Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Historical Accuracy In Historical Fiction

Please join me for the next few weeks to discuss the topic: A Writer of Historical Fiction’s Obligation (Or Lack of It) To Be Historically Accurate. Where novels are concerned, there’s enough divergence of opinion to keep a discussion lively.
I anticipate we’ll peel back several layers of this question, including, but not limited to: Does the writer of historical fiction have an obligation to be historically accurate?
What if the history surrounding the episode is nebulous, inadequate, or even purposely altered by the historian(s)? What if the history is so old that records are poor or have been damaged or destroyed?
Is alternative or counter historical fiction still historical fiction, even though it may start with a premise that reverses or ignores the known and accurate historical outcome of an event?
If a writer of historical fiction writes a story set in a certain time and place in the past, but the story is entirely a product of the writer’s imagination, is it still HF?
Over the next few weeks, let’s expand these thoughts and, perhaps others. I’m happy to lead off the discussion, but I invite your participation. Ideally, together, we’ll lengthen the ribbon of opinions on the first idea and begin to link it to the others as we go.
So, let’s start with the basic question. Does a writer of Historical fiction have to be historically accurate? There are two operative words here – fiction and accurate. In the Thesaurus, synonyms for fiction include; invented story, imaginary tale, fabrication and untruth. There are others, but you get the idea. Synonyms for accurate include; precise, exact and truthful. Ooops! There’s the conundrum. How do we reconcile the two? Can we?
I believe fiction is a product of the writer’s imagination and even in historical fiction can be made up. Every single aspect of the story (let’s start calling it a novel) does not need to be accurate or even precise, but for the reader’s sake, it needs to be authentic. The reader needs to believe enough of the setting, character description, plot, dialogue, etc. to be able to suspend disbelief about parts of the novel that may be untrue or inaccurate. For instance, I recently finished reading an historical novel set during the American Revolution. One of the characters was Paul Revere, in the role of an officer in the Massachusetts Militia. That’s the same Paul Revere who did the famous midnight ride to warn that the British were coming. That’s probably the extent of your knowledge of Paul Revere. It was, until now, mine. He was a hero of the revolution. Well…not so fast. The author of this particular novel portrays him as a lazy, incompetent, disobedient jerk without an ounce of concern about the outcome of the battle, as long as he’s not hurt or even inconvenienced.
Apparently Revere was tried and convicted of cowardice and disobeying orders as a result of his actions during the battle portrayed in the novel. Later, however, the conviction was reversed and the charges dropped. So even within months and years of the event there is dispute about Revere’s activity in that campaign. Another way to say that is that there is no “known” accuracy in this case, so the author had every right to portray Revere as he did. It would become more interesting if Revere’s behavior were an absolute and opposite of the way the writer wrote him. The question would still be, is that wrong or not allowed in historical fiction?
James Dickey sets his novel, To The White Sea in World War II, but there’s no evidence that his main character ever existed or the events he’s involved in ever occurred. Is it still historical fiction?  The settings he describes, the interior of an American bomber, the burning streets of Tokyo, the descriptions of the Japanese countryside impress me as authentic, so I’m able to disregard other potential inaccuracies. It’s a captivating storey. His characters, even if they’re not real come to life on the pages. Dickey takes me inside the main character’s head (it becomes a scary place) and I can buy every word he writes. For me, it’s good fiction set in a time in history. Therefore I believe it qualifies as historical fiction.
What do you think are the obligations of an HF writer? Is accuracy important? How important? Or is authenticity more important than accuracy? I’d like to have your responses. Mention specific stories if you wish, but try not to give away endings for those who want to read it. Make any other points you want and let’s see what kind of string we can build.


5 comments:

  1. This is such a fascinating subject to me. I don't write historical fiction per se (or even read that much of it), but the plot of one of the future novels in my mystery series will revolve around an actual event, so I find myself delving more into the genre. I'll be combining fact and fiction in that novel, but have often wondered just where the line lies.

