Writing Historical Fiction discussion
Using Real Life People In Your Books
As an historian I wouldn't like this and you also have to think of the relatives of the people, one should always stick to the truth.
If they are or were actual people, you should research them carefully and stick to the truth, for everyone's sake (especially for the large proportion of readers who, when they finish your book, won't remember what was fiction or truth). In a sense, your historical fiction becomes history, for the non-historian, casual reader. Readers understand that the fiction involves your view of the motivations and conversations.
If you invent a character or situation, or combine events for dramatic purposes (not my favorite device!), cover your decision in the author's notes.
Hello, Chris. Your work might cover a period that is still within the memory of some readers, so there are sensitivity issues perhaps and a writer should best be cautious when fictionalising. My own current work is set in 16th century and, while I mix fictional characters with historical, I take care to keep invented dialogue within the bounds of a decent grasp of character as recorded.
I do not manipulate character, event or topography to suit the plot; I sense we have a duty to be as accurate as we can.
Good fortune with yours.
A number of real people are characters in my Civil War novel, not famous, but who likely have descendants who are still alive. I am in touch with one of those descendants whose great grandfather I am using as a minor character. In such cases, I have to be very careful how I use these folks, and try to stay as close as possible to whom they appear to be through their journals and letters. It's a fine balance--sticking with the truth and not hurting anyone's feelings.
Cheers for the advice, I've managed to draft a few made up characters. Will keep the real life people as close to history as possable.Many Thanks Chris.
Variation on the theme. TR Roosevelt gave a speech in Cairo in March 1910. For chronology reasons, I would like for this to take place in August or September of that year. Permissible?
It depends. In those days it took a long time for information to reach the rest of the world. If you want it to be a 'live' happening it would be hard but if your characters have just heard about it it may work.
Darrell wrote: "Variation on the theme. TR Roosevelt gave a speech in Cairo in March 1910. For chronology reasons, I would like for this to take place in August or September of that year. Permissible?"Action takes place in Cairo, so it would be live. Roosevelt was out of office but obviously his trip to Africa and speech are pretty well documented.
As with most people who have responded here, I think the closer you can stick to the correct chronology, the better. So many guides to writing say that plot trumps historical accuracy but I have trouble with that. I prefer to think that if the story is worth telling, it's worth telling accurately. If you really can't re-jig the story to fit the historical facts, you better have a really good reason (ie very strong plot point) to bend the facts. I write about the 1930s to 1950s which is fairly recent so if I played loose with the facts, I would expect to get criticized more than if I were writing about the, say, 9th century. It's YOUR book and you get to do what you want, but if you're loose with the facts, expect to get criticized.
If an author is going to play with the facts, he/she should make a note of it in Author Notes at the end of the novel. I have seen this in several cases, where the author has stated he moved a particular incident forward or backward a year, or changed the city of the incident for the sake of the story.Of course, one should never change a major incident, say, the Battle of Gettysburg, by putting it in a different place or time.
Actually, that's a very good point Karen is making. I've never had to move an event to a significantly different time or place, but if I HAD to, the Author's Notes is the best way to deal with that.
Thanks, everyone. I think I'll end up sticking to the historical chronology and plotting around it.
I had this dilemma recently when researching an 18th Century story involving a Royal Navy ship. We know very little about the events I was writing about, but we do have the ship's muster list. With a few exceptions (the Captain, whose name is moderately well known, and a couple of men who were drowned at a very early stage) I decided to change all the names. My story needs villains, but I didn't want to make one out of somebody's ancestor without any historical evidence.
The issue of fictionalizing historical figures goes back to no less that Shakespeare (the founder of historical fiction)and Walter Scot (the founder of historical novel and a conscious follower of Shakespeare). The rules, or rather the tone, they set, has been, I think, perpetuated pretty much inviolate.In the history plays and in the great Roman tragedies that follow history, Shakespeare rigorously followed historical sources for events, and crafted dialog consistent with the action defined by his sources. The fact that some of his sources (like those concerning Richard III) are questioned today, doesn't change the fact that the bard stuck close to such sources as he had and believed credible. All of these sources were strong on event, but very limited in preserving actual speech. But where, as in Julius Ceasar, Plutarch handed down speech, Shakespeare stuck to the gist.
