gosh. I keep meaning to say this and I have just remembered!

I cannot speak for all of them, but many of the women readers who say they don't care about historical accuracy in hist fic....if you saw a woman in a 18th century dress (ie a Marie Antoinette style dress) on the cover of a book set in the 11th century, you would notice and it would put you off.

This is all some of us ask from the genre. Don't try and bluff your way through.
Some people's view on what constitutes historical accuracy will differ, but I think for most that is what we mean.
Don't put the clothes on them that are still hundreds of years off being invented.
Don't have them fighting a battle that did not happen for 300 years.
Most people will accept if an author makes a less famous battle a few months early or late. I don't often see readers having a problem with minor shifts. Although a mention of it in the historical note is preferred.

When people ask for historical accuracy in hist fic they are not saying write in alllll the history you learned in your research. They are just saying, get your research right and if you deviate from known fact then include a note on it in your historical notes.

[Paula]

Sanne wrote: "Paula wrote: "Yes, if its clearly evidenced then I dont have a problem with that. If someone was a monster in real life then its fair to portray him like that in my book. I'm referring to outrageou..."

There is no real evidence to say he was gay but he did love men. But he also loved women, he had an illegitimate son so he was most likely bysexual. The poker death in the proverbial myth is really annoying when it gets promulgated like it was true.

[Paula]

Inna wrote: "Thinking about it, I can live with some inaccuracy as far as facts are concerned if it is not too blatant. What I expect is that the author will faithfully express the spirit of the time/place, as ..."

Yes, I agree Inna, an author of hist fict should make every effort to write in the mindset of the period.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Being an author is a job. It may be part time, it may not pay much for some, but it is a job. If you choose to be a plumber or a butcher shouldn't you know your trade and do your best to know how t..."
Terri you rock! High 5!

[Paula]

I often get really put off of books with the back of a woman whose long hair cascades down her back and she is standing in front of a big castle door, wearing an off the shoulder number with an elaborate gold belt that is about four inches wide around her waste. Ive seen this on the front of a novel set in the 11thc and the same model on the cover of a 15thc book by the same publisher. It was entirely out of place for both eras. That would really annoy me if that was my book and I had endeavored to portray every detail with as accurate a picture as possible. But thats the problem with being mainstream, you dont always get a say in what goes on the front cover. thats when i am gald that I am self pubbed

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Paula wrote: "Terri wrote: "Being an author is a job. It may be part time, it may not pay much for some, but it is a job. If you choose to be a plumber or a butcher shouldn't you know your trade and do your best..."


Haha! Thanks mate! High 5 back. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Paula wrote: "I often get really put off of books with the back of a woman whose long hair cascades down her back and she is standing in front of a big castle door, wearing an off the shoulder number with an ela..."

There must be a lot of traditionally published authors who don't want a lady in period costume draping herself in a door frame or window. And they are told that's what sells and there is no choice.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "Paula wrote: "I often get really put off of books with the back of a woman whose long hair cascades down her back and she is standing in front of a big castle door, wearing an off the shoulder numb..."

This is very true, but i wonder if they are wrong!

[Paula]

Paula wrote: "I often get really put off of books with the back of a woman whose long hair cascades down her back and she is standing in front of a big castle door, wearing an off the shoulder number with an ela..."

Gosh, my fingers just can't spell! It's a good job my brain can!

[Paul]

Paula wrote: "Gosh, my fingers just can't spell! It's a good job my brain can! "

You're better off than me - my brain has a positive penchant for spelling the wrong way.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Interesting point Paula. I wonder too if they are wrong. I know a cover with a lady in period costume always catches my eye and I don't like that kind of chick lit HF. But for readers of that kind of Hist fic...don't they get sick of seeing the same thing over and over? Do they want a change in the lady in period costume cover? or is it like the historical romance genre (the bodice ripper type).
Readers never seem to get sick of the woman and man in questionable period costume wrapped around each other on the cover.
That formula has worked for decades.
Perhaps chick lit Hist Fic is stuck with the woman on the cover in period costume?
Just as d*ck lit Hist Fic is stuck with the man in period costume..ie Roman dude..on the cover.

[Darcy]

The current fashion seems to be a period dress from the neck down, or the back. I will say that when you're looking at a series of these covers in a tile format, it begins looking like a colourful wedding dress catalogue.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Yeah. I bet it does! lol
As a lover of fashion and a lover of history, it draws my eye to some of these covers. But I would never want to read one because it repels me as a reader about as much as a guy in Roman costume does. :)

[Sara]

Terri wrote: "Readers never seem to get sick of the woman and man in questionable period costume wrapped around each other on the cover.
That formula has worked for decades."

Perhaps it's also related to cultural aspects. In Portugal, the vast majority of hf will have a detail of a painting, xilography or sculpture on the cover. Typically, they'll either represent the time period (whether it was painted at the time or later on), the event or the main characters. However, if there is a main female character, you'll risk getting flowers in the mix. It seems that the Portuguese female audience is obsessed with flowers, since any book even remotely marketed for a female audience will have a cover starring a woman - in whatever clothes - and flowers. Apparently, even books by best-selling authors will fare worse in sales if they deviate from the woman&flowers cliché. Fortunately, hf covers aren't buried in massive amounts of flowers.

[Bryn]

Sara wrote: "In Portugal, the vast majority of hf will have a detail of a painting, xilography or sculpture on the cover."

Wish I were Portuguese, then: that's the kind of cover I love, love, love on hf.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

haha. The flowers thing is funny. :)

Out of curiosity, Sara, can you show us some flower examples? I would love to see some of these covers.

[Paula]

Terri wrote: "haha. The flowers thing is funny. :)

Out of curiosity, Sara, can you show us some flower examples? I would love to see some of these covers."

I'd love to see some Portuguese book covers!

[Sara]

Four examples of flowery covers:

It's not that they're bad, but one does get sick of flowers after a while. I suppose it's the same effect as the "lady in period costume draping herself in a door frame or window" Terri mentioned.

Some typical hf covers:


Now I've got several books on the love story of (prince/king) Pedro and Inês de Castro, which happened in the 14th century. So here are the covers of two different novels on the topic: they're both details from 19th century works depicting moments of the story:

[Bryn]

That was fun, Sara, thanks. Yes, the face-with-flower seems a bit of theme. Predictably, I like the ones with old artworks.

[Paula]

Thanks Sara! Really interesting to see the covers of HF in Portuguese

[Paula]

I know this isnt quite in line with the thread but I met a woman yesterday who reckoned she could trace her lineage back to Bodicea. I just smiled sweetly and turned away and when she was out of sight did a face palm

[Tim]

Sara wrote: "Four examples of flowery covers:

It's not th..."

Wow.thats flowery...
Clearly there is some untold cultural significance going on here. Can anyone enlighten me?