Writing Historical Fiction discussion
Using Real Life People In Your Books
I think this hits it on the head! It's what's "known" that counts so far as historical personages is concerned - not necessarily what's "written." If what's written only relates to one particular part of a person's life (their career, for example) then we are likely to "know" almost nothing about how they behaved in another part of it - such as their home life. And people have entirely different personas depending on whichever part of their life they happen to be acting out. So LOTS of scope for poetic licence. But I think it's correct that, whenever we use that licence, we should at least explain ourselves in Acknowledgements, Afterwords, etc.So far as Texas is concerned, I think that Kurt Vonnegut already upset the Lone Star State by using the "Alamo" example (can't remember which book now) to illustrate the point about history being written by the victors and about how two sides in any conflict can have entirely opposing but equally valid perspectives on a historical "fact". Hahaha.
This was certainly my view. My new novel, The Golden Lynx, which launches this week, features fictional characters but includes several historical figures—in particular, Ivan the Terrible and his mother. I used the historical facts available, such as they are, but they did not tell me much more than ages of birth and death. So I made up the rest and added a historical note, to make sure no one would think Ivan or Elena actually said these things.I also tried my darndest to keep them out of the story, but at a certain point that became implausible.
The fact is, for better or worse, our remote ancestors did not leave complete records of their lives. I refuse to alter known historical data, but filling in the blanks seems to me to fall within the bounds of fiction.
C.P. wrote: "This was certainly my view. My new novel, The Golden Lynx, which launches this week, features fictional characters but includes several historical figures—in particular, Ivan the Terrible and his m..."A point that worries me is the reaction of the descendants of a real historical character. The novel I am working on now, to be called Edith Fair as a Swan involves Harold II's remains and what became of them. Duke William gave directions as to their disposal. Edith, Harolds handfast wife was summoned to recognise the remains. A Norman knight William Mallet who had distinguished himself in the battle was given charge of this matter. Now in fact, William Mallet was English on his mother's side and had been a friend to Harold on his visit to Normandy.In my story, not unreasonably, he conspires with Edith with respect to the disposition of the remains to the extreme displeasure of the Duke. So far so good but the UK is full of Mallets many of whom claim to have come over with the Conqueror and will therefore be descendants of William. Is his conduct honourable, whichever way I write him and to what extent, in your opinion, do I need to worry about offended sensibiities at 1000 years remove?
James wrote: "A point that worries me is the reaction of the descendants of a real historical character..."In my opinion, then, James, as a writer, you simply can't worry about that. Your concern for descendants' sensibilities ought to be zero. I may be an extremist.
On the other hand, I don't like to slander the dead - it's them I tread gently with. I'm conscious of the ghosts over my shoulder while I write. If I've given them their human dignity or written with a certain sympathy, even for the bastards, I'm fairly happy.
Bryn wrote: "On the other hand, I don't like to slander the dead - it's them I tread gently with..."
I invented a completely fictitious king because one story of mine involved a terrible piece of villainy that I didn't wish to ascribe to someone who actually lived, and who was (as far as I could tell) someone who lived in difficult times and did what he could. Yes, it happened all of 3,600 years ago, but the man did live.
James: the villainous action - mistreatment of the body, no matter what the conqueror's specious reasons for it - was ordered by William the Bastard. (Yes I know why it was done...) In this era, the sensibilities of the descendants would tend to find Mallet's efforts to help Edith very laudable and gallant.
I invented a completely fictitious king because one story of mine involved a terrible piece of villainy that I didn't wish to ascribe to someone who actually lived, and who was (as far as I could tell) someone who lived in difficult times and did what he could. Yes, it happened all of 3,600 years ago, but the man did live.
James: the villainous action - mistreatment of the body, no matter what the conqueror's specious reasons for it - was ordered by William the Bastard. (Yes I know why it was done...) In this era, the sensibilities of the descendants would tend to find Mallet's efforts to help Edith very laudable and gallant.