Walter Scott established the much wider latitude accepted ever since. In his famous characterizations of Queen Elizabeth, Queen Mary of Scotland and the Earl of Leicester, he made the strongest effort to distill the character from historical sources -- efforts at least the equal of a professional historian. But once he had his characters, he was willing to play freely with fact and incident in service of a great story -- sometimes very freely. I believe this is still the fundamental standard. The author is expected to perform the serious historical excavation and reflection needed to establish a morally honest vision of the character. From that point however, the author is free to craft an entertaining story consistent with the essence of that character. That's the line between history and historical fiction.
And then there is the situation of the historical individual who has become so legendary that very considerable freedom is permissible to shape the character. A great example is the great buccaneer Henry Morgan in my own novel,"Port Royal." His personal history is sketchy and so much legend has already infected his biography that readers are willing to accept a great deal of fictionalization in the service of creating the ideal pirate captain. They would not, however, accept the distortion of this true historical name for a different end.
Finally, there is the issue of historical figures who are so modern that we have living audio and video records of their lives and personalities -- or where the impact of these people's lives is still actively reverberating. Here, it's all a question of taste. Simply making up something about Hitler, or Stalin, or Churchill or FDR, or (to take two extremely provocative examples) J.F. Kennedy or Martin Luther King, is iffy because it can feel like a moral violation, either to the memory of the character or to those people they affected. Some authors will deliberately take provocative risks here, and some will get away with it. Others will not.
I believe that historical novelists should stick to the hisrorical facts as much as possible. However, as we know from our own experience, fact and truth are movable feasts and different people, and therefore, different characters in our novels, can view the same events with very different interpretations.
In my The Lost King novels I really struggled when I had to decide whether the protagonist led a small band of men by horse or foot because there was dissent in the records. However, I am happy as anything to invent plausible friends and events around the few facts we know about his life.
I guess that if you write about a more distant past then the lack of precise information (and living descendents) gives you more latitude. However, I fail to see why people would change their characters and chronology to suit the plot they are inventing. I think it is preferable to alter the plot to suit the history.
I agree with Robert: it all depends. History is slow and messy; fiction needs to be relatively brisk and orderly. Major considerations are how much is known about the historical figure and whether the change you want to make would count as 'changing history.' I like Robert's requirement: you must 'establish a morally honest vision of the character.' Christopher Marlowe is a major character in my current WIP. He's a very attractive figure in this period (he obviously attracted me!). The scanty facts of his life are pretty well known and there are people who have examined them with high-powered microscopes. I wouldn't dream of altering a single date or place for him. On the other hand, Sir Horatio Palavicino, a secondary character in my book, was a fairly important person in his time, but little known today. I feel quite happy dragging him into my garboil and tumult during a period when his whereabouts are underspecified. He probably wasn't where I want him, but it fits his general history and his character. An author's note at the end will confess the fiddle.
Wishing you the best of luck establishing a morally honest vision of Kit Marlowe, Anna! For many centuries, this man has come to epitomize the greatest conceivable talent mixed with a degenerate and even destructive personality -- the first example of that model of the artist that has persisted ever since. But that's why people would be interested in your book. The precise Dead Shepherd is not possible to achieve, and perhaps not particularly important. But an insight into the suicidal or nihilistic artist and creator is very possible, and very worthwhile. Just as in Shakespeare, an historical character can be most important as a means for moral and psychological explorations that are just as relevant to such modern figures as (for example) Jim Morrison, Kurt Cobain, Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday -- even Judy Garland.
OK, now that you put it like that, "a morally honestvision of Kit Marlowe" does sound like a complex oxymoron! But I don't think he was quite as nihilistic
and suicidal as some people may have painted him. It was a time of much casual violence, after all. He spent seven long years at the university studying hard, without getting arrested once!
