I’ve had a reader take me to task – rightly – over an incorrect detail of clothing worn by the hero of my books, the 16th-century Italian philosopher Giordano Bruno, even while they seemed quite happy to accept the much more flagrant invention of turning him into a spy who solves murders.
Stephanie Merritt (SJ Parris)
Feigning Accuracy
Feigning accuracy? Surely she means being totally accurate with the historical facts?
Well, I left this post until last because historical accuracy is a lot more complicated than it might seem, and the focus of a never-ending conversational loop for historical novelists. Recently, I was pulled up for inaccuracy by a reader. She had looked up one of my characters – called Koniev – probably on wikipedia, and said I’d spelt it wrong. It should be ‘Konev’. Yet here is a photo of some of the real newspapers of the period that I used for my research into this character.
1945 research for Past Encounters
So who is right? The answer is neither of us. Or both. But the problem is, my sources are different from my readers. You will always be accused of inaccuracy by someone, not because you haven’t done your research, but often because your research sources may be different from the reader’s.
If you write a unique view of a character, one that a reader knows and loves, if it doesn’t agree with their previous reading on the subject, it might be deemed inaccurate — even though your new interpretation is well-supported by primary historical sources. When editing, it is good to take account of the probable sources of your readers.
I write a lot in the 17th Century. A popular book right now on the period is a very good book called ‘The Time-Traveller’s Guide to Restoration Britain.’ Now I would be foolish to insert facts into my novel that disagreed with this perceived authority, because I would probably then have trouble convincing the reader that my facts were the correct ones. The cost of things for example, is widely contradicted in different books on the Restoration period, because of the fluctuation of currency in the period. But I am aware that the Time Traveller’s Guide will probably be one of my readers’ sources, so that is the secondary source I might choose to use. We are not historians, and yet the ‘man on the street’ presumes we are, and judges us by the ‘facts’ of today’s published historians.
But our job as a writer is to produce truth rather than accuracy. Accurate things may not ring true – inaccurate things might ring truer.
For example: As Sol Stein says about his play Napoleon, in which Talleyrand confronts Napoleon:
‘Talleyrand provokes the younger man (Napoleon) into a flash of anger. Talleyrand couldn’t say, “Don’t get so hot under the collar” or “Cool it” in the argot of today. He says “Save your blood the journey to your face, I meant no harm’. You won’t find anything like that in the recorded conversations of the time. It is dialogue invented to suit a period, as John Fowles said, a form of “cheating” in which writers use a newly-minted language to simulate an old.’
In the past I have used inaccurate dialect for a Northern girl from 17th century Cumbria. She tells her sister not to ‘get into a fratch’. Fratch is 18th century dialogue and therefore not accurate. But it conveyed the spirit of what I wanted more closely than anything else, so I used it. In a historical novel, invented dialogue goes on all the time, with the writer striving to make the characters live and breathe, preferably without sounding like they have come from a pastiche of Victorian literature.
Victorian accuracy – King Henry & Anne Boleyn, Deer Shooting in Windsor Forest by William Powell Frith
Accuracy about the internal lives of historical personages is difficult to achieve. Often the novelist is writing about a woman who played an extraordinary role in history. Or a great man – A king, for example. Let’s take Henry VIII. Say I am tempted to put his thoughts on paper. I might use the most obvious; ‘How can I divorce Anne Boleyn?’ But the reality is much bigger than that, and the question much more complex. This is a man who has been enormously well-educated, who has talked with the foreign leaders of the day, who has multiple concerns about the religion and politics of the time, plus a keen sensibility for music and architectural beauty. Your job is to convey the scope of this man within the meagre pages of your book. It is a bold and presumptuous undertaking. A novelist must insert as much subtext as possible to round out the character, and genuinely try to understand the man. Otherwise the character will be a cardboard cipher.
There is nothing more off-putting than realising you have given King Henry VIII the ‘voice of a middle-aged hairdresser from Morecambe’.
To be accurate you must be able to enter the head of your character at that time, but to make him live you must be able to subtly parallel his attitudes with something of today. The Victorian emphasis on Henry VIII might be quite different from our 21st century one.
If you’re not an intellectual, don’t write about a historical genius and expect him to somehow come over as more intelligent than yourself. To do so would need a dash of divine inspiration – to write out of your own socks, so to speak, and it rarely succeeds. I recently read a novel in which one of the main characters was a ground-breaking scientist, and yet his dialogue showing his passion for his work was filled with bland generalities. It just didn’t ring true. Most writers humbly and sensibly choose to write history from the point of view of an ordinary or minor character within the milieu of the ‘marquee name’ of history.