Bryn wrote: "James wrote: "A point that worries me is the reaction of the descendants of a real historical character..."In my opinion, then, James, as a writer, you simply can't worry about that. Your concern..."
Nice summary, Bryn. I recently wrote about Francis Townley, Colonel of the Manchester Jacobites in 1745. He's something of a hero in Lancashire, having been hung, drawn and quartered at the end of the rebellion. And the descendants are still alive and kicking. But there is NO historical data about his actual character, one way or the other. We should feel sympathy for ANYBODY who suffered Townley's end, but does that automatically also make him a "good" person in itself? Obviously not. Are there "reasonable grounds" for believing that he might have been otherwise? I think so. He bears responsibility for leading a lot of innocent people on an impossible campaign which caused most of their premature and cruel deaths and left Manchester bitterly divided for decades to come. Like Bryn says, I've tried to make him a well-rounded character but he's more villain in my book than anything else - and I don't think I need to apologise for that.
Martin wrote: "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 tr..."You wrote that you place your stories in the 1930s through the 1950s. I'm working on a novel set during that time period in Cleveland. The main character is a canary with the big bands. Any hints on resource materials for discovering how she got started (at 15, based on a true story) and anything about life on the edge in Cleveland from 1937 through 1941?
David wrote: "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 p..."Agreed. Telling the story from a different perspective that hasn't been represented gives you an ability to provide entirely new meaning to an event or events.
Miranda wrote: "If I use a real person who has been deceased over 100 years and fictionalize what is known about the person do I cite the sources where the factual information came from? This will be my first hist..."If the character is a major part of your story, I would include a historical note in the back that lets people know where you tinkered with the historical record. Listing the most important nonfiction sources seems like a nice touch, not only to acknowledge those people's contributions but to give curious readers a way to find out more. It is not required: fiction by definition alters history as needed to tell a good story. And you don't want to go overboard; you aren't writing an academic thesis. But a few paragraphs and a half-dozen titles can be helpful.
I like the idea of putting an author's note at the back of the book. The further I get into plotting my book, the more I am tinkering dangerously with history. First off, I am taking an incident that there is no proof of ever happening - the theft of the secret of Greek Fire, and now I have created an almost fictional illegitimate half sister to Basil II. There is a footnote in the historical records of a possible sister named Theophana, but she is so rarely mentioned and that led me to speculate that she could be a sister born to Romanus II via a mistress. After all, the sister "born in the purple" Anna, was so highly prized, she was traded to Vladimir for 6,000 Rus warriors. But history is strangely silent on Theophana. So I have taken liberties with her, enough to make her something of a main character.One of the things with good writing is, no character should ever be completely good or completely bad, because no human being ever is. A well rounded character should portray the dark and light sides of the human psyche. In doing this, you portray almost understandable motives for a character's darkest deeds and so make them more human. It works as insurance as well. LOL.
And by the way, what do you do when all the historical sources you read have consistent discrepancies? Some say Aron of Bulgaria was executed in 987 and some in 976? Who do I believe? Or can I pick the one that fits best with my plot and include a historical footnote regarding this fact? Maybe no one was really sure. But gosh, that's almost a decade in difference!
That's what I did. In our book All We Hold Dear, I wrote an author's note at the beginning of the story:When researching this story, we put forth great effort to remain historically accurate. All information pertaining to the Trail of Tears and the events leading up to it is, to the best of our knowledge, true and accurate. By the same token, we attempted to describe Manitou Springs in a way that was faithful to the time.
However, there were a few instances when the information available to us was a bit lacking. For example, at the time that Isadora Byrnes arrives at Manitou Springs, the only people living there were, as the story relates, Native Americans and the occasional French trapper, neither of whom provided a written record.
Also, there were a couple of occasions when the information available was contradictory. This being a novel, it is primarily a work of fiction. Therefore, at these times, we used whichever source worked for the story – as authors, we’re allowed to do that.
We won’t say what these points are. If you don’t know, it shouldn’t spoil the story for you, and if you do, hopefully they’re small enough points that the story will still provide a little enjoyment for you.
