HF writers playing with dates...how great is your tolerance?

[Martin]

I'm an author of historical fiction (set in Hollywood's heyday, 1920s to 1950s) and I found myself in a discussion at a party this past weekend about how acceptable it is to play with dates. My own rule (as a writer) is that if I have to bend the chronology by more than 3 months, then I rework the plot so that it's chronologically authentic. As a reader, I'm always disappointed when an author has chosen the needs of the plot over the need for historical accuracy. But now that I've found GR and this forum, I'm wondering if other HF are more forgiving than I am. I tend to think that a 3-months-either-way is one thing when we're talking about 1933, but it's less of an issue if we're talking 1633 and even less if it's 1233. What are your thoughts on this? I'd love to hear what other people think.

[Zoe]

I agree with you, Martin :)

Our freedom to play with dates can vary according to the remoteness of the period.

Roughly said, in the well documented history of the last century, it would be unforgivable to shift an event happening in 1933 to, say, 1943. It would not work.
I think your rule of a few months give or take is a sensible one.

But deeper into the history, even the textbooks become vaguer.
So there, I suppose, it would be forgivable to play with the dates more freely.

For instance, I deal with the history about 600-hundred-years removed and it's documented so poorly one can cry and tear one's hair out :D
So I admit I happened to play with some dates, up to 10 years give or take (give in my case ;)).
To my defense I can point out that the sources themselves were in disagreement, so I snatched the opportunity to bend it to serve my plot
(put one particular Emperor upon the throne a few years later than he may have actually made it ;))
But I would never do this if there would be no discrepancy between the textbooks.

My 2 cents :)

[Melissa]

For me I don't mind an author taking some artistic license and moving a few dates around if they're trying to fit something into a specific plot line, unless it's something well documented. For instance if it was common knowledge that someone was in a certain place at a certain time doing a specific thing, don't put that person 200 miles away doing something else. But if there's nothing concrete anywhere, go for it. That being said, I am always a lot more forgiving of a book that's got an authors note of anything that's been changed and why, even if there is a glaring error in the timeline.

[Renee]

I agree I am reading fiction. Some liscence needs to be taken. Its like we know the chars use the bathrooms but do we need to see it written?

[Elizabeth]

As an author writing fiction set 800 + years ago, I think dates - if known - deserve the same respect as modern times. Just because they are further away in the historical record doesn't mean we should treat them with a more cavalier attitude. If you wouldn't do it for 1944, then you shouldn't do it for 1233 - if that date or incident is known. I believe that an author worth his or her salt and with the requisite skill can work with the date. Part of the skill is finding a way to incorporate that history into your story without warping it out of true. If you're skilled enough, you'll find a way to tell a good story and get it right. That way the readers who care about the history will be happy, those who don't won't notice, and you'll still have your integrity intact - simple.

[Kate]

I think it depends on how well the date in question is known. If you say that WWII ended in any year other than 1945, then you are writing historical fantasy - like Robert Harris did when he wrote Fatherland, which was a fictional speculation on what happens if the Germans won. If the fact is very well known, change it at your peril. I think that if the fact is less well-known, you might have a bit more leeway - and as someone already pointed out, when you get to the ancient world, sometimes you have very murky facts.

Stephen King had an interesting revelation about his recent book 11/22/63: he had toyed with the idea of writing the book for literally decades, but kept postponing it because of the amount of research involved. 11/22/63 is intimately involved with the Kennedy assassination, and that's a historical episode that has been so minutely detailed and written about that you had better not change or muff ANY facts. There are people who know exactly where Oswald was at 2pm on a certain day, and what he was wearing, and what street he was on, and the exact wording of the excuse he gave his wife. King said, and correctly, that his research had to be spot-on for the book to work since the historical facts were so notorious, and that's why it took so long to come to fruition.

[Max]

I agree with Kate & Elizabeth. You can bend history only if you're writing alternative history or conspiracy fiction. I don't know of other genres whose readers might tolerate such a trick. Messing with real history can confuse the reader or make him feel cheated. Bending the plot would be more appropriate and if not, the writer can resort to gray shading of events and dates.

