Historical Fiction

[FarawayFriend]

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

Oh, thank you so much in advance! I'm really looking forward to it!

 

[Phiip McBride]

I just found this thread and am amazed at the number of posts from people who post a lot on this forum write that they are not fans of historical fiction. Holy cow! I have loved military historical fiction since I was old enough to hold and read my own "chapter books." Characters, real and imagined, bring life to the dates and places and names of generals.

I heard an interview on the radio a few weeks back with a famous lady novelist, whose name now escapes me. She was asked which is more important, the characters or the plot? She laughed and answered, "My dear, the characters ARE the plot."

Seven years ago I began writing my first novel of historical military fiction, about the Civil War, of course. I started writing with the firm intention that I was creating characters as tools of convenience to illustrate the true wartime experiences of the Sixth Texas Infantry Regiment. Soon enough it was clear that I had it backwards. Believable characters, with whom readers can engage, not the timeline, drive the story and make a book worth reading.

As to the several comments about getting the details right, I couldn't agree more, and ditto Jeffrey Brooks comments about spending more time researching than writing. But one still encounters simple issues that have no absolutely correct answer.

One example: The rifled musket was the main weapon of the infantry, both blue and gray. Does a novelist properly refer to these muzzle loading long-arms as muskets or rifles, or always as rifled muskets? ("When the rifled musket smoke cleared, the men could see the deadly result of their first volley." To me that sentence screams for either "musket smoke" or rifle smoke," not the compounded noun) I've chosen to call them muskets as that is the most commonly used term and differentiates them from weapons like the Sharps breech loading rifles and the Henry repeating rifle, both of which used new-fangled cartridges, not loose powder and lead bullets. But some will disagree with my call.

In my hierarchy of essential ways to learn about the Civil War, I put straight history books first, followed by first hand memoirs and diaries, then walking the ground of the battles, and then reading good historical fiction novels about the war. Not in the top three methods, but still key to my understanding of the big picture.

 

[Northern Light]

I just found this thread and am amazed at the number of posts from people who post a lot on this forum write that they are not fans of historical fiction. Holy cow! I have loved military historical fiction since I was old enough to hold and read my own "chapter books." Characters, real and imagined, bring life to the dates and places and names of generals.

I heard an interview on the radio a few weeks back with a famous lady novelist, whose name now escapes me. She was asked which is more important, the characters or the plot? She laughed and answered, "My dear, the characters ARE the plot."

Seven years ago I began writing my first novel of historical military fiction, about the Civil War, of course. I started writing with the firm intention that I was creating characters as tools of convenience to illustrate the true wartime experiences of the Sixth Texas Infantry Regiment. Soon enough it was clear that I had it backwards. Believable characters, with whom readers can engage, not the timeline, drive the story and make a book worth reading.

As to the several comments about getting the details right, I couldn't agree more, and ditto Jeffrey Brooks comments about spending more time researching than writing. But one still encounters simple issues that have no absolutely correct answer.

One example: The rifled musket was the main weapon of the infantry, both blue and gray. Does a novelist properly refer to these muzzle loading long-arms as muskets or rifles, or always as rifled muskets? ("When the rifled musket smoke cleared, the men could see the deadly result of their first volley." To me that sentence screams for either "musket smoke" or rifle smoke," not the compounded noun) I've chosen to call them muskets as that is the most commonly used term and differentiates them from weapons like the Sharps breech loading rifles and the Henry repeating rifle, both of which used new-fangled cartridges, not loose powder and lead bullets. But some will disagree with my call.

In my hierarchy of essential ways to learn about the Civil War, I put straight history books first, followed by first hand memoirs and diaries, then walking the ground of the battles, and then reading good historical fiction novels about the war. Not in the top three methods, but still key to my understanding of the big picture.

I tend to flip this over. Read a novel to find your way into a new area that you are not familiar with and then go from there to further research. I hate reading a novel about anything with which I am familiar and thinking, "No, that's not right!". It rather spoils the flow of the book for me. You are right, however, that is probably the way one should proceed.

 

[Carronade]

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

You can also chamber a round and then replace it in the magazine, so you could fire eight rounds nonstop. If you read about someone in WWII or Vietnam firing eight shots from a .45 it may have been that.

 

[caralyn]

Good afternoon, I'm baaaack. LOL
I wonder if someone could help me pin down a definitive answer, I'm not finding anything on the internet. I'm writing a book and don't want to say something that is way out in left field.
My character is in Burnside's 9th corp., in the freezing Tennessee winter encampment. Did remote winter encampments have a doctor and medicine with them? Would a doctor with supplies travel on overland campaigns and possibly end up with their troops in Winter camps?
I look forward to your reply.

 

[James N.]

I suspect that many users of this website are readers of historical fiction. I hate to admit this, but it is my own favorite genre. Some of it is pretty good, where the author has done his research. I am sure Michael Shaara's Killer Angels comes to mind. His son, Jeff has written a number of historical novels ranging from the Revolutionary War World war II. I enjoy his books.