Thank you for reading.
Kelly & Tricia
Wintersunlight wrote: "And by the way, what do you do when all the historical sources you read have consistent discrepancies? Some say Aron of Bulgaria was executed in 987 and some in 976? Who do I believe? Or can I pick..."I would go with what works best for your story. Most readers won't know either way. In my book, there is a character that some sources say was born in 1021. However, that would mean that she was 50 in 1071, when she gave birth to her last child. That would be difficult enough in the 21st century (almost impossible), but would definitely be impossible a thousand years ago. I moved her age to at least 10 years younger.
The other thing that could have happened to Theophana was that she was sent to a convent. More likely if the girl was perhaps scarred from smallpox or some other disease. Or she might have just died young.
Remaining as true as possible to fact is usually enough to delve into enough drama and story without having to invent facts or change much in the record. I write American Civil War fiction and have a treasure trove of information to pull from to dramatize any narrative, so I'm usually not having to worry about some of these issues of ages or dates. Some of that is that I'm not writing about historical figures as my main characters, save for my current WIP.
I've been writing about soldier life in both armies with fictional protagonists and historical figures as secondary or even tertiary characters but in researching for introducing a new confederate soldier for the novel about the battle of Stone's River I came across the unique company G of the 3rd Confederate infantry. What was unique is that this company was made up entirely of men suspected of belonging to the Arkansas Peace Society who opposed secession but tried to keep themselves and their leaders anonymous but organize for mutual protection of their properties. These men were rounded up after secession and given the choice of serving in an Arkansas volunteer regiment or prison.
In looking at the roster of the 3rd Confederate and knowing about this company, another pattern started to stand out, the times and numbers of desertions and a story started to develop around the time that several of these men managed to desert during the battle of Stone's River. Combining what I know of army life and of how regimented a civil war unit was, I've had a great adventure story flow into the overall battle narrative. The adventure part is pure fiction, but the officers and NCOs in this company were loyal Arkansas men as they could not trust any of the men assigned to the company to lead and so the villains and the heroes are real people, just the specifics are part of the fiction but those in the group who do make it away and those who don't are already set, it's just to get the story out that I have to play with.
Phillip wrote: "Remaining as true as possible to fact is usually enough to delve into enough drama and story without having to invent facts or change much in the record. I write American Civil War fiction and ha..."
This kind of research can really drive a story. Interesting how several of the men deserted at the same time.
Phillip wrote: "Remaining as true as possible to fact is usually enough to delve into enough drama and story without having to invent facts or change much in the record. I write American Civil War fiction and ha..."
Yes, and it was one of those accidental discoveries as I was ostensibly looking for common names from this region, the best way is to look at regimental rosters, but as I'd also stumbled upon the Arkansas Peace Society I also noted in their service records patterns of desertion and having known that the company was threatened with death at Shiloh if anyone attempted to desert; it was an interesting leap to creat the storyline for this part.
Also, when you go very far back, you have make sure the dates you find make sense. For example, I am writing about 11th century Byzantium. I found a birthdate for one of my characters that meant she would have been about 50 when she gave birth to her last couple of children. That did not make sense to me since in the 21st century it is almost impossible for a woman, even with significant help from the medical profession, to give birth at age 50. A thousand years ago it would have been incredibly unlikely. And a lot of dates can get mixed up over a thousand years.So I think we need to look at the birth date and then make sure it fits with what the person was doing at a later date.
Harry wrote: "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 o..."
Hope this helps with your 16th. century work.
http://www.bidefordheritage.co.uk/htd...
Two Algonquin indians were persuaded by Raleigh to come to England,
One was christened at Bideford the following year although he died
within the second year.
Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin. The historical record of Balian is tantalizing. He was a younger son, but married a Byzantine princess -- and dowager Queen of Jerusalem. He was a "voice of reason" trying to reconcile the bitter rivals Guy de Lusignan with Raymond of Tripoli, and he was one of the few Christian knights to fight his way out of the trap on Horns of Hattin. He was given a safe conduct (by Saladin personally) to remove his wife and small sons from the besieged city of Jerusalem -- only to be begged to take command of the leaderless city. Saladin released him from his oath and he defended the city until he was able to negotiate the surrender in exchange for the lives of those within. Clearly a fascinating character to say the least -- even if the historical Balian shares little resemblance to the hero of the same name in Ridley Scot's (nevertheless great) film, "The Kingdom of Heaven."
For me, those facts of Balian's life and the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem are the skeleton or framework for the novel. I cannot/must not change any of these facts, but they in fact tell me very little about Balian. He was "reasonable," he was obviously brave, he had Saladin's respect, he could bluff and bargain, and he cared more about his wife and sons than many of his age. But all that together is still a very vague sketch of a man.
That's where the fun begins. I have the freedom to decide what made him what he was, what made him tick, his relationships with his older brother, his king, the Lusignans etc. etc. etc. I can create a complex, multi-dimensional man -- and also make the other historical figures of the novel (the Leper King and his adulterous mother, the renegade Raynald de Chatillon, the Byzantine Princess Maria etc. etc.) in the same way -- sticking to the known facts but putting fictional flesh and blood on the historical skeleton and adding the emotions and motives, the dreams and fears and personality quirks that make the come to life.
This is going to be a fun project!
Very true. That's essentially what I'm doing too: sticking to known facts but interpolating between those fixed points by using my imagination, research and an understanding of human nature to create a plausible -- albeit fictional -- explanation of historical events.
Helena wrote: "Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin. The historical record of Balian is tantalizing. He was a younger son, but married a Byzantine princess -- ..."
Great subject with a lot of possibilities! Also a lot of research needed to get the story right. Best of luck with this.
Eileen wrote: "Helena wrote: "Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin. The historical record of Balian is tantalizing. He was a younger son, but married a Byzanti..."
Yes. Fortunately, I like doing research! What I see as my biggest problem is that I doubt I will be able to travel to Ibelin, Ramla and Jerusalem. I generally write about places I know very well (like Sparta/Lacedaemon, Cyprus, Southern France and England). I will start the work using contemporary descriptions, guide books etc. and hope to visit in the course of writing. Thanks for the encouragement!
Helena wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Helena wrote: "Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin. The historical record of Balian is tantalizing. He was a younger son, but ma..."
It is difficult for me to travel to the places I am writing about, too. However, I have found that often you can find videos on Youtube that show them from other folks' travels. Not the real thing, but not a bad alternative given our options.
Helena wrote: "Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin. The historical record of Balian is tantalizing. He was a younger son, but married a Byzantine princess -- ..."
Larry wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Helena wrote: "Eileen wrote: "Helena wrote: "Today I'm going to start writing a new novel about a historical figure: Balian d'Ibelin.
The historical record of Balian is tantalizing..."
Elaine M. wrote: "Harry wrote: "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 fiction..."
I look forward to your novel Helena. Balian features in my novel 'Outcasts.' The impetus for my writing this was 'The Kingdom of Heaven.' I thought that the scene where Balian knighted the commoners of Jerusalem was pure Hollywood and as soon as I got home from the cinema I checked it out. It was true - and I began to wonder what would happen to the men who had been advanced so far above their normal status. Balian is a terrific character - and so are the other people from those times. The more I read about them the more astonished I was at the magnitude of their heroism, folly, deceit, self-sacrifice, self-sabotage. The list is endless. I look forward to hearing more about your novel.
Helena wrote: "Martin, Thank you! That's exactly the effect "A Kingdom of Heaven" had on me: I wanted to know what was real. Like you, I was amazed that some of the more exotic seeming facts were actually true..."
"A Kingdom of Heaven" was (for Hollywood) a remarkably true to life recounting of the Crusades. Of course, I doubt that Hollywood would have come up with a Leper King on their own if they had tried.
If you haven't read Zoe Oldenburg's The Crusades you might want to. It was an extremely thorough history of the crusades.
