Most of you already know I’m writing a novel set in seventh-century Britain. This, of course, makes it an historical novel, though I tend to think of it as A Novel. (I thought of Slow River as a novel, and The Blue Place; publishing doesn’t always agree with me.)
There are many ways, apparently, to approach writing historical fiction. There’s the hey, anything goes, just use the period as window dressing around a fab story camp, and there’s the never, ever, don’t evereverever, contravene what is known to be known people. (There’s an article in MACLEANS.CA that lays this out by illustrating the difference between the attitudes of Hilary Mantel and Kate Pullinger.)
Here’s an even more interesting piece from Magistra et Mater: an historian explains why she no longer reads historical fiction.
Me? Well, I love getting things right. I’ve done a lot of research on Hild and her time (some casual, some deep and complex). But I’m a novelist; I also occasionally can’t resist just fucking with things. Sometimes, though, it seems I fuck with things in just the right way–and those are fabulous moments when I know I’m really beginning to get a feel for the period. (At least in some senses.)
Right now I’m deep in contemplation of a letter from Pope Boniface to King Edwin (as recorded by Bede). Figuring out that the ‘cloak from Ancyra’ is probably a mohair cloak, and therefore sleek and lustrous (and therefore a very fine present to an Anglisc king–they loved shiny things, like jackdaws), created a whole scene in my head: an infuriated king, cursing the Pope for trying to play him–but accepting the cloak anyway because, well, it’s shiny.
In other words, I’m having enormous fun. Just wanted to share.
An easy out is just to clearly choose something not anachronistic nor period appropriate…like a UFO.
When I'm reading historical fiction, I love when an author writes a preface and speaks to the real history that inspired the fiction. I expect that things in the story are “fiction” as it IS fiction. However I love when author stays true to the history. Does that make sense? So for instance you know he was given a cloak, you've added to that in making it a shiny cloak, but you didn't make it a jeweled orb, it's still a cloak.
This makes me realize I'm of two minds about history in historical fiction (also known as “truthiness,” I suppose. Kind of in the eye of the beholder.). I think the further back you go, the more liberties you can take. I mean, really, who knows what happened in the seventh century? Now if you were writing about World War II and changed some basic recorded fact or altered some well-documented personality, I'd have more trouble with it.
I don't like reading fiction about real-life contemporary characters because I'm afraid I'll confuse fact and fiction and make an ass of myself at a cocktail party.
Such are my worries…
But do have fun!
By the way, I'm in a post-Always fog of reverent bliss. Finished it last night. Excellent.
I think Elaine is right – most of us aren't up to speed with our 7th century history, but I'm guessing those that are will be vocal about it and try to ruin it for the rest of us. And I already know more than I did because of you – from things you've told us and from reading/watching stuff here and there.
I went through a period many years ago where I read some 'historical fiction', but then stopped. You've never mentioned Gore Vidal's books, does that mean you don't like them? It's been a long time, but I really liked them back then.
Recently (due to your influence) I've been reading some historical stuff, and the one thing I've noticed that really takes me out of the story is when the author has the character use some kind of 21st century colloquialism that I have to think totally is out of place. I don't have to be an historian to notice it and get thrown out of the story.
Thanks for sharing. I really enjoy hearing about your process/progress. And now I know what a jackdaw is. :)
I think it's also necessary to include your own understanding of what took place, how people reacted, etc. tempered by your own research into the period in question. There are constant discoveries being made by the scientific world that change our understanding of the past.
There can even be inconsistancies, misconceptions and misrepresentations in our more recent past. There seems to be a stong need to present the idea that Canadian pioneers did not carry firearms. One doesn't have to search very far and even logic will tell you that is bull____.
Along with offering entertainment that's one of the great things historical fiction has to offer; another viewpoint.
Dave
http://www.dmmcgowan.blogspot.com
Alisa B, I think before the book comes out I'll build a whole website. The bibliography alone will be twenty pages. Then there's the glossary, the pronunciation guide, the genealogies, the maps…
Elaine, delighted you enjoyed it.
Jennifer, here's where I admit: I haven't read Gore Vidal. Not his books, anyway.
Dave, welcome. It's a tricky path, navigating between what works for the story, what I 'know' (via research) to be true, and what most unresearched readers will 'know'. But that's part of what makes it so much fun. Seriously.