[Becky, Moddess]

Martin, this is not a group read discussion. The Group Read folder is for book discussions regarding the monthly chosen books.

I'm moving this thread to the Random Chit Chat folder.

[Stewart]

I'm with Elizabeth and Max on this, a stickler for accuracy. Of course fiction is largely about bringing another time and place to life in terms of atmosphere, but there is always that lovely sense of "well, it could have happened." And that feeling is undermined if you know the author is taking liberties with established fact.

Further, if a writer knows their book set in, say, 1921 features an event which occured in 1922, is there not a danger that a lack of authenticity will deaden the writing - somewhere elusive, very much between the words? Perhaps during the seemingly well-crafted build-up to the transplanted event?

Perhaps that's just me? Taking history too seriously? Can't help it - utterly anal about misplaced commas too...

[Judith]

Kate wrote: "I think it depends on how well the date in question is known. If you say that WWII ended in any year other than 1945, then you are writing historical fantasy - like Robert Harris did when he wrote..."

Well put, Kate. Even more disconcerting than date fudges for me are the anachronistic details of daily life. A writer has to do the research and get those right--with the forgiveness for the occasional good-faith error. We are all human, after all, and it's nearly impossible to get everything completely right.

[Martin]

I've never read historical fantasy or alternative fantasy. On the one hand I'm tempted, but on the other, I read HF for education as much as entertainment and I wonder if I want to waste my precious reading time on a book that presents alternative versions of history. Can anyone here make the case for alternative HF, or do you guys like their authors to just stick with the facts, ma'am...?

[Kate]

Alternative history is great if well written. Fatherland is just the best - it's so well-researched that I've heard college professors recommend it in WWII history classes: "If you want to know how close the Germans came to winning, read "Fatherland." It can still teach you a lot if the author did their research.

[Martin]

In that case, I'll put it on my to-read list. Thanks!

[Stewart]

Historical fiction is always alternative history to some extent. And vice versa. I enjoy both, and do find AH informative.

Very much agree with Kate about Fatherland; it's superb. The writing is just straight journalese but the low-key, factual tone reinforces the fantastical premise. And the tight structure is like some sort of masterclass in thriller-writing. I'd go as far as to say Harris nails the Nazi mentality as well as any HF or academic, history book.

I should say that I'm such a pedant that I despair and give up with an AH if the details jar in any way with the known facts (outside of the one big falsehood which has been flagged up). I start to think about the writer rather than the story, and I always wonder: is s/he just lazy and can't be bothered researching properly? And I always answer 'yip!'

Cruelly judgemental, I know, but that's the sort of guy I am... Still, my nit-picking, know-all neurosis is easily defied by a well-researched yarn - AH or HF.

[Martin]

I agree with you, Stewart. Obvious errors (anachronistic ones are they worst. They drive me nuts.) distract me too, and I'm left to wonder if the author did any of their homework and if why didn't the editor catch it? Were they both asleep at the wheel?? There are too many good books out there to spend my time with to have to put up with lazy history.

[Andrew]

Hope I'm not being redundant, but I think if an author makes an error of commission, s/he owes it to the reader to explain that variance in an afterword. HF does have some obligations that go beyond pure fiction, in my opinion.

[Stewart]

And I agree with you Martin. The reader goes from spotting mistakes to doubting the author's homework to dismissing the book; it's an irresistible inevitability.

Small mistakes are forgiveable, but if the book is peppered with them, again, plausibility is rent asunder. ('rent asunder'? Sorry, I seem to have come down with a dose of the Bibles.)

[Zoe]

Stewart wrote: "... The reader goes from spotting mistakes to doubting the author's homework to dismissing the book; it's an irresistible inevitability..."

Agree with you both. It happened to me as a reader several times and it definitely caused me to dismiss the book without bothering to finish it :-/

[Victoria_Grossack]

But some readers accept everything you say, which is also worrisome. One reader was surprised when I told her that I did not know what they really ate at a particular meal more than 3000 years ago. I mean, how could I have known that? I always make sure that the foodstuffs are possible - I hope even plausible - but the actual menu?

