How an author loses a historian

[Steerpike]

I shy away from pretty much anything set in Scotland, especially early modern Scotland. Done to death, raised from the dead, killed again. Also, early modern Scotland was not at all a romantic place; it was poor and desperate.

So I chose the one seemingly set in Italy, only to find it begins in Flanders. But that's fine. Bruges was the first city I studied in any detail (though that was 12thc).

Yes, Scotland has been done a lot. Might have been more novel in the early 60s, I don’t know.

 

[skip.knox]

Much blame for much can be laid at the door of Sir Walter Scott. Ayup.

 

[Ireth]

Scotland is overdone, you say... *sheepishly side-eyes Low Road*

 

[skip.knox]

It's more correct to say Scotland is overdone--for me. And I was just there this summer. You'd think I'd be all about it. I dunno. I've just always been very Continental. *snort*

It's a funny thing about tropes: it's not a trope if you're new to it. So there will always be readers of tales set in Scotland. Somewhere there's probably even someone tired of stories set in Luxembourg.

 

[Steerpike]

I liked Outlander, though I’m not putting any stock into the historical accuracy of that one. With the Lymond books, it’s more Dunnett’s writing. The story could be happening anywhere and it would be just as much fun.

 

[Mythopoet]

I think there has to be a balance. You can't expect people to have to become a full-time historian to write in ages past. So there are egregious mistakes, like referring to Scotland as Bretagne which makes no sense at all. And there are inaccuracies that are more understandable, like using a specific word earlier than it appeared in the written record, and should really be overlooked. If it's mistake that only professional historians and pedants would know about, 90% of the time it should be overlooked.

Also, I'm not sure what you're trying to say the mistake with the reliquaries was. The sentence is a bit confusingly worded. But as far as I know, reliquaries vary in size and shape on an individual basis.

That said, I have a love hate relationship with historical fantasy. There's historical fantasy for which the premise seems to be "I really love this historical period and find it fascinating and would love to explore what it would be like with these fantasy elements" and I think that's great. And then there seems to be "fantasy isn't really my thing, I want to write in this time period instead, but I don't want to do research and if I slip a few fantasy elements in people can't complain". Which annoys me because it is both only quasi-historical and quasi-fantasy.

 

[skip.knox]

The reliquary thing: the words make it sound like it is large. Dropped the reliquary into his arms, and I blink. Placed it in his hand, and I'd be happy.

I can overlook this. I can overlook that. But when the mistakes pile up, at too fast a rate, then I'm out because the author has lost my trust. If I cannot rely on the author to get basic facts right, then I do not trust them to deliver on character or plot. It's possible, of course, for an author to write a crackerjack story filled with errors. But that ain't the way to bet.

Also, note I said how to lose a historian, not how to lose every reader. As I noted in the OP, the reviews are full of praise for the author's historical accuracy.

 

[Gurkhal]

Good thread. Given my own wish to one day write historical fiction I'd think I'll ask a few questions here regarding keeping the informed reader on the page.

if I was to write set stories set in, say, ancient Elis in Greece and in these stories I included elements and characters that don't have any proof but don't run counter to what is known about ancient Elis, would that be ok if these were kept so as to keep my stories about Elis internally consistent? Like a clan which comes up in several stories, fictional scandals in the Olympic Games, a fictional sanctuary outside of the city, a locally famed seer that I made up etc. Effectively building "Gurkhal's Ancient Greece" and keep that between stories, as long as nothing runs counter to what is known historically and archeologically about ancient Elis.

And if I did this, would a forward where I clearly state that there are fictional elements in the story and setting and likewise state that I make no claim to be a real Classicist or Historian make any difference, for good or ill?

 

[skip.knox]

All things can be made to work, just as any great idea can be fumbled. Be brave. Go forward.

Scandals around the Olympics? Unheard of! Scandalous! *snort*

Mary Renault most of all.
David Gemmell
Peter Green
Robert Graves
Steven Pressfield
but Renault, most of all

You'll note that most of these are centered on or around famous characters. I rather like that you intend to go to parts less often visited.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

Actual Medieval Person: "What's taters, precious? What's taters, eh?"
Me: "Po-ta-toes, boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew."

People really do not understand the Columbian Exchange! drives me crazy

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I think my version of this is that i tend to have a really hard time taking a lot of fight scenes seriously after getting involved in martial arts. People who are just imagining sometimes say things that don't make much sense.

even if you don't learn a lot of technique i think its a good idea for a writer to get involved in like kickboxing or something so they can grasp a little of things like what it's like to be punched in the head. (Books never do justice to how disorienting a fist to the face is. or how EXHAUSTING just a few minutes of intense fighting is when you're not super super conditioned to it.)

 

[skip.knox]

I'm sixty-seven, DotA. I'll give that a pass.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I'm sixty-seven, DotA. I'll give that a pass.

Lol. I suppose i will just have to cope.

 

[Gurkhal]

All things can be made to work, just as any great idea can be fumbled. Be brave. Go forward.

