Parts 1&2 of this
series looked at the Historical Fiction writer’s obligation or lack of it to maintain
the historical accuracy of known historical characters and indisputable facts. Participants
in the discussion also expressed opinions about situations where the history is
inaccurate or the history recorders biased, incompetent, or even non-existent.
There have been some intriguing points of view.
Let’s go deeper or in
an entirely different direction, the world of alternative or counter historical fiction.
Here’s my first question.
Is a story still historical fiction if it begins with a premise that changes, reverses
or ignores the known and accurate outcome of an historical 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? Suppose, for example, an author decides to assume that Pickett’s Charge was
a successful flanking maneuver instead of an army crushing head on assault and
that the 20th Maine was unable to stop the Rebel’s attempt to flank
the Union Army at Little Round Top. Lee
is therefore victorious at Gettysburg and the South goes on to win the Civil
War? Historians know none of these things happened, but if a writer generates
an intriguing, well written story filled with realistic characters based on
those historical non-events, is it still Historical Fiction? If not, what would
you call it? One term we bandy about is alternative historical fiction
(Historical Fiction with a modifier). Or should we call it fantasy? Is there a
line between Historical Fiction and Fantasy? If so, what are the criteria for
drawing that line?
I’d like to have some
of you mention titles which you think have done this successfully or
unsuccessfully. Tell us why? Or suggest some definitions.
The challenge facing every reader is to suspend disbelief as they read a story. Writers can "make up stuff" so long as its believable. As an extreme example of this, even Tolkien's work is entirely believable because the characters - even the Orcs, Goblins, and Ents - portray true personality characteristics. Unbelievable aspects of a story are like speed bumps in the road we travel from page 1 to the end. Too many and we choose another route (pick up another book).
ReplyDeleteI never became a fan of alternative history simply because such stories are predicated on huge speed bumps - at least for people like me who know the real history, or at least the accepted version of it.
The truth is that history is highly interpretive. Take for example the works of Bruce Catton and Jeff Shaara. Both have written excellent series of books on the American Civil War. They're different and yet both are believable. How can that be? Take the story of Joshua Chamberlain. In Catton's books he is almost a footnote. In Shaara's books he is a major character. I prefer Shaara's because Chamberlain is almost more interesting to me than Grant.
I'm sure other authors can take the same stories and reveal even more characters that I would enjoy learning about. What then is the need for alternative history. To me its just lazy writing to begin making up stories when the reality is far more interesting.
Now, if you want an excellent example of historical fiction, one which is true to the history, sans speed bumps, yet introduces fictional characters who help us see and appreciate historical personalities, read E.L. Doctorow's "The March." We know that many people despised Sherman and probably conspired to assassinate him. Whereas alternative history might ignore facts and have Sherman die and the Confederacy win, Doctorow exposes that side of reality in a fiction setting without disturbing the outcome. Doctorow was never a lazy writer.