This is an exploration not an answer. Throughout the writing of my novel (1993-2009), Morkan’s Quarry, I had the privilege of assisting a lot of historians of the south and of the Ozarks. When, through their own sleuthing or their own kindness, they discovered I was writing a novel set in the past, these historians (and countless others!) reacted in a way that made me wonder. Why is it that so many historians dismiss or worse detest fiction, and yet so many fiction writers revere the work of good historians, especially local historians. Time for a project! Why not a blog?
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Fiction and History 
6 responses to “Fiction and history”
Hi Steven
As a confirmed cynic, my take on it is that history is written by individuals who each put their own interpretations on what evidence they have. So unless you have a physical artifact which backs up the evidence and can be scientifically proven for the period, all history is simply a matter of opinion.
That’s why historians hate novelists so much. Because we’re just as much entitled to an opinion as they are. And why bother doing all the research yourself when they’ve already done it for you!
Cheers,
Jonathan
http://www.cavalrytales.co.uk
Jonathan:
Your comment reminds me of a favorite of mine from Napoleon Bonaparte. He wrote it in a gem of a book called The Corsican, which I can only find on Alibris.
The man who sold us Yanks Louisiana, thank goodness, and several other less colorful bits of territory, said:
“History is a lie agreed upon.”
Of course the best of The Corsican is like a bombastic, written painting from David, and the Emperor’s angst about Josephine and her activities while he was on campaign in Italy is palpably yearning.
Thanks for starting us out on this exploration!
Said a lot of sensible things, did Napoleon. But he dreamt of a European super-state, like we’ve almost got now, so some of his ideas were anathema.
It’s funny you should mention Napoleon and Josephine. Now, I would write him as a sexist whose only use for women was to provide him with gratification and children, not necessarily in that order. And to keep them sweet he wrote regular long, romantic letters; never omitting mentions of his latest military triumphs.
That’s my opinion, anyway!!
Yes, Jonathan. Napoleon, too, might have been fibbing! One of those quirks about extant sources: He who wrote the report may be covering his backside or waxing for promotion, not to mention good old glory!
You’ve got me thinking now (always a worrying thing to do!).
The problem I have with most ‘factual’ histories is that the writer rarely looks for a reason behind an individual’s behaviour. What was his mind set? What drove him to do as he did?
I’ve used a French historical character, General Louis-Henri Loison, who was responsible for a massacre of civilians in Portugal in 1808. But why? Was he a).simply a nasty b*st*rd or did b). some circumstance affect him to the degree that any shred of humanity he might have had was lost?
Of course no one can be sure, but every scrap of information I’ve so far found about him supports the former view.
Doesn’t seem fair to me.
Jonathan
http://www.cavalrytales.co.uk
Jonathan:
Sorry to be slow on the uptic. Your comment, for some odd reason, got caught in wordpress’s spam filter!
“the writer rarely looks for a reason behind an individual’s behaviour. What was his mind set? What drove him to do as he did?”
That is the real hard stuff, and probably a major reason why we write fiction, digging at that lode.
Your character, and maybe the Iberian setting, made me wonder if you had seen that 2006 film Goya’s Ghosts. It probes at this question, and is constructed quite beautifully with a sort of Chekhov/Joseph Roth ending.
More at IMDb.
Cheers,
SY