Historical Fiction

[John Davison]

As a born pathological liar,just about everything I write is historical fiction

 

[huskerblitz]

As a born pathological liar,just about everything I write is historical fiction

Wait....so how do we know this statement is true?

 

[FarawayFriend]

As an academic, I read non-fiction as a professional necessity. Historical fiction is my preferred leisure reading. I find them an interesting way into new areas of research. Novels such as Robert Hicks' "The Widow of the South" about the battle of Franklin and "A Separate Country", a story of J B Hood's post-war life, introduced me to aspects of the ACW that I had not explored before. "My Name is Mary Sutter" led to an exploration of Civil War Medicine, a trip to the Museum of Civil War Medicine, and on to several more scholarly works on the topic. At the same time, I know that these books are fiction, and while based on historical events or characters, are written with the object of selling the story, and that a certain amount of literary license is expected to bring about that end. What it boils down to is; if the story is good, then most people don't care about the facts, and if they care, they will seek out the truth.

Thank you for this list of titles, have put them all on my wishlist!

My focus is the use of intelligence during the war, at various levels; although it wasn't as formalized and professionalized as it is now, intelligence collection and analysis took place on both sides- in many ways, it was really the beginning of US military intelligence as a profession. Espionage, counter-intelligence, cryptography and cryptology, message interception- all took place during the war and I explore all of these; at the same time, it's a story and somewhat of an allegory to situations I've been involved in at various points in my career...times may change, technology will evolve, but the fundamental problems stay the same.

As I have said before, I hope you will decide to publish it! Seem s like you have the chance for a big success!

 

[Scotsman]

The creation of all historical narrative is, to some degree, a fiction. What historians try to do is accurately recount past events so that we come to know as precisely as possible what occurred at a particular time and place. The problem is, as we all know, is that the best history is still an approximation of what happened. We cannot know with absolute metaphysical certitude that the motive for the American rebellion in 1775 was that the Colonists felt themselves to be over taxed. Some probably did while for others it was a peripheral issue. So any historian, or the local high school history text, declaring it so is on as much tenuous ground as some historical fiction author claiming Sir William Howe lost the war for Britain by spending too much time with Mrs. Loring.

Historians and historical enthusiasts alike need to keep in mind that any historical writing, whether it be a supposedly scholarly tome or a bodice ripping, pot boiling historical romance, is to a greater or lesser degree an approximation of past reality. While we might hesitate to take the latter for perceived wisdom and revealed truth we might also do well to remember that neither is the former.

I think all historians understand that their work involves an element of theory. Graduate students generally address the nature of objectivity and subjectivity--and whether true objectivity is possible in historical writing--during their studies.

That said, there is a clear difference between quality non-fiction historical writing and intentional historical fiction. Analysis and interpretation by a historian is an attempt to understand and explain the past. It relies solely on existing facts and resources; it does not create new elements, dialogue, or characters and place them within the context of the past.

One cannot say that because a historian cannot scientifically prove, or provide, a singular answer to the question of motive in the American Revolution, that their work is "on as much tenuous ground" as an author writing fiction. Good historians qualify their statements and conclusions, carefully acknowledging the strengths and limitations of their theses. And, other historians will carefully and critically review those theses, rarely holding back criticism when a historian strays too far from a supportable conclusion.

 

[kevikens]

I have found two areas where the historians, the professional ones, are as likely to err as the historical fiction authors, namely, firearms and ballistics and monetary matters. It annoys the daylights out of me when writers of history, where weaponry is described and analyzed, blithely get it very wrong (referring to what were obviously smooth bore muskets as rifles) or when writing about coinage and currency and financial matters ( not understanding that when the price of gold was quoted by the Gold Room in NYC during the CW it was not the price per ounce but a ratio of Greenbacks to gold) do not do the research to understand that the system of money used was quite different from what is in circulation today. On any number of occasions when I wrote authors about these errors the common response was one of "it does not really matter". Oh, yes it does. Get sloppy about any aspect of one's research and it calls into question one's research in other areas as well.

 

[james99]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned "The March" by Doctorow but its an amazing book about Sherman's march to the sea

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812976150/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

 

[Scotsman]

I have found two areas where the historians, the professional ones, are as likely to err as the historical fiction authors, namely, firearms and ballistics and monetary matters. It annoys the daylights out of me when writers of history, where weaponry is described and analyzed, blithely get it very wrong (referring to what were obviously smooth bore muskets as rifles) or when writing about coinage and currency and financial matters ( not understanding that when the price of gold was quoted by the Gold Room in NYC during the CW it was not the price per ounce but a ratio of Greenbacks to gold) do not do the research to understand that the system of money used was quite different from what is in circulation today. On any number of occasions when I wrote authors about these errors the common response was one of "it does not really matter". Oh, yes it does. Get sloppy about any aspect of one's research and it calls into question one's research in other areas as well.

Errors are a different topic than the distinction between fiction and non-fiction writing.