But yes, more to the group point, fiction is our best way to explore the nature of these amazing people. Trying to write them honestly and clearly is both fun and frustrating: fun because I spend absurd amounts of time thinking about Marlowe and even more about Francis Bacon; frustrating because I know I don't have the skill to really make everything I know and think about them come alive on the page.
Anna wrote: "But yes, more to the group point, fiction is our best way to explore the nature of these amazing people. Trying to write them honestly and clearly is both fun and frustrating:... "Kit Marlowe - as I'll call him like I know him - that intriguing guy, is a hero of mine. Do you find you can use his plays, Anna, to get into his head? This is dicey, again, since his work has led to such different interpretations. However... I have a trust in the artist's eye, which might catch him there when the scholar's eye, that operates differently, doesn't put together a personality.
Oh that's crudely put, overstated perhaps, but I do believe in a possibility along those lines. Nothing against scholars (witness my bookshelves).
But I also have to do with poetry. And the issues are pretty endless, but - the short version -
Okay, I write about historic Mongols. The Mongols wrote these figures into half-fiction - an epic chronicle - at the end of their lives or shortly after. They had already begun to make poetry of their lives, and whatever versifications and fictionalisations were in circulation, they plopped into the chronicle of events. (The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle does this too).
My interest is in the fiction they made of themselves - alongside the facts (which I am entirely interested in too). To me, the art tells as much about them, even when they are putting made-up lines into people's mouths, even when they romanticise. The way they romanticise tells us what they found romantic.
Don't know where I'm going with this; except, dealing with poetry and facts both, trying to extract the truth from each, not discounting either (not pulling the poetry apart for facts, but using the poetry itself) --- well, it's interesting to do.
Robert wrote: "The issue of fictionalizing historical figures goes back to no less that Shakespeare (the founder of historical fiction)and Walter Scot (the founder of historical novel and a conscious follower of ..."And in answer to Robert: I'm greatly interested in early hist fic, origins of hist fic, how they did it in centuries past. As you say, Sh. was as conscientious as we feel the need to be; I believe he quoted whole swathes of Plutarch, fiddling around the edges for verse. I like to study his HF - think of those plays as HF, to see what he does and doesn't do, what he thinks his latitude is and isn't.
And how did he... distinguish himself from what went before? When did epic end and historical fiction begin? You say Sh. is the founder of the latter - in English at least? I wonder how he came to define what he was doing. And of course he manages to be the original and best.
Bryn wrote: "When did epic end and historical fiction begin? You say Sh. is the founder of the latter - in English at least? I wonder how he came to define what he was doing. And of course he manages to be the original and best."My own personal take is this:
Shakespeare moved easily into history for two reasons:
1. The plays could be focused around a named king, and therefore was biographical drama -- already a strong source of playwright material in his day. People loved the "royals" even more in those than they do now -- with their lifestyles and court intrigues -- so it made great entertainment (and great costuming).
2. Shakespeare started with Henry VI, who was barely much of a personality, but whose life corresponded with the War of Roses. For people in S's day, that war was like the Civil War is to Americans today. Incredibly romantic and controversial, and not so distant in the past that it had ceased to feel alive to them. So Shakespeare was able to start with a "royalty" play that was rich in historical incident of current interest. Once that tone was settled, he could move on to other monarchs whose political and historical context was equally sginificant (Henry IV especially).
Walter Scot just happened to be a profound historian of his native Scotland. He devoted his younger days to restoring the oral literature of lays and ballads, and this caused him do develop the most detailed and sensitive historical perspectives on Great Britain generally. (Read his notes to the lays to get the idea.) So when he turned his storytelling talents to the British past, he was "loaded for bear," as it were. And people loved this new kind of period writing, in which the author had real historical research at his command, rather than a mere legendary tone. Fennimore Cooper picked it up in the US almost at once, with American history, and it was just as big here. The appeal of getting a real education while being entertained will always be strong in the core reading public. And in the case of Scott and Cooper, there was a big nationalistic element. Reading them made people feel British or American in a gratifying patriotic way.