[Zoe]

An attempt to make a case for historical fantasy :)


I never steer from reading Historical Fiction, but I happened to stumble over Historical Fantasy twice (The Mists of Avalon and Five Dances with Death: Dance One).

Surprisingly, in both cases the fantasy element was completely justified (imo), because it reflected the cultural values of the period.
Both books were extremely well researched and the fantasy element reflected the believes of the people of these times (witchcraft, in both cases). In my opinion it even enhanced the way both periods were reflected. After all, who are we do dismiss someone's believes based on our modern points of view? ;)

[Victoria_Grossack]

Zoe wrote: "An attempt to make a case for historical fantasy :)

Surprisingly, in both cases the fantasy element was completely justified (imo), because it reflected the cultural values of the period.
Both books were extremely well researched and the fantasy element reflected the believes of the people of these times (witchcraft, in both cases). In my opinion it even enhanced the way both periods were reflected. After all, who are we do dismiss someone's believes based on our modern points of view? ;) "

I agree that is one approach, and it certainly works in Mists of Avalon.

And I especially agree that writers should respect the beliefs of the period.

But I think it's also possible to respect today's readers at the same time. In our books we do have a few coincidences where it seems as if the gods are intervening. However, for nearly all the apparently supernatural stuff, mostly accepted by the characters without question, we also present a modern, natural explanation. The characters and even some of the readers may not see the alternative explanation, but they are there.

Sometimes it's really challenging. Myths include the gods showing up to dinner - a ghost who haunts one of the main characters - and so many children who don't know who their parents are. But those are the myths!

[Zoe]

Victoria, I'm so glad Jocasta: The Mother-Wife of Oedipus is already on my Kindle. I can't wait to read it.

I'm very curious to find out how you dealt with this challenge of balancing mythology with archaeology ;)

Being the one who'd enjoyed The Song of Troy of McCullough enormously - I think she did a brilliant job of balancing mythology with archaeology and with a grain of a plain common sense :) - I'm really looking forward to reading your book :)

[Victoria_Grossack]

Zoe wrote: "Victoria, I'm so glad Jocasta: The Mother-Wife of Oedipus is already on my Kindle. I can't wait to read it.

I'm very curious to find out how you dealt with this challenge of bala..."

Thanks and I hope you enjoy it, too!

[Laura]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "But some readers accept everything you say, which is also worrisome. One reader was surprised when I told her that I did not know what they really ate at a particular meal more than 3000 years ago..."

I wonder if anyone has tried barley water with mint. It seems to me that it would taste a bit gritty, like drinking Metamucil.

[Victoria_Grossack]

A lot of food was gritty back then, especially bread, which had tiny stones in it because of how grain was ground. Researchers have seen the evidence in the teeth.

[Judith]

Victoria_Grossack wrote: "Zoe wrote: "An attempt to make a case for historical fantasy :)

Surprisingly, in both cases the fantasy element was completely justified (imo), because it reflected the cultural values of the pe..."

I'm with you on coping with stories in which the gods casually appear. If that's part of the plot, you have to find a way to make it work. It's fascinating to see how different imaginations find varied solutions. I'm just reading The Song of Achilles, and love her Chiron, for example, a half horse half human character I had to fit into my manuscript also. So engaging to see what the human imagination can do with these ancient traditions.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I think there's more leeway for moving dates if they're A. in dispute, or B. the historical details are slim.

Also I'll forgive a lot for a good author's note explaining their motivations.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads]

I like some alternative histories as well - recently I've particularly liked Farthing, in which it is 1949, but not our 1949. Britain made "peace with honor" with Germany in 1941, and is now creeping fascist.

[J.S.]

I am generally very particular about such things, so when I wrote The Ghost of Mandy Rosental I was desperate for it to be 100% correct, but I soon realized that it wasn't going to quite be possible.