Recently I have come across Ralph Peters who I was surprised to realize is a featured guest on cable news where military matters come up. I found his "Cain at Gettysburg" hard to put down and the same for "Hell or Richmond". I wonder though, if the salty language, actually some pretty raunchy stuff was actually used by the troops at that time. Reminds me of a police locker room. Also I think he does not know how to load a cap and ball percussion revolver and like almost all writers of works of history, including non fiction, he does not know the monetary system in use during the Civil War. He has a character saying that "he would not give a nickel for..." when, of course, the five cent piece of the time was the silver half dime. But for the most part Ralph Peters gets it right.

So my question is do you read historical fiction, yourself? If so, who do you find to be both accurate and interesting and who would you recommend as an author of historical fiction?

In case I haven't posted it here previously in this thread, my own personal mantra's Life's too short to read novels!

My only exceptions have been Shelby Foote's Shiloh and the Shaara's Killer Angels and Gods and Generals. They were all OK but I thought nowhere as useful, as good or as informative as a good history or biography would've been.

 

[James B White]

Good afternoon, I'm baaaack. LOL
I wonder if someone could help me pin down a definitive answer, I'm not finding anything on the internet. I'm writing a book and don't want to say something that is way out in left field.
My character is in Burnside's 9th corp., in the freezing Tennessee winter encampment. Did remote winter encampments have a doctor and medicine with them? Would a doctor with supplies travel on overland campaigns and possibly end up with their troops in Winter camps?
I look forward to your reply.

There would be a regimental surgeon and assistant surgeon(s) with each regiment, in theory, who would stay near the regiment and order supplies from the medical purveyor as needed. Of course, screw-ups happen and it's possible a particular regiment's surgeon might get separated, but especially in a static camp, the norm would be to have a surgeon present, with sick call held on a regular basis.

 

[James N.]

Good afternoon, I'm baaaack. LOL
I wonder if someone could help me pin down a definitive answer, I'm not finding anything on the internet. I'm writing a book and don't want to say something that is way out in left field.
My character is in Burnside's 9th corp., in the freezing Tennessee winter encampment. Did remote winter encampments have a doctor and medicine with them? Would a doctor with supplies travel on overland campaigns and possibly end up with their troops in Winter camps?
I look forward to your reply.

To answer your questions, Of course. Your question serves as a perfect example of WHY I just made my above post, too!

 

[John Winn]

Good afternoon, I'm baaaack. LOL
I wonder if someone could help me pin down a definitive answer, I'm not finding anything on the internet. I'm writing a book and don't want to say something that is way out in left field.
My character is in Burnside's 9th corp., in the freezing Tennessee winter encampment. Did remote winter encampments have a doctor and medicine with them? Would a doctor with supplies travel on overland campaigns and possibly end up with their troops in Winter camps?
I look forward to your reply.

Yes. The surgeons (as doctors were called) were assigned to a regiment and would have been with them during winter encampment treating diseases and injuries as well as on active campaigning.

edit: seems others were answering while I was typing but you got your answer I think.

 

[James B White]

And if you name the regiment, I suspect that the name and a thumbnail bio of the regimental surgeon is online. There is lots of information available these days.

To answer your questions, Of course. Your question serves as a perfect example of WHY I just made my above post, too!

Harsh but true. Suspension of disbelief is hard to sustain, but those most enthusiastic about history will know a lot of stuff off the top of their heads and recognize what's not realistic, so it's good to ask about stuff beforehand. Running it through the gauntlet here shows what's so obscure that most history buffs have no idea, and what's fairly commonly known by history buffs at least.

 

[caralyn]

There would be a regimental surgeon and assistant surgeon(s) with each regiment, in theory, who would stay near the regiment and order supplies from the medical purveyor as needed. Of course, screw-ups happen and it's possible a particular regiment's surgeon might get separated, but especially in a static camp, the norm would be to have a surgeon present, with sick call held on a regular basis.

Thank you so much that is so helpful.
I re read your above post and it is so true. I am checking all my words and facts to verify their usage. For example I wanted to have my character make a reference to a toy. I found out the wind up mechanical toys I wanted to refer to were actually collected by adults and not made yet is the US.
You guys are the best!

 

[caralyn]

Yes. The surgeons (as doctors were called) were assigned to a regiment and would have been with them during winter encampment treating diseases and injuries as well as on active campaigning.

edit: seems others were answering while I was typing but you got your answer I think.

Thank you John for your time and trouble

 

[East Tennessee Roots]

I suspect that many users of this website are readers of historical fiction. I hate to admit this, but it is my own favorite genre. Some of it is pretty good, where the author has done his research. I am sure Michael Shaara's Killer Angels comes to mind. His son, Jeff has written a number of historical novels ranging from the Revolutionary War World war II. I enjoy his books.