If you choose a big name like Henry VIII, can you tweak a scene to make it more true? Can you give the witnesses an agenda which will give it extra emotional impact? The bare facts in the annals of history can be enhanced. Does your scene show the full vigour of the man? Is it truer than the bare facts of history?
You can feign accuracy by adding detail to the facts, as long as the detail is correct – the rough texture of the blindfold worn at the execution will stick in your reader’s mind although that ‘fact’ was never in any historical record. So when editing check that you have complete clarity about what your character is doing and saying, where they are, what they can see, feel, taste, touch. Clarity is what gives the novel truth and therefore the semblance of accuracy.
And actually, what the reader often wants, as well as a sense of history, is emotional accuracy. They want to feel what is was like to live through that particular time; not what it looked like from the outside, but what it felt like to be in someone else’s skin, and to be able to re-live it now. And you can only do that by engaging the heart of the reader.
There are many discussions about accuracy on Goodreads, or anywhere where writers of historical fiction gather. Each of us historical novelists has our own ‘accuracy barometer’, which is set to warn us of fair sailing or stormy weather ahead.
Find my other editing posts on these links:
No 1 Light No 2 Truth No 3 Sound No 4 Threads No 5 Foreshadowing No 6 Status No 7 Detail No 8 Suddenly No 9 Change
Susanna Calkins tackles this for Writer’s Digest.
http://www.writersdigest.com/editor-blogs/guide-to-literary-agents/how-to-write-historical-fiction-7-tips-on-accuracy-and-authenticity
Nothing is more irritating to me than reading a so-called historical novel, that uses modern language, modern phrases and modern names. I remember when I started writing the number of experts that always said: ‘no one was called Wendy before Peter Pan was published’. This is still good advice, but when you find an historical character called something out of Dallas, it’s obvious that writer has done no research at all.
I read one that was so ridiculous, it has stuck in my mind. The premise was implausible to say the least, but when people who are supposed to be thirteenth century nobility start talking about ‘having sex’ you can understand where all those one star reviews came from. Oh, and why do so many think that anyone with a title lived in a castle?
One of my books was given a one star and criticised because it had a scene in Newgate Prison and was set in the time of Henry VIII. The ‘reviewer’ declared that Newgate Prison wasn’t built then. In act it was built in 1180 and rebuilt several times.
I had an argument on a writers’ forum where several people seemed to believe that because the story is fiction, it doesn’t matter. It does matter, it matter’s more than anything. Not only names and speech patterns, but attitudes.
Hi Margaret, yes un-historical names are one of my bugbears. Mind you, I’ve spent three books writing about ‘Elizabeths’ and I’ve nearly run out of different diminutives! And you’re right about the attitude of the character being in keeping with the period.
I agree with you both: although I am speaking here as a reader rather than a writer of fiction. I read a lot of books set in Britain written by Americans, and whilst many are well-researched or written by people who have visited the country and the places they write about, sometimes its clear that the authors have never set foot in the British Isles, or met many British people.
Even then, some writers do very well in writing authentic stories which are credible for the setting, but some don’t. British characters using Americanisms are a pet peeve of mine in stories like that: although I understand that sometimes, authors include these to make them understandable for their largely American readership.
I recall remarking on the matter to one such author once (who was a very nice Lady and a good writer), who basically said that although she knew the particular detail was wrong, she did not bother to correct it, as her American readers would not remember or care. Maybe its hard, but that did strike me as a rather lazy approach.
At other times, there are books in which the authors clearly have done their research, but then make a mistake on a small detail that really stands out (a raccoon running through a Medieval English wood is one that comes to mind), and I just wonder ‘how could they have got so much right, and then slipped up like that’? Though I think I’ve become more forgiving now and realized nobody can research every detail, and get everything completely right all the time.
Eek! A raccoon running through a Medieval English Wood! I think if you set a book somewhere, it’s probably a good idea to give it to someone from that country to read. An English person would spot the raccoon straight away. And don’t get me started on ‘gotten’!
Your post is true about the fine line of accuracy. I had a similar experience with a reviewer on Amazon who ranted that I knew nothing about arsenic poisoning (18th c.). I have researched the symptoms extensively and read a non-fiction book about an actual arsenic poisoning death in the 18th c. I have my facts right. This reader disagreed but never said why.
