So...I’m
a fiction writer, but I also
wrote a book called History
and Fiction. A
lot of this blogpost
comes from the research I did for that. If
you want ‘aha’ moments for when I borrow from myself, History and Fiction
is the book to call up. The
rest comes from more recent research. My new
study of writers and writing is called
Story
Matrices. 
First,
my background. I am an ethnohistorian as
well as a
fiction writer. For
History
and Fiction
I
analysed novels using
my background in historiography,
but I also
interviewed
writers. Writers are wonderful people to ask probing questions of. I
have 80,000 words of answers to prove this.
What
was I researching? Different types of novelists hold different types
of conversations with
history.
Also,
most novelists
hold
different types of conversations with
history to
historians. Today I’ll focus
on
speculative fiction, with a lot
of
the Middle Ages, because
I was, am, and always will be, a Medieval historian.
When
I talk with writers about history, writers
reply
intimately, personally.
Their
answers give us amazing insights into how they work and think. The
personal is
the
passion of
the history in our fiction.
These emotions are important for
successful writers:
many writers I’ve spoken to who don’t carry that emotion move
onto other things or
leave historical writing behind.
This
passion is
not a question of ability
or of
writing skills, because those
writers who
moved on had
short stories published and some
have written
novels not besotted
with
history.
All
the writers who had this passion for history, however, have had
successful careers as writers of historical fiction, fantasy, time
travel, young adult fiction, period mystery and
more.
I
suspect that the passion for history carries emotion into the novel
and helps connect with readers.
Quite
simply, any novel where the writer is at a distance from their
subject is going to carry a different emotional burden from
the same type of novel written by someone who cares.
Before
I go any further, I need to define the past and history. I would like
us to be on the same page, rather than me on a page of vellum and you
on a computer screen. It’s possible to communicate across vellum
and a screen but it’s much easier if we use
the same words. The
past and history, those
words, shift in
definition so much that I’m going to choose one among many
possibilities.
The
past,
then, here
and now, is
the temporal opposite to the future. The events in the past are gone.
They are out of reach. They cannot be reconstructed
in the exact shape they occurred. They cannot
be revived. They are
not a narrative. History
is all narrative. It draws on evidence
of the past and it
interprets the past.
Story is essential to it and fiction writers are some of the creators
of this story. When
we think about anything historical, we are thinking about the
history, not the past.
Mediated narrative. Story. The word ‘historia’ in fact, is the
Latin word for story, and that’s no coincidence.
History
in fiction is part of the world building and it’s
essential to
the story. I used this satirically in my
own novel Poison and Light, where I had
my planetary inhabitants re-invent the 18th
century. They weren’t living in the past. They were living in their
stories about the past.
Not everyone told the
same story. One character wants
power, for example. Another wants
the French Revolution.
One
of the most perfect examples of where
the history is integral both to the world building and to the story
is when Connie Willis pays homage to
a work by Jerome K Jerome in
To Say Nothing of the Dog.
The
novel is
a delightful frivol in our imagined England and it holds together
because of the way Willis depicts that imagined England using
stuff many readers already recognise.
The Thames of the story is
not
in
a
real place or time.
To
Say Nothing of the Dog is a near-perfect demonstration of the fact that our
invented worlds rest on what we know of history, how we see history,
what games we want to play with history. When we write using a known
bit of history, for
instance, a
new tale about Richard and the Princes in the Tower, we validate
that. When we invent something that argues against common historical
constructs, that’s different. We
pull our
opinions about history into
story.
How
novelists do this through using history is by bringing readers into a
narrative based on an invented world that rests upon their own
interpretation of history. This is partly the role of story, taking
readers with it on a journey. A
novel that doesn’t bring readers into its journey is very hard to
read.
