Remember when they used to call genre of Heinlein and Asimov science fiction?Some clever person came up with the idea sometime in the 60s or 70s to start calling it speculative fiction. This new designation was more accurate, after all, and what's more, it allowed for inclusion of some other genres with similar if not identical fans. What we called science fiction was not just about science. It was the "what if?" genre. What if humans could travel at speeds over the speed of light? What if we could travel through time? What if there was a society made up of magically powered princes who rode winged dragons/ That sort of thing.
You may, if you read me regularly, recall when I shared the comments of a woman who accused historical fiction of being misleading and downright wrong. She insisted that people read historical novels and come away with inaccurate ideas of what historical people were like, what they thought, and what they felt. My own reaction was something like,
A. Most historical novelists really try hard to research their eras and the events and people they portray, and
B. So what if they don't? It's a novel, not a textbook, for crying out loud.
That second of course sparked a furious flurry of "well I would never!" and "how could you?" and "lighten up, will you?" on the discussion lists and blogs. Oody woody hadda iddy biddy chip on our shoulders about not being historians, I think. In my conversations with actual historical novelists, I run into the "An it not be totally absurd, do as ye will". No potatoes for Pontius Pilate. That sort of thing. The story is what it it's all about.
So, to get to my point at long last, it occurs to me that historical fiction is also speculative fiction. I thought about this when reading the author's note in one of Sharon Kay Peman's novels. She said she tried to get it right, but if she wasn't spot on perhaps it did not really matter so much. She put it a l ot better than that, but just trust me. I agreed with her. She expressed something along the line that we can only guess what the people who lived through the events we write about thought or said or felt about them. We might have a hint in letters they wrote, but that's pretty rare. So what we do as historical novelists is speculate. We know, for instance, that Harold Godwinson hightailed it to Stamford Bridge where he fought, among others, his own brother Tostig. Then he had to turn around and dash south to be conquered by Normans. We know this. But how do we know how he felt when his kid brother lay dead near the bridge? And did he think about Edith Swanneck as he rode to his death? Was there a point when he thought, "Oh my God, we are going to lose this one?" Did one of his friends see the arrow pierce his eye and think, "No! Not Harold!"
That's all speculation, and it's our job to fill in those unknowns, the words that should appear in the word ballons. We try to do it carefully, ethically. We love these people we write about, and we want you all to come to know and love them too. So we will do all we can to make them real, make them accurate, but also make them feel like someone you could know.
Over and over I hear how someone became interested in history itself by reading historical fiction. In an essay I posted some weeks ago written by a teacher, she recounted how a young girl having read a fairly romantic portrayal of Pocahontas asked herself what the woman would probably have really been like. What would she have made of England when she went there? Did she ever miss her native shore? What really happened between her and John Smith? This same little girl started hitting the history books. If she keeps at it, makes primary research her career or even j ust her avocation, who knows what she might discover?
To the woman who told me historical novels were lies, all I can say is that it is one of the wonderful aspects of humans that we have imaginations and that we speculate about "what if"? It's that instiinct that also makes us wonder, "How would that person feel if.." and breeds what we calll humanity.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Historical Fiction is Speculative Fiction
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your take on the fiction part of historical fiction, and that it gives the writer license to speculate as to the inner feelings of the point of view character and speculating on undocumented events. However, if the writer insists on slapping on a modifier such as historical (or science) before the fiction category, then I think the documented bits should remain as true to the known data as possible. Therefore, I don't think that just because it's fiction, one has license to change the outcome of a trial or when and how a person died, for example. If the author does that, then the story becomes speculative, or fantasy, or just plain fiction, but not historical fiction.
ReplyDeleteEven with science fiction, where the old hard core writers like Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clark speculated on possibilities, they still stayed within the bounds of known science, only stretching the points where scientists concede they don't know what the potentials are. The scifi writers didn't create mass or energy, thus violating the laws of conservation, but they did speculate about going faster than the speed of light--after all, sound was the original speed barrier, broken not that long ago. Presently, we don't know how to get even close to to speed of light, let alone exceed it, but that doesn't yet mean it can't be done. Many writers (or perhaps their editors) that strayed from the science part of scifi reclassified their stories to be fantasy or paranormal or horror, for example.
