Need Some Thoughts on Historical Fiction

[longknife]

At what point does “reality” trump fiction in historical fiction?

I started my latest project off with a simple premise; showing the founding of the California missions through the eyes of two young men. One is an Indian from western Mexico while the other is from Devon, England. Fate brings them together and they join Father Junipero Serra’s march north to found a mission in Baja California before moving on to obey the king’s fiat to make a firm Spanish presence in Alta California at San Diego and Monterey.

And then …

During the revision process, I kept using the Google Search function to get information for “minor holes” I kept seeing in the story. I’ve now downloaded 7 books on the subject, along with one tome sent to me by the friars of present-day Santa Barbara. I have 68 bookmarks and another 14 folders with numerous files on everything from the missions themselves to plants and geography of the area. I’ve discovered so much stuff I didn’t know before that it’s causing me to have to do a massive revision of the document.

So, here’s my problem - I don’t want this to be a dry, academic recitation of what went on during this time. I want my readers to see this complicated society through the eyes of two young people to whom all of this is new, intriguing, and even dangerous.

Some of you have read snippets of this work to include a query [which has also been totally revised] and the 1st five pages. So, At what point do my fictional characters out weight the real characters who drive this whole story?

[polymath]

Melding the challenges of drama and historical narrative is tough. I'm working on one myself. Different setting, time and place and situation, and different premises though.

I too started off recounting a historical event and the pivotal personages. It was a recited narrative, a dreary dead tell. Negotiating with the dramatic aspects of narrative arts led me from the conventions and traditions of historical narrative to the essentials of storytelling trumping presupposed historical realities. Lots of ethnocentric myths represented as historical facts within the opus of documented history. To the victors go not only the spoils, but of greater long term social value, also the accounts.

Several conventions of historical narrative first, portraying events, personages, settings, and ideals from a patriotic slant. That's history reporting. A bystanding, ideally objective, reliable observer close in time, place, and situation reports the events, personages, settings, and ideals. The events and their influences take first position, the personages' actions close behind, settings and ideals shape the events and personages. The observer reporting narrates as an overt bystander or a covert report narrating from behind the scenes.

Drama conventions ask for a central character's personal, in the moment, time, place, and situation, experiences reported by a somewhat covert narrator, or a first person overt narrator. The attitude holder who expresses commentary about the events, personages, and so on, is most essential and ideally the central character or for slightly more removed narrative distance, a bystanding narrator as the attitude holder. An attitude holder is whoever judgmentally evaluates and subjectively reports the influences of events and behaviors of the personages and outcomes. Attitude is the subjective-objective axis of narrative voice and narrative point of view. Unreliable to biased to reliable reporting also is a function of attitude.

How historical factual accuracy comes into play in drama varies from consensus to consensus. In my sense of it, fixed and immutable circumstances are sacred. What's open to interpretation is fair game for invention. Actually, coming to that realization opened up the possibilities so much I was stalled in awe of the ramifications. A central villain of a set piece could be the hero from a different light, for instance. Or two or more nemeses clash, and both are judged by the attitude holder. Anyway, credible authenticity and verisimilitude are paramount for historical fiction, less so factual accuracy, least so open to interpretation circumstances.

Working past the stall meant my examining the fundmentals of narrative theory: plot aspects, character aspects, setting, discourse, theme, and rhetoric and reader expectations and cultural coding conventions common to any creative narrative. György Lukács The Historical Novel offered me profound insights into that particular form. Like how cultural conventions shape historical accounts while they're unfolding, immediately following, and long after. More clarity from how an audience approaches and receives historical accounts. An oversimplification of both the former is audiences only have the here and now to draw from and be reached from. Historical accounts need updating to suit present day values and mores. A historical narrative is ideally reported from the 20-20 creative vision of the present.

Basic conventions of drama then, a complication causing a clash of wills compeling a central character to act passionately, a final outcome of the complication rewarding readers with a profound emotional payoff, and a message that doesn't beat anyone over the head with preaching but evokes subtle changes to outlooks nonetheless.

Questions I've asked of my historical fiction: What's the problem that causes the protagonist to act? How will it turn out? What's the attitude toward the theme that delivers the message? What's the message anyway? Who's the ideal character who experiences the whole mess? What's the ideal voice? Close narrative distance or somewhat removed? Where's the settings that move the plot forward and which ones don't. Who's the narrator? Overt or covert? Single or multiple viewpoint characters? What are other credible, relevant escalating complications that impede progress toward addressing the main complication? And a gamut of other who, what, when, where, why, and how questions.

[Sommer Leigh]

I love historical fiction. Let me just put that out there.

I really love when fact and fiction blend. The masterful blending happens when there is just enough historical truth to make the fiction seem absolutely possible.

You don't have to recite history at the reader, just include sign posts of historical fact and delicious details of the time period that the reader might not know, or may have an idea of, and use it to frame the fictional narrative. The beauty of historical fiction is in the details. The way women smelled, the way the fabric of their clothes felt, the type of places the characters might have stayed, how characters view important authority figures and how real historical events outside the scope of the story effect the story even if it is by way of gossip, supply shortages, immigration, class adversity, and stereotyping and prejudices.