Thank you for the tip. I just downloaded "The Outcasts," by the way. I plan to read it on the plane to my next assignment. (I'll be travelling more than 24 hours, and that's always a great opportunity to read. Were you able to get a copy of "The Chronicle of Ernoul" -- the account written by Balian d'Ibelin's squire? It was translated with commentary by a professor at Oxford in 1973. I can't find it anywhere for less than $150.
Helena wrote: "Thank you for the tip. I just downloaded "The Outcasts," by the way. I plan to read it on the plane to my next assignment. (I'll be travelling more than 24 hours, and that's always a great opportun..."Sometimes you do have to pay the big bucks for a book when researching an especially distant time and place. I will say that they have generally been a huge help in my research, so for me it has been a worthwhile expense.
Helena wrote: "Martin, Thank you! That's exactly the effect "A Kingdom of Heaven" had on me: I wanted to know what was real. Like you, I was amazed that some of the more exotic seeming facts were actually true..."
Hi Helena,
Thanks for the message. Sorry about the delay but I've been wrestling with my third 1066 novel. I was just about to list where you can get Outcasts and I see you've downloaded it. Thanks very much. I hope you enjoy it. I look forward to reading your book when it comes out.
Have a good trip.
Richard wrote: "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.Serio..."
How far back to your libel statues go in the UK? Just curious since I am writing about people from about 1000 years ago.
Daniel wrote: "I just joined this discussion group so missed most of the conversation on this topic. I did however want to add my voice to those who agree that a real historical person's personality (if known) sh..."Historical biography should not alter any known facts about a historical figure. But the farther back in history, the less restrictive that is because the facts gets sparser and sparser. My biographical novels of Leonidas of Sparta included all known facts -- and alleged quotes -- attributed to him and Gorgo. Yet I still had an amazing amount of leeway. I find interpreting the known facts and creating a consistent character, often using unusual interpretations to explain apparent contradictions, the most satisfying. People will see what I mean, when I finally get to my Black Prince biography!
Meanwhile, I'm working on filling in a lot of blanks in the case of Balian d'Ibelin, but finding out more and more fascinating truth in the process. I love historical biography -- but only when it is acurate in every known detail. Or, if a detail must be altered, that is acknowledged and explained in a historical note at the end. That way it isn't a Spoiler but you show that you knew what you were doing and why.
I've enjoyed reading your posts, Helena. In my first novel about John Knox, he was notoriously tight-lipped about a Roman Catholic past that he didn't want to be associated with and so it was easier to make up a back story for him, to try and explain the various mysteries about his upbringing. Now I've moved on to that part of his life which is better documented - mostly by Knox himself and is highly subjective if not downright distorted by him. Whereas a historian would have to say 'it seemed' etc. a novelist is more able to show through differing points of view and scene setting, other aspects of a highly complex character.
Helena wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I just joined this discussion group so missed most of the conversation on this topic. I did however want to add my voice to those who agree that a real historical person's personalit..."Definitely agree. However, sometimes the information that has made it through the centuries is not quite accurate. The year that one of the characters I am writing about was born would have made her in her fifties when she gave birth to her last two children. Difficult to accomplish today, and not likely a thousand years ago, so I had her born about 10 years later. You do need to make sure what you learn is reasonable before grabbing it whole.
Absolutely! I couldn't agree with you more! And a very good point. The further back in history we go, the more likely that the "Facts" are little more than rumor or legend or outright fabrication. I did a whole blog entry on the most famous saying attributed Spartan women (telling their sons to come home with their shield or upon it) To make it brief, this "quote" could not have come from a Spartan source because the Spartans did not bring home their dead, but buried them on the battle field. This is no place for the full discussion, but the saying was probably sheer Athenian Propaganda intended to make Spartan mothers (not just wives and girls) seem inhuman and unworhty of sympathy. So, again, very good point: researching entails not just reading and believing everything we read, but rather weighing different sources against each other and using a lot of common sense as well! Thank you for raising the issue.
