Historical Fiction

[John Winn]

Historical fiction is one of my favorite genres but I haven't read a CW story since I read Killer Angels decades ago.
The last piece of historical fiction that I read was T.C. Boyle's The Women which is about the life of Frank Lloyd Wright and his love interests. I had positive emotional responses when reading it.

I don't worry too much about absolute historical accuracy in a work of fiction as long as the story seems plausible. Major historic inaccuracies are game killers but aside from that ... hey, it's fiction.

 

[Nathanb1]

Or, to put it another way, a square mile.

Really? I didn't know that.

 

[IcarusPhoenix]

Really? I didn't know that.

I only happen to because my family owns a lovely section outside of McLean... which - thanks to Texas' asinine land-ownership and trust laws and the fact that it has the most diverse usage of any property in the area - gets more difficult to manage with every successive generation.

 

[Nathanb1]

I only happen to because my family owns a lovely section outside of McLean... which - thanks to Texas' asinine land-ownership and trust laws and the fact that it has the most diverse usage of any property in the area - gets more difficult to manage with every successive generation.

It was a joke. Yes, I teach Texas History, so land measurements are part of the curriculum. And our ranch, which less said the better at this point.

 

[John Winn]

Yeah, well, sections are nominally 640 acres/one square mile - and there are nominally 36 sections to a township - but there are lots of non-square sections that are bigger or smaller than 640 acres (and with more than four corners) and townships with fewer than 36 sections and

Sorry. BJ got hold of the keyboard. I told him y'all were nice folks and he didn't have to get all picky like he's seen others do. I shouldn't leave the browser open when I walk away.

 

[phil1861]

One thing to note about any traditionally published work of fiction (published by the Big 5 or smaller niche press): the author sells the rights to the work to the publisher and the publisher via the editor has editorial control over aspects of the content that they think will sell to their readers or what they think will sell better. If that means a love interest to make sure it appeals to women then that is what you have to add. If it means being able to sell well in the military genres then you salt up the language or make it more modern.

Wether this was what Peters had to deal with who knows, but buying a work is an investment that needs to be recouped.

 

[JeffBrooks]

As a general rule, no, I do not read historical fiction. I would tend to pick a book apart if I see something that is incorrect, which ruins the pleasure of the read.

Speaking as a writer of historical fiction, let me say that people like you are my worst nightmare. Seriously, people like you keep me awake at night. For every hour I spend actually writing, I probably spend eight to ten hours making my eyes bleed from all the research reading I do. I live in fear of making a silly mistake that someone will pounce on and splash all over the Amazon.com review page. I might get one thousand tiny little historical details correct and then someone will find a single error that makes me look like a bad writer.

During the writing of Shattered Nation, I made a very simple error (which I won't reveal in order to conceal my embarrassment) which, when discovered, required me to rewrite entire sections of the novel. The detail in question was small and not really important to the plot, but the idea of leaving it uncorrected was simply intolerable. When writing Blessed are the Peacemakers, I was lucky enough to have William C. Davis clear up a misconception I had about John C. Breckinridge. Had he not (in a very friendly email, in response to an unknown writer he didn't know) I would have written important parts of the story disastrously wrong.

Of course, I write alternate history, which gives me a certain escape clause. I can always say, "Well, that's the way it is in this alternate timeline...". But that's just a cop-out. It's my job to write a plausible story and I feel an obligation to my readers to leave no stone unturned in my efforts for historical accuracy.

 

[JeffBrooks]

One thing to note about any traditionally published work of fiction (published by the Big 5 or smaller niche press): the author sells the rights to the work to the publisher and the publisher via the editor has editorial control over aspects of the content that they think will sell to their readers or what they think will sell better. If that means a love interest to make sure it appeals to women then that is what you have to add. If it means being able to sell well in the military genres then you salt up the language or make it more modern.

The development of e-books and print-on-demand technology are killing this publishing model. And we should all be dancing on its grave.

 

[DixieRifles]

As a general rule, no, I do not read historical fiction. I would tend to pick a book apart if I see something that is incorrect, which ruins the pleasure of the read. I do like a good western though, and have many of Louis L'Amour's books..