    I think you're right -- it is a conundrum, because the term "historical fiction" is in and of itself something of an oxymoron. For me, authenticity is far more important than historical accuracy, but I still like to know there's a thread of truth in the work that ensures I'm learning something about the period and the events, even if the characters themselves are re-imagined to an extent by the author.

    The Jack the Ripper story is one that often comes to my mind when I think of historical fiction, because it has been written and explored and re-written so many times over the years. From the 1913 Lowndes novel The Lodger all the way to Patricia Cornwell's 2003 "true crime" novel, Portrait of a Killer, writers and artists and filmmakers have put their own spin on who the Ripper may have been. Despite the fact that much of these novels revolves around speculation, in my mind they are absolutely historical fiction: I come away from the book with a better understanding of factual events as they unfolded, even if the resolution after the fact is largely fictionalized.

    Thanks for bringing this up -- I'm curious to hear what others' opinions are on the matter!

    ReplyDelete
  2. As a writer of historical fiction, I have tried to follow certain principles. First, I do NOT change history. If something is known, I do not imagine it differently. I fit my imagination into the interstices, into the parts that are not or could not be known, the parts of which there is no record. The result is a kind of "behind the scenes," or "what really happened," or what you couldn't have guessed from the way events turned out. I use historical characters, but don't put words into their mouths or make them undertake actions that are in any inconsistent with what is known about them.

    As for the historical facts, I used them as accurately as I can. The era, the food, the drink, the architecture, the politics--all of these and more are as accurate as I can make them. I do this because I believe I have a responsibility to my readers. I feel as though I am teaching them about an era, telling them something I think they should know, or would enjoy knowing.

    This puts a certain limitation on my work. It cannot turn out any way other than the way history records it did. However, people can struggle, fight, die and do all kinds of other things--as long as they're characters out of my imagination. They can affect events, so long as their effect matches what really happened.

    I write this way because I like to read books of this type. Historical novels, for me, are a painless way of learning history while being entertained at the same time. In this sense, historical novels offer more than their contemporary counterparts--they provide information of value.

    All of my historical novels--there are three now and a fourth is in the works--are set in an era that fascinates me, the 1930s. I think the world we live in today was to a large degree shaped by the events of the 30s and I enjoy sharing my passion with others.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Excellent responses by Harvey and Jen, both.

    I agree with Jen regarding the innate latitude in the words Historical Fiction.

    That being said, it is incumbent upon the author to justify, or make believable, the premise. The consequence of not doing so are the loss of the reader's trust (or worse, interest), and believability.

    Authors make those decisions based on what best serves each work, but there are varying degrees of difficulty. The best idea flops if not presented well, so candid assessment of ability factors as heavily as anything else considered. I think we make these small decisions constantly without even realizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is so tempting to wander off on tangents, but I will attempt to focus on your question: "Does the writer of historical fiction have an obligation to be historically accurate?" No.

    Seriously, I believe that the answer is that simple: No.

    I have recently published my first novel and am working on my second. I have plans for several more. They are/will all be based on historical events. In many cases, they may be more historically accurate than what passes as history in academia. But, that is not my responsibility. It is simply my intention.

    It will be up to someone else to categorize it and they may do it however they wish. Hell, Amazon has my first novel, Rebels on the Mountain, classified as "nonfiction." I don't know where they got that idea. It says right up front that it is a work of fiction. It doesn't say "historical fiction." It simply is what it is.

    I look forward to this continuing discussion and hope that I can continue to restrain myself to responding as concisely as this.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Jack,
    Thanks for your reply and for your discipline, but don't worry, this is a multi part posting and I'm going to open many aspects of the question. I agree with you that fiction is fiction and has unlimited latitude. Not all historical fiction readers, I'm finding, are willing to aloow that broad an application when it comes to historical accuracy (or inaccuracy, as the case may be), so I want to get into specific cases and situations and I hope you'll contiue to participate.

    ReplyDelete