I have, sadly, gotten away from this discussion, but at least I have been hard at work on my writing project. Now my story seems to take a turn on its own wherein I have come up with Ivan Vladislav of 10th century Bulgaria as am antagonist. Very little is know about this man and there are at least two decades of silence on him. Am I overstepping my bounds by making my (fictional) protagonist a blood brother and having a history with this man? Ivan is Bulgarian and my protagonist is Norse. Would it even be conceivable historically for two of different cultures such as this, perhaps thrown together in life or death circumstances to be thrown together like this? Or should I ultimately decide to fictionalize my antagonist entirely and leave Ivan out of it?
ok, well I have just decided to remake my antagonist as a Norseman working for Ivan. After a while everything clicked into place. It is so much easier. Now, there is no record of Greek Fire beiing used during the phokas rebellion in the 980s. But there is no record of its NOT being used either. lol. Thoughts? Go ahead and use it?
Wintersunlight wrote: "ok, well I have just decided to remake my antagonist as a Norseman working for Ivan. After a while everything clicked into place. It is so much easier. Now, there is no record of Greek Fire beiing ..."Re: the use of Greek fire, I know that I have heard of it being used against foreign enemies, but I don't think I have heard of its use against rebels. Given that there could be family members on both sides of a rebellion, they might not have. Have you read of its use against other rebels?
That is a very goof point that you made and I will take it into consideration. No I have not heard of its being used on rebels. I guess that's why I had a funny feeling about using it in the first place.Daniel, many Norseman were mercenaries for many far flung locales, especially in Constantinople where they eventually were formed into the Varangian Guard. That was common enough to easily be worked into the story. In fact, that is the basis for my protagonist who is also a mercenary.
Quite right about Norsemen getting around and selling their swords.As for Greek fire, does anyone have a date when it was first mentioned in warfare at all?
Larry wrote: "Wintersunlight wrote: "ok, well I have just decided to remake my antagonist as a Norseman working for Ivan. After a while everything clicked into place. It is so much easier. Now, there is no recor..."I agree. As long as the story line is possible (if not probable), I am ok with it. After all, if it is fiction, then we have wriggle room. I once heard Steve Berry say that some of his readers complained about his story lines, and his response was "it is fiction". I began to give authors a little more leeway after that.
Not long ago I read a novel taking place during the reign of the Byzantine emperor, Justinian I. Two of the characters were eunuchs and lovers. Given that they were eunuchs, they probably could not have been having sex, even though there is an outside chance of it. And just because they were eunuchs did not mean they were gay, although it was possible. Eunuchs were no more likely to be gay than the general population. But it was possible. Since this pairing was possible, even if not likely, I did not take off points for it. The author walked a fine line with this part of the novel.
I started plotting my second novel today. Novel #1 was contemporary but this one is recent historical (1920's, to be precise).Do I need to be worried about using unsavoury facts about an historical figure? The facts are well documented, but not well known. (The characters are famous for their work in the women's rights movement; they were also, unfortunately, supporters of a eugenics program which forced the mentally handicapped to undergo involuntary surgical sterilization.)
The novel deals primarily with the eugenics program, and only tangentially with these these women (who, incidentally, are also national heroines).
And their grandchildren, who are no doubt still alive, might not appreciate having their grandmothers' names associated with a forced sterilization program.
Do I need to be worried about possible legal problems if I write this book?
Thank you for your input. :-)
Pat,I am interested on thoughts about this question, too, especially as it pertains to dialogue and to hypothesizing plot or characterization based on facts that are known. My upcoming sequel will have characters whose descendants I know. My approach to date has been to talk with some of these individuals as part of my research. However, so far I have not dealt with material that is as sensitive as you describe. But, then, that is also a matter of perception.
Over the years, my recollections about this area, based on book
controversies in the news, are that facts make a difference and that there is more latitude granted to the writer when the character was a public figure. That being said, families have often interfered with the publication process when they are concerned/embarassed about what will be written or has been written, even if the facts support the content.