 

[John Davison]

Wait....so how do we know this statement is true?

Husker, I thought I left a little "weasel" room in there -- "just about" -- but you're absolutely right! There is no way to really know! That what a smart *** gets for being too cute. Thanks for opening my eyes to my vulnerabilities.

 

[JeffBrooks]

If you write historical fiction, what is your focus and why?

As a writer of alternate history, one reason I write as I do is to promote better understanding not of historical events (since the events in my historical novels are different than what actually happened in history) but of the underlying historical issues themselves. Our understanding of slavery, Southern culture, and various other things is shaped by the knowledge that the South lost the war and its society was radically uprooted; how would be view these issues if we lived in a world where the South had won the war? If we compare these two views, what can we learn about these things?

On the other hand, my main purpose is to simply tell a good story and entertain people. No student of history can avoid asking themselves "what if so-and-so had done such-and-such?" Counterfactual thinking infects all of us and it is, when you get right down to it, fun.

I can date my desire to write alternate history fiction to a night in 2001, when I was drinking beer with some of my fellow grad students at Southwest Texas State University and engaging in a heated discussion of how the Battle of Waterloo might have turned out had it not rained so much during the night of June 17.

 

[John Davison]

I think all historians understand that their work involves an element of theory. Graduate students generally address the nature of objectivity and subjectivity--and whether true objectivity is possible in historical writing--during their studies.

That said, there is a clear difference between quality non-fiction historical writing and intentional historical fiction. Analysis and interpretation by a historian is an attempt to understand and explain the past. It relies solely on existing facts and resources; it does not create new elements, dialogue, or characters and place them within the context of the past.

One cannot say that because a historian cannot scientifically prove, or provide, a singular answer to the question of motive in the American Revolution, that their work is "on as much tenuous ground" as an author writing fiction. Good historians qualify their statements and conclusions, carefully acknowledging the strengths and limitations of their theses. And, other historians will carefully and critically review those theses, rarely holding back criticism when a historian strays too far from a supportable conclusion.

It would seem that the historian who writes "for the record" is not immune to bringing a certain amount -- a little or a lot, of subjectivity into his writing, not only of his own creation, but those of his sources. A good part of the accepted historical record is, afterall,judgmental and thus open to constant reinterpretation. My opinion of course.

 

[John Davison]

I have found two areas where the historians, the professional ones, are as likely to err as the historical fiction authors, namely, firearms and ballistics and monetary matters. It annoys the daylights out of me when writers of history, where weaponry is described and analyzed, blithely get it very wrong (referring to what were obviously smooth bore muskets as rifles) or when writing about coinage and currency and financial matters ( not understanding that when the price of gold was quoted by the Gold Room in NYC during the CW it was not the price per ounce but a ratio of Greenbacks to gold) do not do the research to understand that the system of money used was quite different from what is in circulation today. On any number of occasions when I wrote authors about these errors the common response was one of "it does not really matter". Oh, yes it does. Get sloppy about any aspect of one's research and it calls into question one's research in other areas as well.

There's really no excuse for laziness. It's disappointing as well as insulting to the knowledgable reader.

 

[John Davison]

As a writer of alternate history, one reason I write as I do is to promote better understanding not of historical events (since the events in my historical novels are different than what actually happened in history) but of the underlying historical issues themselves. Our understanding of slavery, Southern culture, and various other things is shaped by the knowledge that the South lost the war and its society was radically uprooted; how would be view these issues if we lived in a world where the South had won the war? If we compare these two views, what can we learn about these things?

On the other hand, my main purpose is to simply tell a good story and entertain people. No student of history can avoid asking themselves "what if so-and-so had done such-and-such?" Counterfactual thinking infects all of us and it is, when you get right down to it, fun.

I can date my desire to write alternate history fiction to a night in 2001, when I was drinking beer with some of my fellow grad students at Southwest Texas State University and engaging in a heated discussion of how the Battle of Waterloo might have turned out had it not rained so much during the night of June 17.

Alternate history. I like that!

 

[Scotsman]

It would seem that the historian who writes "for the record" is not immune to bringing a certain amount -- a little or a lot, of subjectivity into his writing, not only of his own creation, but those of his sources. A good part of the accepted historical record is, afterall,judgmental and thus open to constant reinterpretation. My opinion of course.

I believe true objectivity is impossible. Even a pure recitation of facts requires discrimination and opinion in selection. That said, historians should strive for objectivity. Even if it is impossible, awareness of one's subjectivity may prevent flagrant errors or leaps of logic.

This touches on another popular misconception of historical scholarship: revisionism. The term "revisionist" is thrown around a lot as a pejorative. It is not a negative word to academic study. All historical writing is revisionism. It is a part of revising our understanding of the past, through new information and new perspectives.

This does not mean all historical writing is equal. Just like with any work or product, quality varies.

