Historical Fiction
I didn’t realize until today that this needed to be said, but apparently it does.
If you’re going to write historical fiction – for the love of the holy grail – please know your history!
I’m not sure I’ve mentioned it yet here, but I love history. Periodically, I get “obsessed” with a period of history and need to study it like people need oxygen. I have a long standing love affair with Egyptian history, but I’ve had trysts with the early 1900’s and the Oregon Trail. For almost the past year, I’ve been all about Tudor history. I don’t claim to know everything, but I’ve learned quite a bit, and knowing about the time period is helpful for my novel, which isn’t directly set in the 1500’s, but is supposed to have that feel.
I realize that as historical fiction, you’re not obligated to be completely accurate. In fact, most readers will forgive you for twisting facts here and there for a better story. Look at Philippa Gregory’s novel “The Other Boleyn Girl” for instance. Gregory takes quite a few fictional liberties, but she tells a good story and most importantly – retains the heart of the characters. That is what I think anyone wanting to write historically should remember – you can take liberties, but if you’re going to use well-known figures, you need to keep the integrity of the person you’re writing about. If you’re writing about Amelia Earhart, she better fly planes, Brutus should always betray Caesar, and the Titanic better strike that iceburg and sink – unless you are clearly writing a “space/time continuum has been altered” piece. (In which case, I recommend that you make sure you reader knows exactly what they’re getting into)
The basis for the warning is based on this book: In the Shadow of Lions. It’s a bit of complicated storyline, but I’ll tell you the main thing that hurts my brain. Anne Boleyn is portrayed as a pure, devout woman, who refuses to dishonor God and compromise her purity to become Henry’s mistress. Thomas More is shown as an evil guy who burns people for wanting to read the Bible. I don’t know how the Bible reconciles the fact that Anne Boleyn actually marries Henry, the feeling I get from the reviews is that she’s the poor innocent pawn. Now, yes, the book is fiction, and how the author tries to justify this “radical” view of Anne Boleyn is that some lady has a brain tumor, an angel appears to her, and gives her the truth about Anne Boleyn. However, for what the author is trying to get across, she could have saved herself the trouble and used her own characters.
But the warning I’d like to leave you with is that – the historical characters you write down might be the only exposure people get, because very few people will bother checking the history. Look at the Amazon reviews for the book mentioned above. There are people who, if not taking the book seriously, will very likely walk away with this portrait of Anne Boleyn in their minds. So, I advise you to use caution. While history is fun, as a writer, you might be better off putting your own characters in a historical setting instead.
Like
I think this is why I like writing fantasy and science fiction. I can take a historical figure, setting, or event and warp into something all mine. No need to sticks to the facts and nothing but the facts.
And I would contend that there is no such thing as Historical Fiction. It’s either historical or fiction. They are mutually exclusive. The whole point of history is trying to figure out what happened and them writing about said events in a way that makes sense. Adding fictitious elements just to sell books or make an interesting story is dangerous.
~Loven
I agree a little. But often, the way I get hooked into a period of history is through a fictitious element – then end up studying the facts. But I realize that I may be something of an anomaly.