I do the same when it comes to movies involving Airplanes.
"Air Force One" (1997) Harrison Ford --- A bullet-proof plane? Come-o-on. Rate this as a comedy.
"Flightplan" (2005) Jodie Foster --- The nose of that airplane had nothing in it; no radar, no avionics, nothing.
"Executive Decision" (1996), Kurt Russell --- For the same reason. You can't crawl through the belly of the aircraft as they did. Of course, I didn't see this in the movies and I've never made it through the entire movie on cable TV.
"Broken Arrow" (1996), Travolta & Christian Slater. Nice attempt to introduce the public to the Stealth Bomber but the inside shots looked 10 times more spacious than the outside perspective.
"Pushing Tin" (1999), Billy Bob & John Cusack. A landing wide-body jet will not pick you up off the ground.

Some of the War aviation movies are about as bad. But I still enjoy most that involve WW1 crates. Give me the oldies any day: "L's Angels", "Dawn Patrol" and "Fate is the Hunter".

Sorry for getting off track.

 

[John Winn]

The development of e-books and print-on-demand technology are killing this publishing model. And we should all be dancing on its grave.

I'm just curious how e-books and print-on-demand technology eliminates the noted model ? Seems like one still has to get a publisher of sorts. Please advise.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I'm just curious how e-books and print-on-demand technology eliminates the noted model ? Seems like one still has to get a publisher of sorts. Please advise.

Because with the rise of e-book and print-on-demand technology, publishers don't need to print books ahead of time and hope that they sell enough to make a profit. Now (and this is the key) a book isn't even created until somebody buys it. There is no risk for the company publishing the book at all. They don't need to discriminate between good and bad books, since if a book doesn't sell, it costs the publisher nothing.

This is great news, since so many wonderful authors who previously might never have gotten a chance to publish now can easily do so. The bad news, of course, is that every bad writer can also get their books in print, too. All things considered, though, I think it's wonderful. It democratizes the writing and publishing process and lets readers decide what is good and bad, which is exactly how it should be.

 

[John Winn]

Because with the rise of e-book and print-on-demand technology, publishers don't need to print books ahead of time and hope that they sell enough to make a profit. Now (and this is the key) a book isn't even created until somebody buys it. There is no risk for the company publishing the book at all. They don't need to discriminate between good and bad books, since if a book utterly stinks and doesn't sell, it costs the publisher nothing.

This is great news, since so many wonderful authors who previously might never have gotten a chance to publish now can easily do so. The bad news, of course, is that every bad writer can also get their books in print, too. All things considered, though, I think it's wonderful. It democratizes the writing and publishing process and lets readers decide what is good and bad, which is exactly how it should be.

Thanks for the explanation. I get it now.

I try not to post opinions these days but I can say that I'm not attracted to books on line or on readers; I want a printed book. So, I'm now conflicted as I'd like to see authors get a better shot or deal but don't want to be marketed into a corner where the only option is to go digital. I'm kind of seeing that happening to print media in general (and to recorded music, too). That's maybe all I can say without getting into opinion.

 

[dlofting]

Thanks for the explanation. I get it now.

I try not to post opinions these days but I can say that I'm not attracted to books on line or on readers; I want a printed book. So, I'm now conflicted as I'd like to see authors get a better shot or deal but don't want to be marketed into a corner where the only option is to go digital. I'm kind of seeing that happening to print media in general (and to recorded music, too). That's maybe all I can say without getting into opinion.

So you prefer print-on-demand so you can still have the hardcopy book....nothing wrong with that.

 

[John Winn]

So you prefer print-on-demand so you can still have the hardcopy book....nothing wrong with that.

Yes. Somehow, though, I just fear that once things really go digital and that's all people see the print option will go bye bye since it'll be seen as a too-small niche market to make it worth anybody's trouble. Maybe I'll just drop dead before that happens though. Probably only have another ten years or so left. I guess all the physical stuff I own will just got to some landfill as nobody will have any use for it.

And you kids stay out of my flower beds !

 

[huskerblitz]

Yes. Somehow, though, I just fear that once things really go digital and that's all people see the print option will go bye bye since it'll be seen as a too-small niche market to make it worth anybody's trouble. Maybe I'll just drop dead before that happens though. Probably only have another ten years or so left. I guess all the physical stuff I own will just got to some landfill as nobody will have any use for it.