Robert wrote: "My own personal take is this:Shakespeare moved easily into history for two reasons:..."
Thanks, Robert, this feeds me with stuff.
From royal 'biographical drama' - great term that - outwards, into a big canvas of the late war (clumsily done, forgive me Sh., and with strange satiric charactersiation for instance of Joan of Arc - I wish he'd tackled her later). Onwards into other histories, as he learnt.
And Walter Scott too, makes sense as an evolution in his work, that led him to discover or create hist fic as we know it.
Poor Scott, neglected now, was so massively influential... I am just now reading about the lit scene in Russia, and Scott was as big to them as he can have been at home. In France too. What he discovered or created clearly excited the world, and they imitated him everywhere.
Bryn wrote: "Poor Scott, neglected now, was so massively influential."I was in my forties when I first read Scot. Ivanhoe. I was stunned, especially by the Shakespeare-level characters of Rebecca and Brian. And I also understood that Scot was using historical fiction to make serious moral judgments on his nation, particularly on the treatment of Jews. And then, Kenilworth. He mixes up historical facts at will, but that characterization of Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Leicester have dominated in the public mind ever since. The Varney character is that book is even better (more evil) than Shakespeare's Iago.
Worth nothing though, that in his own day Scot was at least as famous for poetry.
AND he created the modern author, living off publishing to a mass market. Was his own publisher, as well. So now we are finally returning to Scot!
Writing real people into your novels is always a tricky thing to do, and no matter what you do SOMEONE is always going to complain. The best advice I can give is just to keep them as in character as possible, do lots of research, and if you make any changes always explain why you did and what you did in your author's note. But I love to read books that make the historical people come to life. Two of my favorite authors are Jeff Shaara and Nigel Tranter, because they seem to do this so effortlessly!
@Maggie, I ran into much the same thing when I was writing my YA novel "Freedom Come All Ye" it's about William Wallace at age sixteen, and since little to nothing was known about his childhood, I took the few stories we know (whether they are true or not) and combined them with my own story. I tried to keep everything as accurate as possible, but we can only do so much with the little historical fact we have. And I second you whole-heartedly. Historical fiction should bring history to life and that is why I love to write it.
I don't know about getting into Marlowe's head, exactly, although of course that's what we have to do. It's a little intimidating in there! But yes, I am reading his plays, again. But I wouldn't get much out of them without the biographies and the critical literature. It's iterative: I read Tamburlaine, then I read 4 biographies and some odd papers about Marlowe and this and that plus a book about medieval and renaissance medicine that is super useful in terms of world view. And all the other stuff - I read constantly in and of this fascinating period. Now I'm reading Tamburlaine again and yes, I think I'm learning something about Marlowe this time. The most useful work for reading Marlowe, for me, has been A.L. Rowse's biography. He spends a lot of time examining Marlowe's works vis a vis Shakespeare's, which is extremely helpful. And it makes reading these guys' works vastly more fun, too!
Anna wrote: "I don't know about getting into Marlowe's head, exactly, although of course that's what we have to do. It's a little intimidating in there! But yes, I am reading his plays, again. But I wouldn't ge..."Tamberlane is Marlowe. Just that simple. No author (other than Joyce, maybe) has tried to project himself so powerfully on to a fictional character as Marlowe did with Tamberlane. His arrogance. His limitless ambition. His cruelty -- or rather, wickedness. His imagination and romantic lust for what can be achieved in life and for the woman he adores. Tamberlane is the poet's ideal, rising from nothing to command the world with words of mastery.
"It's passing brave to be a king," he says, "and ride in glory through Persepolis." That's Marlowe taking to a generation who largely believed it just as he did.