 

[18thVirginia]

It would seem that the historian who writes "for the record" is not immune to bringing a certain amount -- a little or a lot, of subjectivity into his writing, not only of his own creation, but those of his sources. A good part of the accepted historical record is, afterall,judgmental and thus open to constant reinterpretation. My opinion of course.

I got hooked on reading historical fiction as a child sitting on my grandmother's front porch the year after she'd passed away and reading her Book-of-the-Month Club fictional books. She only got as far as the 4th grade, but was wide ranging in her interests in fiction.

Recently read a historical novel SELMA: A Novel of the Civil War by Val. L. McGee. McGee was a retired judge and WWII vet whose novel is a little slow starting and a little preachy, but interesting because he incorporates story lines from actual cases of the era. The cases are cited at the end and of course the main characters are lawyers. But it gives a different picture of slavery than one sometimes gets from historical accounts, probably because judges listen to stories all day every day and are always interested in an individual's story.

I'm not sure most average people would read historical accounts of Civil War legal cases, so this was fascinating to me.

 

[Eric Wittenberg]

Not sure if anyone's mentioned "The March" by Doctorow but its an amazing book about Sherman's march to the sea

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0812976150/?tag=civilwartalkc-20

Agreed, except for the fact that his account of the Battle of Monroe's Crossroads in that novel is almost completely buggered up.

 

[james99]

I just ordered Selma from amazon!

 

[Scotsman]

On any number of occasions when I wrote authors about these errors the common response was one of "it does not really matter". Oh, yes it does. Get sloppy about any aspect of one's research and it calls into question one's research in other areas as well.

I agree. Historians should be careful about details. The occasional slip is understandable. Frequent mistakes weaken a work tremendously. And, I have seen embarrassing mistakes by some writers regarding technical matters. For instance, in Hell Above Earth: The True Story of an American World War II Bomber Commander and the Copilot Ordered to Kill Him, Stephen Frater tried to describe the incredible odds American aircrews faced during missions over Europe with an analogy using a weapon some of the men carried. He writes:

"Given the odds he faced, Werner needed divine protection. He was about to join 'the longest continual battle.' Army-issued Colt .45 pistols held seven rounds. If a man were to play Russian roulette with one round in the magazine, he'd have about a 14 percent chance of dying--almost the same odds as a Mighty Eighth WWII-era bomber crewman had on any given day."

I literally laughed out loud when I first read this. I know 1911s can be finicky weapons, but apparently Mr. Frater (and all of editors who reviewed the manuscript) doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver.

While I do not know the particulars of the examples you gave, or the reasoning behind the historians' responses, I will say that I can understand one interpretation of the response "it does not really matter." As some writers have noted in this thread, some readers will nitpick details that are relatively inconsequential to the larger thesis or story. If it is an error, the historian should acknowledge it and do his or her best to correct it, if possible. But I have seen some reviewers obsess over side issues or pet peeves to the exclusion of the rest. In the example above, I found the mistake humorous, but not particularly fatal to the quality of the overall book. (I think the book had several larger problems, not related to technical faults, but that is a different topic.)

 

[Shadow9216]

As I have said before, I hope you will decide to publish it! Seem s like you have the chance for a big success!

Whether I do or not, I'll be sure to get you an e-copy when it's completed

 

[kevikens]

I agree. Historians should be careful about details. The occasional slip is understandable. Frequent mistakes weaken a work tremendously. And, I have seen embarrassing mistakes by some writers regarding technical matters. For instance, in Hell Above Earth: The True Story of an American World War II Bomber Commander and the Copilot Ordered to Kill Him, Stephen Frater tried to describe the incredible odds American aircrews faced during missions over Europe with an analogy using a weapon some of the men carried. He writes:

"Given the odds he faced, Werner needed divine protection. He was about to join 'the longest continual battle.' Army-issued Colt .45 pistols held seven rounds. If a man were to play Russian roulette with one round in the magazine, he'd have about a 14 percent chance of dying--almost the same odds as a Mighty Eighth WWII-era bomber crewman had on any given day."

I literally laughed out loud when I first read this. I know 1911s can be finicky weapons, but apparently Mr. Frater (and all of editors who reviewed the manuscript) doesn't know the difference between a semi-automatic pistol and a revolver.

While I do not know the particulars of the examples you gave, or the reasoning behind the historians' responses, I will say that I can understand one interpretation of the response "it does not really matter." As some writers have noted in this thread, some readers will nitpick details that are relatively inconsequential to the larger thesis or story. If it is an error, the historian should acknowledge it and do his or her best to correct it, if possible. But I have seen some reviewers obsess over side issues or pet peeves to the exclusion of the rest. In the example above, I found the mistake humorous, but not particularly fatal to the quality of the overall book. (I think the book had several larger problems, not related to technical faults, but that is a different topic.)

I thought the .45 ACP had an eight round magazine?

 

[Scotsman]

I thought the .45 ACP had an eight round magazine?

The original Colt magazines carry seven rounds. Some newer designs hold eight.