If you change the truth of what happened, make sure you've got enough story to back it up. Any historical leaps you make should feel plausible by your build up. You don't have to explain how it is possible, the ground work you lay should do that for you.

Scott Westerfeld rewrote the history surrounding World War I in his YA book Leviathan. I'm schooled enough in World War I that anything absolutely out of the realm of possibility would have jarred me from the text, but even though he makes a pretty fanciful leap of historical and scientific plausibility, it is so seamless I can't imagine how his version wasn't, in fact, a possibility.

Recently author Jackson Pearce talked about the historical fiction she's been writing about Mark Twain and Nikola Tesla and how she had to pour through research texts just to verify whether the "thumbs up" sign was in use at the time and what it might have looked like. These details can make an author crazy, but are really important to the authenticity of your time period and those details are what makes the story so beautiful and rich and immersive.

And can I just say, bravo to you for taking on the monster of historical research! I think your research sounds amazing. Good luck!!

[Watcher55]

I remember being about where you are and I asked a lot of the same questions.

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I need to point out what we have in common by high lighting some differences. Your setting is Spanish California, mine is Ancient Rome. Your dynamic tension involves Spanish, English, Indian, and Church perspectives. My dynamic is drawn from Roman, Greek, Jewish and Church perspectives. Like you, I started with a premise and collected resources (Josephus, Tacitus, databases, lists, geog . . . you get it). AND as I digested as much as I could, I had to ask myself:

At what point do my fictional characters out weight the real characters who drive this whole story?

It’s taking longer than I want but I’m nearly finished but the Original Concept only bears a skeletal resemblance to the WIP but I’ve managed to preserve the spirit (IMHO) of the original idea. To get it there, I had to set parameters AFTER I had a reasonable familiarity with my main character – the Historical contexts (notice I said contexts and not facts).

I had to accept certain facts as facts and build from there. I had to accept the validity of contradictory evidence and theories and draw my own conclusions and incorporate them into the facts already laid down. I’ve done my best NOT to separate personality from politics and deeds when getting to know Historical figures and, just as importantly, I tried to capture the personality of the societies involved as well. (dodgy punctuation and sentence structure aside, I hope that makes sense)

Treat your History like a character because it is, but it doubles as a framework to build on, or a trellis to train the vines. Be true to History’s character and build trust with your active characters and they will behave accordingly.

One more reminder – Historical fiction isn’t so much a “History” as it is a painting or statue dedicated to History.

[Sommer Leigh]

One more reminder – Historical fiction isn’t so much a “History” as it is a painting or statue dedicated to History.

I like this.

[Watcher55]

One more reminder – Historical fiction isn’t so much a “History” as it is a painting or statue dedicated to History.

I like this.

Thanks for saying so.

[alienbogey]

At what point do my fictional characters out weight the real characters who drive this whole story?

Is your novel about your fictional characters or the real characters?

If it's about the real characters then you're writing something along the lines of THE KILLER ANGELS, it's driven by the historical figures, and every last detail needs to be historically perfect. If it's about your fictional characters then it's more like LONESOME DOVE, where actual historical figures make only minor appearances, some poetic license may be taken, and your research will make the scene setting and details authentic.

I think you yourself answer your own question you ask at the end of your post. From elsewhere in the post:

I started my latest project off with a simple premise; showing the founding of the California missions through the eyes of two young men. ?

Has that changed, or is it still the simple premise of showing the story through the eyes of your characters?

I want my readers to see this complicated society through the eyes of two young people to whom all of this is new, intriguing, and even dangerous.

Sounds like your premise hasn't changed, so you don't want the real characters to outweigh the fictional.

Your research can add richness and authenticity without getting dry or lecturing the reader. For example, if you happened to find out that a certain plant was used to cure headaches your characters would probably not want to know the scientific name, how it reproduces, or it's range, but a Native might well use the plant to help a character, and getting the plant right rather than just making one up is satisfying.

It's also a real trap in historical fiction to burden the novel with tons of backstory resulting from exhaustive research into events. My first draft weighed in at 220K, the current 7th draft is at 169K, and much of the deleted obesity was material better suited for a history textbook that had nothing to do with the story I was trying to tell.

Good luck.

[longknife]

Thanks all for your comments.

First of all, every time I turn around, I find myself deeper and deeper into research. It's no longer just about the central figure of Father Serra but of the area, the political situation of the time, the interactions between civil and church authorities, how the friars treated and though of the indians, and a lot about the indians themselves. Every time I turn around, I find another little tidbit that can be brought in to the story.

I find myself expanding and correcting my MCs. For example, how did the young Indian react to wearing clothes as opposed to living wearing little more than a crude apron over his loins? How about when they checked him for lice and cut his hair? How did he react the first time he saw one of the friars flaggelate themselves? Or spank one of the disciples?

So, yes, I'm now trying to make it historically accurate but through the eyes of my MCs.

I've also come across a lot of conflicting information on the web and it's fun trying to separate the chaff from the wheat.

[Watcher55]

In the immortal words of Alice Cooper: "Welcome to my breakdown/hope I didn't scare you."

It really is amazing how your characters change right in front of your mind's eye.