Mandy's father is a politician, and I needed to reference elections... but how was I going to fit this into the plot?

In the end, I "fudged" in two ways - first, I made the dates vague. The story is told by Mandy as she looks back on her life, so at the beginning she says

"It was six years ago.

(1926?)

(1927?)

(Something like that!)"

This gave me some leeway!

But it wasn't enough, so at the very end, I felt compelled to issue a 'retraction' in the form of a 'Confession', which follows the dedication, admitting that "I must confess to having taken certain liberties in particular with regard to dates"!

[Martin]

JS - I think how you handled that was fair and reasonable. The consensus here seems to be "if you do fudge the dates, own up to it." I've been quite impressed with how many people here take historical accuracy very seriously (pity they're not writing for Hollywood...!) But I also think that it's fair enough if your character can't remember the exact date of something. Can't we all be hazy on dates, even momentous ones, esp as the time between then and now lengthens and lengthens?

[Stephanie]

My work is considered either historical fantasy or historical fiction with touches of magical realism. All I know is that I have built a timeline that rivals anything I've seen in grad school classes. Nevertheless, there are timeline slips in my books--sometimes a few days, sometimes longer. But I always acknowledge what I've done in the author's note and explain why. I feel as if my ethical responsibility has been met there...

[Judith]

Stephanie wrote: "My work is considered either historical fantasy or historical fiction with touches of magical realism. All I know is that I have built a timeline that rivals anything I've seen in grad school class..."

Stephanie, your mention of timelines made me chuckle. I remember rolling out sheets of paper with timelines in college on my walls to try (mostly unsuccessfully) to remember dates as I studied history. While clearly one has to get them straight when writing, I'll be darned if I can ever pull them up from memory! Thank goodness one can always look up a date and plot them out when needed.

[Stephanie]

Judith wrote: "Stephanie wrote: "My work is considered either historical fantasy or historical fiction with touches of magical realism. All I know is that I have built a timeline that rivals anything I've seen in..."

I use this amazing program called Aeon Timeline now and it has actually helped me put together some clues that I'm not sure historians have put together before.

[Martin]

Googling "Aeon Timeline" now!

[Martin]

BTW, I know this isn't strictly related (so Becky might kick me off, which is fair enough) but have any of you heard of or used the Scrivener program for your writing? I heard from a writer friend who made the switch and she said it's terrific, makes the conversion to ebook VERY easy and has a feature that could make a very good timeline, good for HF writers.

[Stephanie]

Martin wrote: "BTW, I know this isn't strictly related (so Becky might kick me off, which is fair enough) but have any of you heard of or used the Scrivener program for your writing? I heard from a writer friend ..."

OMG, yes. I use Scrivener all the time. It's my main tool for writing now. I can still write without it, but I can't plan, edit or restructure or organize a book without it anymore.

[Judith]

I heard about Scrivener on the Sisters in Crime Guppy site and was wondering about it. I'm glad to know about Aeon Timeline. Hopefully we haven't violated too many rules sharing helpful writer hints.

[M.D.]

I'll definitely have a look at the Aeon timeline.
I've written a novel set at the time of Alexander and once you get past 323BC ( and into The Successor Wars) things start to become very confusing time-wise!

[Judith]

Mark wrote: "I'll definitely have a look at the Aeon timeline.
I've written a novel set at the time of Alexander and once you get past 323BC ( and into The Successor Wars) things start to become very confusing..."
You definitely chose a fragmented and complicated period. I can't even remember the names of all the immediate successors to Alexander most of the time...

[M.D.]

It certainly is a difficult period but really interesting for the sheer amount of backstabbing and intrigue! The names I have a good handle on but the years tend to be slightly different depending on the source. It's interesting trying to piece it together!

[Stephanie]

I'm interested in Lysimachus. ;)

[M.D.]

Yes, Stephanie, he's an interesting character as is Ptolemy.
I suppose the advantage of writing about the ancient world (or certainly parts of it) is that if you drop a fictional character into certain storylines you have a bit of 'shuffle room' to be creative with events