Hm, well, I don't believe that Tamburlaine is Marlowe anymore than I believe that Kit is me. It's a work of fiction, an imaginative work. Marlowe was plainly fascinating by men of extraordinary ambition, but so were lots of people in that period. The main things I've learned about him as a person from his works are the sorts of things Rowse pointed out: that he was a total city boy, uninterested in nature, also not much interested in ordinary people or things. The opposite of Shakespeare! All of Marlowe's imagery comes from classical literature.
Pretty much nobody thinks Kit was the kind of man who adored women. "They who love not boys and tobacco are fools," said Kit, behaving badly.
Anna wrote: "Hm, well, I don't believe that Tamburlaine is Marlowe anymore than I believe that Kit is me. It's a work of fiction, an imaginative work. Marlowe was plainly fascinating by men of extraordinary amb..."When I said "woman," I surely didn't really mean women. I meant objects of sexual adoration. Paint him as you will. But I don't really believe that any scholar has a better take on Marlowe than any mere lover of his poetry. Especially because the record is very thin -- maybe thinner than Shakespeare.
That Marlowe is the opposite of Shakespeare was been repeated by just about everyone who ever commented on the man. Just compare Shylock to the Jew or Malta, or Edward II or Richard II. Marlowe was cynical, brutal and savage. Shakespeare humane and profoundly sympathetic.
It's a kind of tradition for people to have fixed or vivid portraits of Marlowe. In my youth I was scandalised by my Penguin (scandalised by my penguin?) with an introduction that tells us there's no evidence as to Marlowe's sexuality, and goes on to contort Tamburlaine and Doctor Faustus into religiosity at least if not quite a church Christianity (he tries).Meanwhile I need to get a serious grip on Tamburlaine for my own purposes. It's the only great work about a Scythian shepherd-king and must be taken into account when I write on Mongols. It's terrific and tremendous, we know that much.
Bryn, I just read Tamburlaine last week (why it's so present in my thoughts). It's not exactly an exploration of Mongol culture! I like your idea of building your stories on Mongol epics: their idea of who they were and why they did what they did. That sounds so rich and interesting to me. Your research fun would come from learning about the fabric of their daily lives, which must have been so different from ours and even medieval Europe. And trying to understand what caused them to stretch across all of Eurasia: an amazing feat! That would be your intersection with Marlowe: what drives a man to conquer all the world?
Anna wrote: "Bryn, I just read Tamburlaine last week (why it's so present in my thoughts). It's not exactly an exploration of Mongol culture! ..."No, it isn't. Dead right there. -That's why I didn't trouble to go to Tamburlaine until late in the day. But when I did I was glad, and found much much more food for thought than I'd have guessed. It's even hard to say what... have to read again.
The historical figures, him and Genghis, don't have much in common; and my fictional figure has nothing in common with Tamburs, and yet. I ought to have known a great poet is worth consulting.
Yes, conquer the world: the Mongols went from victory to crazy victory until they thought, why stop? - A thought that began late in G's life or after. Marlowe can help me understand that.
Anna wrote: "Bryn, I just read Tamburlaine last week (why it's so present in my thoughts). It's not exactly an exploration of Mongol culture! I like your idea of building your stories on Mongol epics: their ide..."I dare to interrupt this discussion: This neverending talking about writing about historical social issues. As a new member of Goodread, and as a writer of Western Historical Fiction, I'd like to know if there are any members who follow that genre. I fully realize that 80% of all books purchased in the U.S. are by women and that women write/read novels about "feelings" and womens' issues, but there has to be someone in the group who would like to discuss the westward movement after the Civil War, the adventurous pioneers, the unchecked incursions on Indian lands, and the creation of new Territories and States. The Western genre appeals to men over 50, admittedly, a small market, and not one in which money can be made. Many of us write with the secret hope that Clint Eastwood will read our work, and film another magnificent movie like, "The Unforgiven."
That said, I'll excuse myself and let you get back to your discussion. Thanks, no offense intended.
Robert:Not sure I get the attitude here, but if you are looking for members interested in your topic, I suggest you start a thread in the group titled "Western Historical Fiction." That's the logical way to find your people.
