Real People in Historical Fiction Discussion Post
For those of you who still haven't posted yet for this round of bibliophages, you have until Friday! Even if you haven't finished a book from the list you were assigned, you can always post your thoughts on what you've read so far.
In the meantime, some thoughts to kickstart a general discussion on this round's theme: real people in historical fiction.
worldserpent mentioned in her review the difficulty of assessing the accuracy of a historical fiction novel if you did not know much about the time period. I must admit, I often take it on faith that the author did their research. If something happens in the novel that seems likely to be from the historical record, then I'll believe that it's based on or at least strongly supported by facts. Of course, this trust in the author depends on the skill of their writing and how they construct their setting. In a way, historical fiction requires as much worldbuilding as fantasy novels, except with more constraints.
What makes a historical fiction novel seem "accurate" even if you only have a hazy knowledge of the historical period it depicts? I think it's easier to answer this question in the negative: what immediately stands out as "inaccurate"? For me, one particular glaring signal is when a modern perspective is ascribed to the characters without any justification for the anachronism. E.g. feminist opinions ascribed to male characters living in a patriarchal society. I can buy it if the writer explains how the character came to such an opinion despite all his cultural conditional, but the burden is on the author to provide an explanation. Similarly, anachronistic slang is another huge signal; one of the reasons why I appreciate Georgette Heyer novels is that she pays close attention to the colloquialisms that her characters use.
When it comes to deliberate revisionism, how accurate should a historical fiction novel be? After all, the point of writing a novel rather than a nonfiction book is to tell a story. Does telling a good story require you to overlook some facts rather than others? In addition, there isn't always a universal consensus on historical fact, and many historical fiction novels often try to present an alternative or minority point of view. To what extent can a historical novel get away with rewriting history? Where is the line between interpreting subtext from primary sources and outright invention? The book I read for this round, The Mask of Apollo, speculates about the relationship with Plato and Dion based on hints from certain passages in Plutarch, but they are extrapolations at best. Yet that relationship is thematically crucial to the book. Another issue to consider is that when writing in first or limited third person, the narrator can be unreliable or have limited knowledge of the situation. Inaccuracies may be deliberately introduced to stay true to the character's point of view.
sub_divided brought up another interesting question: who gets written about in historical fiction? Some historical fiction novels take the tack of viewing major historical figures from "outsider" perspectives--either a fictional character or a less famous person who really existed. Other novels are written from the perspective of important historical personages themselves. Which is more common? (For some reason, almost all examples of the latter case that I can think of are written in first person.)
Questions for discussion:
1. What historical eras do you like to read about? What historical eras would you like to see more novels for?
2. What sort of historical figures do you like to read about? Political leaders, scientists, artists, war heroes, etc.?
3. How accurate should a historical novel be?
4. Is it harder or easier to write about a famous person whose life story is well-known?
Other questions/topics related to the theme are welcome in the comments!
In the meantime, some thoughts to kickstart a general discussion on this round's theme: real people in historical fiction.
worldserpent mentioned in her review the difficulty of assessing the accuracy of a historical fiction novel if you did not know much about the time period. I must admit, I often take it on faith that the author did their research. If something happens in the novel that seems likely to be from the historical record, then I'll believe that it's based on or at least strongly supported by facts. Of course, this trust in the author depends on the skill of their writing and how they construct their setting. In a way, historical fiction requires as much worldbuilding as fantasy novels, except with more constraints.
What makes a historical fiction novel seem "accurate" even if you only have a hazy knowledge of the historical period it depicts? I think it's easier to answer this question in the negative: what immediately stands out as "inaccurate"? For me, one particular glaring signal is when a modern perspective is ascribed to the characters without any justification for the anachronism. E.g. feminist opinions ascribed to male characters living in a patriarchal society. I can buy it if the writer explains how the character came to such an opinion despite all his cultural conditional, but the burden is on the author to provide an explanation. Similarly, anachronistic slang is another huge signal; one of the reasons why I appreciate Georgette Heyer novels is that she pays close attention to the colloquialisms that her characters use.
When it comes to deliberate revisionism, how accurate should a historical fiction novel be? After all, the point of writing a novel rather than a nonfiction book is to tell a story. Does telling a good story require you to overlook some facts rather than others? In addition, there isn't always a universal consensus on historical fact, and many historical fiction novels often try to present an alternative or minority point of view. To what extent can a historical novel get away with rewriting history? Where is the line between interpreting subtext from primary sources and outright invention? The book I read for this round, The Mask of Apollo, speculates about the relationship with Plato and Dion based on hints from certain passages in Plutarch, but they are extrapolations at best. Yet that relationship is thematically crucial to the book. Another issue to consider is that when writing in first or limited third person, the narrator can be unreliable or have limited knowledge of the situation. Inaccuracies may be deliberately introduced to stay true to the character's point of view.
sub_divided brought up another interesting question: who gets written about in historical fiction? Some historical fiction novels take the tack of viewing major historical figures from "outsider" perspectives--either a fictional character or a less famous person who really existed. Other novels are written from the perspective of important historical personages themselves. Which is more common? (For some reason, almost all examples of the latter case that I can think of are written in first person.)
Questions for discussion:
1. What historical eras do you like to read about? What historical eras would you like to see more novels for?
2. What sort of historical figures do you like to read about? Political leaders, scientists, artists, war heroes, etc.?
3. How accurate should a historical novel be?
4. Is it harder or easier to write about a famous person whose life story is well-known?
Other questions/topics related to the theme are welcome in the comments!