And you kids stay out of my flower beds !

I completely understand. I got a Nook (free to me) as part of my Master program so I thought I would take the opportunity. Didn't much care for it and haven't used it a lot since. Something about the feel and ability to mark pages.

HOWEVER....I have found it's a nice way to read some of the items from archive.org or items that are PDFs. Not the best solution to the textual feel of a book but it's nice to have a portable option for them and still a way to make notes and mark pages.

 

[GenDeb]

Speaking as a writer of historical fiction, let me say that people like you are my worst nightmare. Seriously, people like you keep me awake at night. For every hour I spend actually writing, I probably spend eight to ten hours making my eyes bleed from all the research reading I do.

Agreed. I am currently working on a novel centered around an interesting female ancestor, married 2 days to her first husband, married to the second one six months before he marched off to war and then died. Big court battle when she fought for custody of his kids involving high ranking members of society in two counties. So I'm just not anal about getting the CW facts right, but legal facts and genealogical facts. Oh, and political, SE Ohio was its own version of a border state...

 

[Lnwlf]

Speaking as a writer of historical fiction, let me say that people like you are my worst nightmare. Seriously, people like you keep me awake at night. For every hour I spend actually writing, I probably spend eight to ten hours making my eyes bleed from all the research reading I do. I live in fear of making a silly mistake that someone will pounce on and splash all over the Amazon.com review page. I might get one thousand tiny little historical details correct and then someone will find a single error that makes me look like a bad writer... snipped

I get a feeling I have offended you, and wanted to say that it was not my intention to do so.

As a general rule, no, I do not read historical fiction. I would tend to pick a book apart if I see something that is incorrect, which ruins the pleasure of the read. I do like a good western though, and have many of Louis L'Amour's books.
I do applaud the folks that can string words together to form a story, and I am sure many of them try to stay historically correct, but the genre is just not my cup of tea.

The bolded section of my original post should have cleared that up. I am aware that you, BelleBlackburn and Phil1861, among some others here that I do not recall at present, are historical fiction writers, and it was you folks I had in mind when I made the bolded statement. I am happy to note that you spend great amounts of time researching your stories, which proves to me that my assumption was correct. Again, no offense was intended toward you or any of the other fiction writers on the forum.

 

[Scotsman]

Because with the rise of e-book and print-on-demand technology, publishers don't need to print books ahead of time and hope that they sell enough to make a profit. Now (and this is the key) a book isn't even created until somebody buys it. There is no risk for the company publishing the book at all. They don't need to discriminate between good and bad books, since if a book doesn't sell, it costs the publisher nothing.

This is great news, since so many wonderful authors who previously might never have gotten a chance to publish now can easily do so. The bad news, of course, is that every bad writer can also get their books in print, too. All things considered, though, I think it's wonderful. It democratizes the writing and publishing process and lets readers decide what is good and bad, which is exactly how it should be.

Like John Winn, I greatly prefer hard copy.

I also have conflicting views about this type of publishing. I see value in the screening process among traditional publishers. In a way, e-book and print-on-demand cheapens the integrity of published works. If there is little or no peer or critical threshold to overcome, then literally anything can get published. Not only does that decrease the quality while exponentially increasing the volume of available books, but it diminishes the accomplishment of getting something published.

At the same time, it does open up accessibility to countless resources that otherwise may not be available. That spreads new information and educational opportunities.

Overall, I hope that new publishing options benefit authors and the public, but that readers take care and vet non-fiction works.

 

[dlofting]

Yes. Somehow, though, I just fear that once things really go digital and that's all people see the print option will go bye bye since it'll be seen as a too-small niche market to make it worth anybody's trouble. Maybe I'll just drop dead before that happens though. Probably only have another ten years or so left. I guess all the physical stuff I own will just got to some landfill as nobody will have any use for it.

And you kids stay out of my flower beds !

I like printed books too, particularly when I'm reading history because I inevitably need a map to understand what's going on (I'm quite visual). It's hard enough to flip back and forth from the map to the text in a printed book, but it's doable.....hate to think how I'd manage with an E-Reader.

 

[JeffBrooks]

I get a feeling I have offended you, and wanted to say that it was not my intention to do so.

Far from it. Your comments demonstrate that my attention to historical detail isn't a waste of time.