BTW, I write about buccaneers (at least as violent as the US West) and I am always amazed to discover that half (or even more than half) of my readers are women. Came as a shock, but it's true. Don't buy into the conventional notions about gender reading preference if you want to sell.
@Robert: As a woman, I'll admit to the fact that I both write and read war novels above romances ;) It's true, don't ever be surprised by who you might get reading your stuff.
As another woman... where's the grounds for amazement that I like war stories, and despise what goes under the label of romance? (on supposition: never opened one) We're people. People have different make-ups. It's a scale at most and I even hate to grant you that. True I like those social issues in my war stories...
Thanks folks, I was just trying to find out if there are any Western History writers in Goodread. I'm a new member & unaware of procedure/courtesy. Nice to know, though that women read adventure. I know a western writer who only uses his initials in an effort to sell books and attract women readers. That's market writing at it's hokiest. Didn't mean to offend anyone.
Don't mind us, Robert. -I have a woman friend madly into Westerns; me, other than Deadwood on TV and the old films, you know, Magnificent Seven - and I have a record of theme music from old Westerns that I love - other than that, I'm ignorant in your area. But GR is fantastic and you'll find heaps of people in your line.
I'm not offended at all. I know plenty of ladies who would never pick up a war novel. I don't know any western writers on here. I am a huge fan of Louis L'Amour though. I write mostly British history.
What nice comments to my rather abrupt post. Thanks again, folks. In my current project I do have a strong heroine, age 37 who finds a new love with the main character on a wagon train across Indian territory in 1869. Her husband had just been killed by Kiowas, but as an old man said to her, "Purty wimmen don't stay alone very long out here." She also gets bitten on the calf by an old grandaddy diamondback and had to have her lower leg amputated when they got to Fort Union. Through it all, though she shoots, loads, cooks, loves and fights with the best of them. The characters in this book have become so dynamic they're writing the story, not me. Sometimes they wake me up in the middle of the night. I've never had this happen before. Any similar experiences?
Oh yes, all authors I have ever talked to experience the same thing. I find that certain casts are more talkative than others though. I have a series I am planning to write and my two main characters talk to me at the most random times. =)
Yup, mine are bloody talkative, and have taken over my head space and crowded me out. Their lives are way more exciting than mine so that's fine. Isn't writing fun? Waking you up at night is pushing it, though. Do you have to switch on the light and make notes?
The best description of this writing experience came from a small book written 10 years ago by Chris Baty, where he encourages writers to put their inner editor in quarantine, create strong characters, and turn them loose. They will choose the plot and write the story. This concept totally changed my writing. He also has a great statement for the writer who has just put the finishing touches on his first novel:"...you will walk away from this experience with a mischievous sense of boldness and an increased confidence in your creative abilities. You will read differently, and write differently, and for better or worse you will begin seeing the world through the ever-hungry eyes of a novelist."
That is so true. Since I started writing I have definitely read books differently; actually taking a look at them from a writer's perspective. I find it helps to look at a book you love and ask yourself, why exactly do I love this book so much? It helps understand the mechanics of writing. I have lots of fun little tips and stuff on my blog.
Robert wrote: "The best description of this writing experience came from a small book written 10 years ago by Chris Baty, where he encourages writers to put their inner editor in quarantine, create strong charact..."I like this... and most the phrase 'a mischievous sense of boldness' - that's just wonderful and feels true to experience. If you free your characters (or people, as I like to call them - to get right away from thinking of them as artificial constructs) they are going to do bold things with your book, such as you, with your 'inner editor' (I suspect he ought to be banished) wouldn't have dared to do. And about the result you think, oops... but I like it...
I am coming late to this dance, and have enjoyed the various digressions in this thread.
I was going to comment on my take on 'real characters', decided (in view of all that has been discussed) not to, and then thought, well, why not?
