It’s quite likely when you read a work of fiction that the words have been inspired by some true event – whether historical or more recent. In an interview with the BBC last month, crime writer David Baldacci spoke about why he writes inaccuracies in to his fiction. ‘As a fiction writer,’ he said,’ I take very seriously my responsibility of not providing a blue-print for a psychopath.’
Historical fiction in particular is an ever-popular genre, as the excitement surrounding the upcoming release of Dan Brown’s new book Inferno, based on Dante’s classic, demonstrates. For many people, whether they read books or watch television shows like The Tudors, historical fiction can be an accessible introduction to challenging subjects from the past, acting as a catalyst for further interest. Does this then give authors a responsibility to be accurate when they borrow from history, just like Baldacci believes crime writers have a responsibility when they borrow from real-life crime?
It can be argued that, as authors are getting inspiration (and quite often whole stories) from history, they owe it to their readers to stay as close to real-life events as possible. This is especially true when authors are using recognisable characters, as Philippa Gregory does with Henry VIII and many other Tudor figures.
Speaking from experience, I found that reading Robert Harris’s Fatherland before my history A levels was a mistake! The relationship between the true characters and dates, and the fictional ones, was often close enough to cause confusion – I am sure that I would have embarrassed myself if I hadn’t double-checked my facts before the exam. It just shows how easy it is to fall in to the trap of interpreting artistic licence as fact.
Can we generalise and say that people who read or watch historical fiction want to be entertained, not educated? If readers wanted accuracy alone, they could study a textbook. But surely a good writer should be able to both educate and entertain? Being accurate, whilst not bogging the reader down in details, is a clear way of making history more exciting for non-scholars. This month, an article by James Burge looks at this dilemma in historical fiction, focusing on Dante and Dan Brown. In it, he discusses the classic historical novelist’s quandary: 'for credibility he or she needs to maintain a feeling of historical accuracy; but, to hold the audience and maintain the pace, the author is tempted to bend the facts.'
Dan Brown is a master of blending fiction with a smattering of facts to add credibility to his narrative, however Brown ultimately sees his work as fiction based on fact as he explained in an interview: ‘I am not the first person to tell the story of Mary Magdalene and the Grail, I am one in a long line of people who has offered up this alternative history. The Da Vinci code describes history as I have come to understand it through many years of travel, research, reading, interviews, exploration …’
The success of programmes like Mad Men show that details do matter, and that authenticity is important to audiences. Indeed, many of the accolades bestowed upon Mad Men focus on the realism of the sets and clothes. Mad Men’s costume designer Janie Bryant emphasises the importance they placed on the small details: ‘The period look is all about the foundations, all the actresses wear the girdles, they wear their bullet bras with their tips and padding and stockings and everything.’ (USA Today, 2007)
Whilst Bryant is focusing solely on the costumes here, the idea of realistic foundations, which then allow experimentation, is integral to the success of historical fiction as a whole. Facts clearly add credibility and weight to a story, and root it more firmly in a time or place for the enjoyment of the reader or viewer. However, an issue still remains: can the recording of history itself ever truly be accurate? Napoleon claimed that ‘history is a set of lies agreed upon’, and anyone who has studied history knows how difficult it can be to sift through the facts to get closer to the elusive ‘truth’. Does historical fiction merely serve to further muddy the waters of the historical record?
History is about sharing the stories of people and communities, and readers are interested in historical fiction looking at all walks of life, and those stories work best when a modern reader can make a connection to a character from the past. People are inherently curious and, as you can see from the diverse selection of our readers’ fantasy dinner party guests, we are all interested in getting to the heart of a story; we want to find out more about historical figures and their lives.
Inevitably, this insatiable curiosity about history and its giants has led to people writing stories that seek to add flesh to the bones of the historical record. Ideally these stories will be firmly rooted in fact, and will ensure that they spin a good yarn without deviating too far from the historical record.
For me, historical fiction is more enjoyable when it is both education and entertainment: authenticity within the narrative allows a story to be credible without sacrificing entertainment value- surely the best of both worlds?
Is the flow of a story or historical accuracy more important to you?
Further reading:
* Historical Novels- Over 5000 Historical Novels Listed by Time and Place
* Why history matters...
* How the Da Vinci Code doesn't work
* An interview with Dan Brown about his research methods