- This topic has 4 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I’m trying to figure out how to balance history with fiction in my writing. I have a general idea of what is okay to fictionalize and what is not (for example, I think it would be okay to have my character replace a leading officer and make a critical decision at the battle of Yorktown, but it would not be okay to have him kill all the British prisoners after the battle). But when I’m using real people as characters, I’m not exactly sure where to draw the line. I don’t want to misrepresent or slander them, but I do want them to be very involved in the story. What are your thoughts on this?
@Sararh-h
That’s a great conundrum to ponder (I just wanted to say conundrum). Of course, the harsh fact about history is that we must come to conclusions. Do we commend or condemn the Yankees for the Confederates, the Loyalists or the Roundheads, the Crusaders or the Turks (and in what ways and to what degrees)? Do we call the New Deal socialism or civil compassion? We even must decide on individual people. Was Genghis Kang a bloodthirsty barbarian or a hero of civilization? Was Lincoln a good man or a fatalistic autocrat – things deeply personal that we would rather not have to think about. The fact though is that if we do not think about them, others will do the thinking for us or we (just as bad) we will be fed a history of facts and figures devoid of life, purpose, meaning, and the hand of God. We cannot assume we will always be right, but with a solid approach and good research, we can be sure we will come to a better conclusion than the average man.
In writing historical fiction, you will almost necessarily (though not absolutely) come across the issue of real people. It may be tempting not to paint them in stark lines lest we be wrong, but what is worse is to not engage the challenge at all. It may seem dishonoring to misrepresent a historic figure, but it is worse to ignore them. If you approach them with a firm desire to discover the truth, you will have done as much as you could do for a living man or woman.
There are some historical figures of course which we have very little information about, especially such as might lend us an understanding of their character. In such cases, there will normally be some hints which should be taken advantage of, but then there are still gaps. This is just my opinion, but I believe that in these situations the best thing to do is to simply give them the character attributes you think most reasonable. You will probably misrepresent them, but the alternative is making them seem less than human – like a stick figure on a piece of paper.
One convention which is widely used among historical fiction authors and which I think is a great idea is the historical note (usually at the end of a book). This allows the author to clear up any misunderstanding they might have accidentally prompted and to inform the reader of which portions of their work are more of educated guesswork than firm fact.
My eyes are seriously drooping. Sorry if I made any confusing grammar slips. Barely past my bedtime – does that to a fellow who sleeps too much.
🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢🐢
Thanks, @Daeus! You’re right; ignoring them would be worse than accidentally misrepresenting them. I hadn’t thought about it that way. And adding a historical note to clear up those mistakes is a great idea.
*cringe* Research. Yep, I’m afraid so. If you can get a good idea of what historical figures were really like, you can weave ’em in much better and actually hit pretty near the mark.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