So here is my take:
If you are dealing with 'legendary' (as in really, really famous) characters from the past, and you can verify times and dates, you really need to stick to them as much as you can, and mention any irregularities in an Author's Afterword. (As an example, I have a major character who dropped out of the public record probably five years before the setting of the story in which he is a major character. At the time of writing we knew very little of him. We still don't know much - just his name and his title - so I worked with what we knew and disclaimed in the Afterword: this character is based on Whoozit, but is my own invention).
How many Nefertitis, Anne Boleyns or Henri VIII's have we read of? And how different are they all?
I am fighting the urge to drop what I'm doing (the Firt Finished Draft of my current work) to start writing a story about the very last king of a dynasty. The ending of that dynasty is not attended by a lot of detail. We have (sort of) dates of reign, some indication of relationships, an overview of the country at that time, and little else.
Looking at the information we have with the eye of a writer, I can't escape the feeling that there was a strong, systemic illness that had taken hold of that family and killed the members successively. Malaria, perhaps? There is also a strong indication that of the last five rules of that dynasty, three were brothers, two of whom were succeeded by their own sons who died young and without issue.
Interesting framework. It has 'legs', and it fits with what we do know.
And I have full latitude with the main character - the last king.
(Contrast that with the one I'm finishing that involves one of Egypt's great kings - but is a complete fabrication that does not involve any important hitorical event.)
I was going to comment on my take on 'real characters', decided (in view of all that has been discussed) not to, and then thought, well, why not?
So here is my take:
If you are dealing with 'legendary' (as in really, really famous) characters from the past, and you can verify times and dates, you really need to stick to them as much as you can, and mention any irregularities in an Author's Afterword. (As an example, I have a major character who dropped out of the public record probably five years before the setting of the story in which he is a major character. At the time of writing we knew very little of him. We still don't know much - just his name and his title - so I worked with what we knew and disclaimed in the Afterword: this character is based on Whoozit, but is my own invention).
How many Nefertitis, Anne Boleyns or Henri VIII's have we read of? And how different are they all?
I am fighting the urge to drop what I'm doing (the Firt Finished Draft of my current work) to start writing a story about the very last king of a dynasty. The ending of that dynasty is not attended by a lot of detail. We have (sort of) dates of reign, some indication of relationships, an overview of the country at that time, and little else.
Looking at the information we have with the eye of a writer, I can't escape the feeling that there was a strong, systemic illness that had taken hold of that family and killed the members successively. Malaria, perhaps? There is also a strong indication that of the last five rules of that dynasty, three were brothers, two of whom were succeeded by their own sons who died young and without issue.
Interesting framework. It has 'legs', and it fits with what we do know.
And I have full latitude with the main character - the last king.
(Contrast that with the one I'm finishing that involves one of Egypt's great kings - but is a complete fabrication that does not involve any important hitorical event.)
Interesting thread, with a lot to absorb. My take is that all's fair in fiction unless you are tickling the Libel statutes in the UK. Then, you;d better mind your Ps and Qs, dot your Is, too.Seriously, if we didn't write about real, flesh and blood people, our work would be dead and boring. Whether we change their names or not, all our characters come from real life. History happened to real folks with the same baggage and complete packages as the rest of us, only some got slammed or some didn't. The details, are really important only if they affect another character or if their omission or distortion would either annoy readers or fill lawyers' pockets. IMHO, of course.
I'm really sorry that this thread seems to have exhausted itself. My fault! Should have joined the group earlier. But I wondered whether anybody wanted to take this beyond the basic "portray real people as accurately as possible" approach and talk a bit more about perspective. For example, if I was writing a story from the perspective of General Santa Ana, why would I portray the defenders of the Alamo as anything other than the way that HE saw them - as slave-owning carpet-baggers and traitors to Mexico? (I'm NOT writing such a book, by the way!!) Isn't the historical accuracy that we need to achieve constrained only by the knowledge/opinions that our characters (real or imagined) would have possessed?
Writing Historical Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
When Saigon Surrendered: A Kentucky Mystery (other topics)The Crusades (other topics)
Cheers Chris.