Recently I have come across Ralph Peters who I was surprised to realize is a featured guest on cable news where military matters come up. I found his "Cain at Gettysburg" hard to put down and the same for "Hell or Richmond". I wonder though, if the salty language, actually some pretty raunchy stuff was actually used by the troops at that time. Reminds me of a police locker room. Also I think he does not know how to load a cap and ball percussion revolver and like almost all writers of works of history, including non fiction, he does not know the monetary system in use during the Civil War. He has a character saying that "he would not give a nickel for..." when, of course, the five cent piece of the time was the silver half dime. But for the most part Ralph Peters gets it right.

So my question is do you read historical fiction, yourself? If so, who do you find to be both accurate and interesting and who would you recommend as an author of historical fiction?

I enjoyed Ralph Peter's books, much more than Shaara. Agree the language was pretty salty. Recently Ed Bearss spoke to our local round table on Gettysburg. During the question and answer, some poor guy began asking a question by quoting someone in "Killer Angels." Ed didn't even let him finish ! Cut him off with something like "I'm a historian, I don't do fiction !"

 

[James N.]

I enjoyed Ralph Peter's books, much more than Shaara. Agree the language was pretty salty. Recently Ed Bearss spoke to our local round table on Gettysburg. During the question and answer, some poor guy began asking a question by quoting someone in "Killer Angels." Ed didn't even let him finish ! Cut him off with something like "I'm a historian, I don't do fiction !"

In fairness, I think it makes a big difference when someone like Shelby Foote is doing the writing. Though when he wrote his novel Shiloh in the 1950's he wasn't yet the historian he soon became with his Civil War - A Narrative, he was still a WWII combat vet and native of the region he was writing about. Even considering him as an historian, I have been impressed at his knowledge and interest in Civil War artillery, no doubt a holdover from his WWII days in an artillery battery!

 

[huskerblitz]

Good afternoon, I'm baaaack. LOL
I wonder if someone could help me pin down a definitive answer, I'm not finding anything on the internet. I'm writing a book and don't want to say something that is way out in left field.
My character is in Burnside's 9th corp., in the freezing Tennessee winter encampment. Did remote winter encampments have a doctor and medicine with them? Would a doctor with supplies travel on overland campaigns and possibly end up with their troops in Winter camps?
I look forward to your reply.

I've read B.F. Stevenson's collection of letters. He describes his winter experiences as the surgeon of the 22nd Kentucky. It's not very long and is available free as an online book. I know it's not the campaign you're looking for but perhaps might be useful.

 

[Lost Cause]

I think historical fiction books should be analyzed by a case by case basis. Some authors have done their research better than others in terms of capturing events, personalities, and language of the day. In my opinion, Howard Bahr did an excellent job with his Battle of Franklin trilogy; The Black Flower, The Year of Jubilo, and The Judas Field.

 

[ole]

Caralyn: You're writing a novel. A novel, by my definition, is a story meant to be enjoyable without being egregious about the actual facts surrounding the story. It is for the reader, not the historian.

Shelby Foote knew his history and ultimately wrote the compendious "Narrative." Three large volumes of a story that was, for the most part, historically accurate. Contrast that with Nevin's eight volumes which were not written for the enjoyment of the reader, but for the reader who wanted to understand the history.

That is, write your novel for the reader. Just don't have Jackson at Chattanooga.

 

[James B White]

Caralyn: You're writing a novel. A novel, by my definition, is a story meant to be enjoyable without being egregious about the actual facts surrounding the story. It is for the reader, not the historian.

Historians (including amateur ones) aren't readers?

I recall being in a house museum, asking some detailed questions about some aspect of their display because I was genuinely interested in it (privately after a tour, wasn't holding anything up). After a while, as the docent realized the display wouldn't hold up to scrutiny, he said, "Well, we're not for people like you."

Being dismissive of the potentially most interested segment of your audience is a calculated gamble. If the book isn't for people like them, then if there are enough others, it doesn't matter. The house museum made that gamble, and is apparently doing fine, and a novel could too.

 

[James N.]

Caralyn: You're writing a novel. A novel, by my definition, is a story meant to be enjoyable without being egregious about the actual facts surrounding the story. It is for the reader, not the historian.

Shelby Foote knew his history and ultimately wrote the compendious "Narrative." Three large volumes of a story that was, for the most part, historically accurate. Contrast that with Nevin's eight volumes which were not written for the enjoyment of the reader, but for the reader who wanted to understand the history.

That is, write your novel for the reader. Just don't have Jackson at Chattanooga.

This is a quote from another thread originally posted by JPWalton:

Even though it is a "what if," story Stonewall Goes West does a very good job of characterizing Jackson, as well as Sandie Pendleton. J.P. Smith, Wells Hawks, Hunter McGuire, and John Harman are all in there as minor characters. I found myself laughing out loud (I really mean it, so I won't use "LOL") at the way the Jackson and Early relationship was handled in the first couple of chapters

Expired Image Removed