When
a novelist chooses something familiar to readers, as Michael
Crichton’s Timeline
does with its sort-of-heroic Middle Ages, that validates the approach
to the story and also expands the cultural validity of the historical
constructs. Crichton’s book pushed more people into a particular
Middle Ages, where a modern hobbyist could hold his own against
professional fighters. Timeline
still has so many fans, and to the best of my knowledge, not a single
one of those fans are Medieval historians. In fact, because novels
validate cultural constructs, unless those constructs are the same as
the ones valued by historians, historians are likely to dislike them.
Timeline
is a wonderful example of this. So,
also, is The
Doomsday Book. What
works for popular fiction can fail historians.
I
was saying this, as
is my wont,
and Van Ikin (an
Australian literary critic and academic) challenged
me to prove it. I wrote my own Medieval history time
travel
novel,
Langue[dot]doc
1305.
When it was
released,
I watched my Medieval circles closely. I am still welcome in those
circles, so
my
novel validated
the way Medieval Studies people see the Middle Ages…
but my novel will never sell
well,
because it doesn’t validate the constructs the
wider public
normally associates
with the Middle Ages.
History
in fiction is not about accuracy. It’s about meeting the needs of
the novel and the expectations of readers. You can see how this works
for yourselves if you
read Timeline and compare
it with Langue[dot]doc
1305. There are
writers who are clever enough in both worlds to cross that divide.
For the fantasy Middle Ages, the gold standard for
this is Judith Tarr.
Fiction
is way more important than we like to admit. It supports culture, it
transmits culture and it changes culture. It helps us translate our
own experience into words and constructs that help us move through
our lives, and to interpret what’s going on. George RR Martin is a
useful testing ground for this. Game of Thrones both validates people
who want to break down rule of law, and allows others to appreciate
the role of law in maintaining a stable society. Why did
I bring up Westeros? Because that dual view of a lawful and a broken
society that Martin shares is part
of US
culture. We’ve
seen it playing out. Stories
matter.
Stories
help us interpret the past, and they underpin our own understanding
of the world we live in. We
use them to discover truth and to place ourselves in a cultural
context, and more. And, for the record, religious stories also
fill this function.
Never dismiss the importance of religion in
giving cultural validation. The fact that we live in largely
Christian societies
means that the ‘neutral’ position for novels is not actually
neutral at all. It validates our
Christianity-based
societies.
In Muslim countries, the neutral setting is Islam.
Tolkien’s
cauldron of story is handy for understanding this. You
can find it in his essay On
Fairy Stories.
People like me are the
chemists who work out what element does which, but most writers and
readers are looking for flavour and texture, a good solid meal, or a
fine snack.
We
don’t talk enough
about what goes into
that cauldron. History is not just one ingredient in the cauldron,
but many. Think of
cooking as an interpretative act. Choose ingredients, some fresh,
some from the back of the cupboard. Choose how to chop them, how to
cook them, how long to cook them, and everything else right to the
moment the food is on the table in front of us, the consumers. That’s
what writers do.
Let’s
look at what a couple of writers interpret
what they do with
history,
from
my interviews.
Chaz
Brenchley explained
“meeting
Tolkien had ruined my writing life: I'd always wanted to write
fantasy, but I spent my teenage writing bad Tolkien and then swore
one of those great adolescent oaths that I would write no more
fantasy until I had an original idea. Twenty years later, the postman
delivered it, in the form of a brochure advertising a reprint of
Stephen Runciman's history of the Crusades. People in exile from
their own culture, at war on all their borders, at war between
themselves, magic and mysticism and myth all around them”.
Brenchley’s
Outremer series was
triggered by a
specific emotional reaction to a particular moment in history.
Australian
writer Dave Luckett was
more pragmatic. He said, ‘the
setting is a marker for a recognisable genre, and that in turn allows
me to work with a set of conventions and reader expectations’.
Except that Dave
already had the emotional links and the knowledge from an
undergraduate degree in Medieval Studies.
Most
writers who use the Middle Ages in speculative fiction use it
for
craft reasons, with intellectual background added judiciously.