Scandals around the Olympics? Unheard of! Scandalous! *snort*

Mary Renault most of all.
David Gemmell
Peter Green
Robert Graves
Steven Pressfield
but Renault, most of all

You'll note that most of these are centered on or around famous characters. I rather like that you intend to go to parts less often visited.

True that all stories can succed or fail on execution. Wasn't thinking about it, just if some things would instantly put off readers or not.

And yeah, all good authors worth to check up.

And I agree about parts less visited. Personally I've had enough of reading and hearing about Athens and Sparta. If you're willing to pay the buck, or wait some for a distance loan by your library, then there's lots of stuff writen for other places in Greece beyond Athens and Sparta. Places that a hundred novels haven't already been published about and where you can, at least I hope, to get out from the shadows of giants to walk in the sunlight for a while.

 

[FifthView]

And if I did this, would a forward where I clearly state that there are fictional elements in the story and setting and likewise state that I make no claim to be a real Classicist or Historian make any difference, for good or ill?

Ah, I wouldn't do this. Not great to begin with "I suck, so..." heh.

In the first case, for any who would know the difference, you won't have to state this. They'll know.

For the rest of us, who have a very sketchy relationship to historical fact, you wouldn't want to spoil the illusion.

 

[Agam Ridelle]

I don't know about the 12 seconds internet search. Before I despaired of researching for accuracy in my books, I used to research a lot. I would read articles online.

But you know what? A LOT of the information online isn't accurate.

So I turned to books. But you know what? A LOT of books also have inaccurate information.

So I gave up and started inventing my own worlds. But you know what? It turns out that even in fantasy there are expectations for accuracy. One needs to world in a period of time that makes sense to readers. It needs to be familiar in a way, otherwise one can't use the English language (or any other language, for that matter) to communicate an image to the reader.

For example...toilets. There are many synonyms. If I go to the thesaurus for inspiration, I get lavatory, head, lu, latrine, chamber pot... each location in our contemporary world has a word for this daily life occurrence. It's period of time has a word for it. If I use the word "toilet" readers will think this is a contemporary world. If in the next paragraph I use the word "whalebone", it will take readers into a historical time. And then if I add "Ayes" and "Nays" that will also have a significance. And then if I put in names of people like "Blake, Drake, Donna" in locations called "Norte Guarte, Swehally, Norhamridge"... And then I say, hey, that's my fantasy world. Maybe it even has some aliens in it, too. But it's my world.

I'm not an expert on anything, but I always try my best to do the research. Sometimes I get it right. Sometimes I don't. I haven't published anything yet, but I've been working with a hoard of editors. They don't catch everything. Betas don't catch everything. I certainly don't catch everything.

Seems to me like catch 22.

My 2 cents on this.

PS - My world isn't that messy as the example above, but I did get stuck for a few hours yesterday on choosing the right word for toilet.

 

[skip.knox]

Accuracy is overrated. No matter what you do, you will alienate someone. If I'm 100% accurate about the 12th century, some readers will claim I'm wrong because they have stereotyped understandings of the Middle Ages. If a book has friars running around in that century, medieval historians will say it's wrong because there were no friars before Innocent III constituted them as an order in 1215.

But note the distinction I made before. If you position your book as fantasy, then I'm going to suspend my disbelief about all sorts of things. But if you position your book as being historical, then it had better deliver. You're inviting me to pick nits in exactly the same way a SF book that is presented as hard SF is inviting the reader to pick nits. It's making a promise. The author is saying I've done my research. You can rely on me. Then, if error after error appears (the occasional stray isn't important), you start to lose reader trust and eventually you just plain lose readers.

It's not a catch 22--in Heller's formula, you can't win, but we know books are successful all the time. If the story is good enough, we can still do the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs.

 

[Devor]

If the story is good enough, we can still do the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs.

So, we all know the Kessel Run thing has been explained by now, right?

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

In some cases people start complaining about inaccuracy when you're being 100% accurate. Like if you set a story in Europe before like 1800 and there's a non-white character? Or have women figure prominently into stories set in certain time periods/stories? Yikes. SK touched on this above, but some people have preconceived ideas about how the past was that people view as more realistic than reality.

 

[Agam Ridelle]

Accuracy is overrated. No matter what you do, you will alienate someone. If I'm 100% accurate about the 12th century, some readers will claim I'm wrong because they have stereotyped understandings of the Middle Ages. If a book has friars running around in that century, medieval historians will say it's wrong because there were no friars before Innocent III constituted them as an order in 1215.

But note the distinction I made before. If you position your book as fantasy, then I'm going to suspend my disbelief about all sorts of things. But if you position your book as being historical, then it had better deliver. You're inviting me to pick nits in exactly the same way a SF book that is presented as hard SF is inviting the reader to pick nits. It's making a promise. The author is saying I've done my research. You can rely on me. Then, if error after error appears (the occasional stray isn't important), you start to lose reader trust and eventually you just plain lose readers.

It's not a catch 22--in Heller's formula, you can't win, but we know books are successful all the time. If the story is good enough, we can still do the Kessel Run in twelve parsecs.

Kessel Run?

Still sounds like catch 22 to me. But that's life, I suppose - can't please everyone.