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.