So, while I agree that writers shouldn't be constrained to stick with history or science for the sake of a good story, I do think they should be cautious about using the historical or science modifier on the fiction label. I have found great satisfaction in sticking with the known facts and creating a story based on these facts. For me, the result was far better than if I had "made up" the outcome.
The key word to Historical Fiction is - da da - Fiction.
ReplyDeleteFiction is a story. It is made up. It is not real. The primary function of fiction is to entertain. Not to educate. To "entertain".
However, readers of historical fiction do expect the facts to be presented as facts and not distorted: Harold Godwineson died at the Battle of Hastings (by the way, not by an arrow in the eye - he was hacked to pieces by William the Bastard's men) To write a story where he survives the battle and William dies would be Historical Fantasy.
As it happens I write in both genres. I have my historical fiction where I research to the best of my ability and fill in the "facts" with imagination. Then I have my pirate-based adventure fantasy Sea Witch Series, which includes historical facts as a base to the plot, but I do not always _keep_ to the facts. I change a few dates, have made Swa Witch, the ship herself, more like a ship built several years later than her date. But I play fair and mention these tweaks of "poetic licence" in my author's note.
For my historical fiction Pendragons Banner Trilogy - how can it be serious historical fiction? We don't know for certasin that King Arthur actually existed! There is no magic or fantasy in my Arthur books. No Merlin, Lancelot, Holy Grail or Knights of the Round Table: which are all fantasy stories as these events and people never existed. IF Arthur had been real he would have lived circa 450-550 AD, at the end of Roman Britain, not in Medieval times when knights wore armour and dashed off on Crusade. So those beloved tales are all made up fantasy - fiction.
I describe my historical fiction novels as "what _might_ have really happened."
Note the emphasis on the word "might".
Thanks y'all and to whoever posts after...
ReplyDeleteWay back when I was an English literature grad student, yes, they did have English that long ago, I came to the conclusion that literature is a more humane way to look into the human heart and mind than, say, a "science" like psychology Perhaps "humane" is not the word I want, but rather "less clinical'. Fiction is entertainment, yes, but it as much a means by which we reflect on our own and others' thoughts, feelings, and motivations. Even so-called soap operas show people facing crises and making choices. Each viewer can consider how a character chooses to respond and assess its value for herself.
The same goes for historical fiction. It presents people in a different time than our own, acknowledges that as the old saw goes, times change but people don't, and speculates how and why different people did what they did.
Just think about Henry VIII. How many novels have you read about why he had such terrible relationships with his wives? The facts simply cannot tell us. He could have been a greedy SOB. He could have been too trusting and genuinely felt betrayed. He could have been tricked. How can we get into his head to know? We can't. So different authors speculate different reasons, and the good ones can be convincing.
Nan
P.S. Don't you all just love my clever graphics?
ReplyDeleteGreat post, Nan. There is a whole class of historical fiction writers, and fans I guess, who claim to be carrying some kind of torch for The Truth. You hit the nail on the head about an inferiority complex there.
ReplyDeleteLike you, I've tried hard to make my Lewis & Clark books accurate, but the whole point of writing them is to entertain the reader with an exciting and emotionally satisfying story. Most readers seem to be thrilled if they can find a writer who shares the passion and thrill of history via fiction; not sure why there are a few out there who want to beat the life out of it.
Isn't all fiction, by definition, a lie? Then why sweat it? Even totally awesome NON-fiction books like "The Fighting Kings of Wessex" by Baker devolve in too many cases into speculation and supposition. But normally if there is a dispute, he meets it head on. Anybody who has ever sat in bail court at 7AM will see the line between fact and fiction blurring in a pretty definite fashion.
ReplyDeleteI personally regard the only sin involving "historical" fiction is the placing of modern 21st century ideas, concepts and styles into historical context out of sheer laziness. If you have a political point to make, that would be cool, so long as that is conveyed to the reader. Otherwise one might be justified in wondering why Richard the Lionheart and Philip created a rainbow flag to signal their respect for each other.
The "300" was a total fiction, except that of course, the attitudes and prowess of the individuals was bang on. Would that movie be "historical fiction" because it hit all the right notes but maybe missed out on some costume details, or would it be fiction because it probably really didn't happen that way at all?
Just a comment...not meant to be a troll....