Their work is read by the historians I mix with because mostly, it’s
not seen as the Middle Ages. It’s
seen as fantasy. Most
historical fiction writers use reasons closer to those of historians
to
explain their writing and
the
way they
research novels is somewhat
closer to the
way
historians research.
Kate
Forsyth is a good example of this. This
makes it harder for historians to read, because we can’t say to
ourselves “It’s intended to be fantasy. It can't possibly be
real.”
Franco-Australian
fantasy author Sophie Masson says
‘I love the Middle Ages because they’re so full of fantastic
stories, and peopled with such amazing and individualistic
characters. I love the contrasts of the Middle Ages –the frankness,
humour, passion, beauty and earthiness combined with spirituality,
violence, craziness and chaos.’
Sophie’s
statement is the most typical one of professional writers, and
reflects what Chaz said. The writer’s relationship with the subject
of the novel matters to both writer and reader.
The
history of historians is a complex dynamic, a discourse, a set of
never-ending conversations. History for historians is an
interpretative bridge and history for novelists is whatever we need
to make the story work, whether it’s drawn from the history of
historians or if it’s invented because sources are hard to find and
time is short.
There
are some important things that writers have to take into account when
bringing history into their fiction.
First,
M. K. Tod’s 2018 Historical Fiction Survey
https://awriterofhistory.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/2018-reader-survey-report.pdf
made it very clear that readers choose history in their fiction by
subject matter and genre. Fantasy and science fiction readers mostly
don’t
want historical fiction – they want books that confirm to their
ideas of subject and are
fantasy or science fiction.
The historian's Middle Ages is way less important for most readers,
then,
than what novels
tell us
about the Middle Ages. This is another
of the reasons that Willis is a best seller for The
Doomsday Book
and I never
was for
Langue[dot]doc
1305.
I don’t meet wider
reader
expectations, and I can’t because I addressed
the expectations of Medievalists in my novel. It’s not the past
novelists bring to life, it’s what we tell ourselves ought
to be
the past.
How
we tell the stories is also important.
Every
novel has a built world. Where we don’t consciously and carefully
construct
our world, we draw on things
we already know, or think we know. We
introduce elements
of diaculture, shared cultural knowledge that we think the readers
will enjoy or
that will help our story along.
Even
when we write history into our fiction with
great care,
the history is often
going
to be subsumed by the other things we bring into our
built world, ranging
from tropes,
stereotypes, popular assumptions, to
stuff from our lived experience. This is one reason why Medieval
fantasy novels used to contain so much stew. It’s
why some novels set in London contain much rain. Dan Abnett’s
Triumff
does,
and so does the opening of my own
The
Green Children Help Out.
In both cases, it’s a way of showing place that’s part of the way
readers expect
see
the place.
Where
a trope, stereotype, popular assumption or lived experience is easy
to hand, it can replace what we know historically
about a place or time.
For example, 17th
century Jewish life
is mostly missing from Naomi Novik’s Spinning
Silver: she uses her own understanding to create the story.
What
we ourselves have lived through, from what we eat and what we learn,
to how we walk down the street, what
we dream of, what we complain about, what we remember, these
create
our personal historical experience.
Only
a tiny, tiny number of people in the world share most
of our
personal experiences.
Unless
we research it and
question it, however,
the world view we carry
every day developed
through these experiences is
the world view we carry into our fiction. This is why so many novels
in English have a Christian underpinning to their world view even
when they’re written by atheists.
To
make it worse, not all Christianity is the same. The
current kerfuffle about whether Tolkien created a Christian world or
not changes in
nature according to
whether you’re looking at the
built world in
his fiction, or his
private life. There is overlap. There is always overlap. Our
personal experience of history is
a deep part of our culture. So many US friends of mine identify
major events by what they were doing at the time of that major event.
These remembered moments are very handy for fiction writers, because
they give moments of shared understanding that help the novel along.