I think if the facts are well-documented, you a re free to use them. Perhaps you even have a duty to do so, and I doubt you would face legal difficulties (at least not in a free society), by doing so. The challenge is to avoid seeing everything through the eyes of today: we know where eugenics leads, in a way that people in the 1920s and 30s (or before) could not have done. What were their real beliefs and motivations?
Thank you.The sterilizations were controversial, even at the time, and originally the law did require the consent of the people being sterilized. (That changed later, but only after my characters had already died.)
They were most likely acting from a good-faith, albeit mistaken, belief that immorality and "imbecility" were connected, and that both conditions were genetic. I doubt that they were completely oblivious to the human rights issues involved (one of the women was a judge). I suspect they probably regarded the sterilizations as a necessary evil, comparable to a medical quarantine, to prevent the "disease" of immorality and criminal behaviour from spreading throughout society.
I haven't found anything in the historical records yet to confirm or deny that interpretation, but it seems plausible (given the other facts on record about them). Everything else these women fought for was aimed at correcting what they saw as the major social problems of the era: improved health care, equal rights for women, improved legal protection for women and children, and even their fight for prohibition was "pro-family" rather than strictly "anti-alcohol".
So, in a crazy way, it almost makes sense that -- given what they believed about the supposed relationship between low intelligence and increased criminality -- they would regard the eugenics program as a necessary step toward a just society.
But, just because I understand it doesn't mean I agree ... :-)
Pat wrote: "Thank you.The sterilizations were controversial, even at the time, and originally the law did require the consent of the people being sterilized. (That changed later, but only after my characters..."
I think the complicated morality of the eugenics program (thought at the time to be right; in hindsight, not) can add to the reader's interest in your book. Complicated characters and situations are inherently more interesting to readers - but should be approached carefully.
Very interesting discussion.As long as the facts are documented, including something like this will make the characters more complex and increase our understanding of the past. This is particularly true if you create a balanced picture that does focus exclusively on the negative and ignore the good these women did. That, I think, would be unfair to both history and your readers.
I used to do that, but a lot of readers objected. So what I've started to do instead is include a comprehensive "Historical Note" that outlines the historical basis of the book, highlights things that readers may find surprising, but for which I have good documentary (or other) support, and sometimes includes key sources. For long quotes, however, I agree, one needs to cite the source in some way.
Writing Historical Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
When Saigon Surrendered: A Kentucky Mystery (other topics)The Crusades (other topics)
With regards to personages, I have a secondary character in an historical novel, one who is well-known and about whom a goodly amount of historical information is available, most of which suggests he may have been a pretty boring fellow. However, considering the place and time in which this individual lived, the nature of the people with whom he interacted on a regular basis, and the amorality of some of his views as demonstrated by some of the things he wrote during his lifetime, which have survived, I have interpreted his character in a certain way. In the story, I chose to portray him as an amoral, hedonistic opportunist without any sense of personal responsibility or remorse. Whether that was indeed the case or not in history, is unclear if not unknown.
As for the events and the timeline -- I endeavored to stay true to the exact history but, in order to keep the story moving, I took a few very minor liberties with what I felt were not momentous events and thus would not impact the integrity of the 'story as history' -- for the casual reader as another person has commented.
I was sure to make mention of these things in the 'Afterword' of the book, just for the sake of drawing the casual reader's attention to the fact that those elements were dramatized and did not represent the exact historical record -- however incomplete, inaccurate, politicized or sanitized the actual historical record may, in fact, be.*
David -- I find your premise of General Santa Ana's view of the defenders of the Alamo very interesting and think it would make for a very compelling story, but I wouldn't recommend traveling to Texas ever again if you do end up writing it. :)
*and there's the rub... Who wrote the history book you're reading? What was that person's objective or agenda? What was the world view or culture of the author when writing the history book you are using as source material. The version of events you read from one perspective might be contradicted by another. Thus writing historical fiction is a challenge, for not only is writing a compelling story required, but also sifting through various accounts in the hope to be at least somewhat accurate about what might have really happened.
"History is written by the victors." -- an apt quote that is often attributed to Winston Churchill but actually of unknown origin.