Hi Diane, I think its nearly always a case of different sources. As far as the reader knows (from their research) the writer is wrong, but as far as the writer is concerned (who has researched differently) they are right! Often when people are interested they go straight to look it up on Google or Wikipedia. Unfortunately, those are not always a writer’s sources! But I’m glad readers take the time to look up facts, it shows they are interested in our subject matter. In the end I’m concerned to win readers, not necessarily to prove I’m ‘better at research’ than they are, so I always listen to what they have to say.
The best way for a historical fiction writer to ensure accuracy in his/her works is to be an obsessive/compulsive researcher; to always keep reading and digging. Assembling a solid core of reference books in your home about the key aspects of your period is an excellent first step. If you do not enjoy research and playing historical detective, you should try writing in a different genre. That said, even the best researchers will sometimes make mistakes. Bernard Cornwell belives that comes with the territory. Many ordinary actions of people in past times were never written down in detail because they were so common people thought them unworthy of note. Two centuries hence, people may well say, ” what the devil was a floppy disc?”
Hi John, they’re already saying ”What is a floppy disc”!
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment. I agree, research is the bedrock of good historical fiction.
Very interesting post! I don’t think I would ever judge historical accuracy by something I’d read on Wikipedia or Google. The problem with both is that anyone can write anything they like, withouth the need for evidence, verification or citation from reliable or primary sources. Actual primary historical sources are almost always going to be more reliable then either of those sites.
I think that’s the problem with the digital age: we have so much information at our proverbial fingertips that its easy for anyone to become an expert in any subject, but we’re often not critical enough about that information. Searching for books, newspapers or historical records is a lot harder and more time-consuming then a Google search. Understanding, interpreting and analysing them takes a lot of work, and sometimes years of training.
When it comes to the smaller details of life or events inthe past though, which are not recorded since the people who were there probably knew about them and did not consider them relevant, then I think some degree of invention is permissable, even desirable. Within certain parameters though, as you suggest. For instance, having a character walking through a 14th century English forest spotting a bird or tree found in the Americas, or encountering a bear is going to be something that will jump out at me as inaccurate.
Conversely though, some writers have accused of insulting the reader’s intelligence by really over-simplfing historical events that were very complicated, or creating events and scenarios which were entirely improbable and inconsistent. Or maybe (my personal bugbear), relying too much to certain stereotypes in the characterization. I guess its hard to strike a balance.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Yes, we are certainly overloaded with information! Like you, I’m a great believer in invention – otherwise why not just write historical non-fiction? But I think the invention should be contained within the plausible and well-researched constraints of the real history. But there’s a fine balance – because as Carol says, nobody wants to be swamped by detail at the expense of the story.
We are lucky that there are so many contemporary documents around! I always try to go to original sources first, then, if I don’t find anything, use my imagination. Two additions: it can be very wearing when a writer has (rightly) done their research, but feels they HAVE to include it in the story. The art of looking as if it’s all flowed from some hidden source is paramount. Also, TV costume drama!!!!! Do They THINK? Victorian characters saying’OK’/knock yourself out. It’s careless writing like this that gives the wrong impression!!!
Hi Carol, thanks for stopping by. Yes, I hate the info-dump when a writer thinks they have to shoe-horn in their extensive research. I like the idea of the narrative looking like it’s flowing from a hidden source.
Fantastic post!
I agree that accuracy is one of the most tricky elements of historical writing. Getting everything right is just a dream. Reality is so complex that it’s very hard to recreate it in another time. Even more so when you are recreating the souls of the characters.
I agree that sometimes the ‘semblance of accuracy’ might be more important than actual accuracy, especially when actual accuracy cannot be achieved, for example because there is no evidence of what we need to know.
What can I say. The best we can do is to do our research, never stop researching and be honest storytellers.
Thanks for your comment. As you say, the complexity of a novel can be daunting!
Thank you very much for a very interesting post, and interesting comments. It is a pleasure to read a historical fiction that is well researched. If something that you know about, like the raccoon, appears, it makes you unsure of the relevant historical facts of the things you don’t know about.
I also agree with you Deborah, that it is important to look at the source. In some cases there might not be a definit correct interpretation on history. Especially, with the spelling of names, which is also different in different countries.
Really enjoying your set of articles.