This element of US
culture reaches into novels written outside the US.
One
of the best examples in
English literature of a
writer demonstrating how experience translates into history is, of
course in Octavia
Butler’s Kindred.
That book is brilliant.
A contrasting one is
Franz Kafka’s The
Castle. They both
articulate horrendous everyday experiences and translate them into
fiction using history. Readers get entirely different messages from
the work of both writers, depending on how they themselves can
translate historical knowledge and lived experience into the world of
the story. For some readers, the history isn’t visible in Kafka.
Others describe it as the Jewish Narnia. For still others, it is
fable-like
and unreal.
There
is no single correct interpretation. Experience translated into
fiction is about relationships between the writer and their writing,
between the writing and the reader.
What
we think we know about the past, what we share with other people, is
a big source of emotion in fiction... and of bias. That
bias can become the story.
Kim Stanley Robinson’s Galileo's
Dream paints
Galileo as
the Great Man in a Great Moment, that is so much part of what
most people think history is.
It’s the application
of a particular
cultural interpretation to history.
Without Robin Hood and Arthur
and Troy as wishes
for what history
contained,
our novels would be much poorer. More historically accurate, but not
nearly as much fun. If
you want a fun comparison of different cultural
interpretations and
their effect on the history in a novel, compare the Regency novels of
Georgette Heyer with Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe series.
What
is most important for any approach to history in fiction,
however,
is credibility: a reader’s capacity to trust the story triumphs.
Connie Willis’ ‘facts’ in The
Doomsday Book are
actually tidbits
that enable the reader to trust that the history is credible, because
many readers believe
that history is full of facts, because, to be honest, school history
is full of facts. Verisimilitude is another thing that can
convey credibility: this thing is depicted in a way that is
real-seeming to the reader. Claire G Coleman creates a science fictional future in Terra
Nullius and draws
her verisimilitude from Australian
history. Both
facts and verisimilitude rest very heavily on the reader’s
background, rather than on the history of a place or time.
All
novelists make decisions relating to their work. We’ve talked about
some of them, but let me add
two more.
“Do
I reinforce the reality of the past, through using
writing
techniques that help the reader situate themselves in the time of the
novel?” The choices in
writing techniques
usually relate to the genre of the novel, because so much of the
marketing is done through genre. The genre signals push the reader
just as choosing a genre pushes the writer into how probable their
history has to be, how much telling detail they need, and how to make
the story credible. Language,
clothes, mapping a submarine in Peter
Dickinson’s
Emma
Tupper’s Diary,
period illustrations in Jack Finney’s Time
and Again
– there are many techniques. Harry
Turtledove uses telling detail spectacularly in the opening of The
Guns of the South
and Joan Aiken fills her fiction with grime and doom to bring her
readers into her version of the Industrial Revolution.
Credibility
is critical. If a reader can’t see the story as possible, then they
don’t accept the story. Credibility is, however, a
shifty thing. Historical
fiction
requires
a sense of ‘this history is real’ so
the writer needs a closer acquaintance with the history of
historians. Every
single writer in the History Girls (except maybe me) is an excellent
example as this.
The
more formulaic a genre is – and here I’m thinking of quest
adventures, romance, and mystery – the more historical detail
shores up the formula rather than working independently of it. The
ultimate formulaic
sub-genres in this
respect are those that are
represented by Dan
Brown’s The Da
Vinci Code and much fantasy that claims a Medieval backdrop.
The
bottom line is that novels are not one-size-fits-all and that history
in novels reflect the nature
of a given novel.
All
novels are interpretive
acts, and that the nature of the interpretation
rests on the nature of the act. The
form of the story, the content, and even the writing style affect how
history is depicted.
This
is an
edited
and
abbreviated version
of a
talk I gave at
Balticon,
in
May
2022. If
you’d like the complete version,
ask
here: https://gillianpolack.com/contact-me/