[mansel jones]

Does anyone have a view about how historical people should be depicted in fiction? Should the facts of history be followed to the letter, or is there room for 'poetical licence'? If the latter, how far can you stray from the truth before the person you are depicting becomes just a character and not someone from history?

[Pat Allen]

I believe there is room for poetic licence, but not to stray so far from the truth as to make it lose all credibility.

[mansel jones]

Hello Pat,

Thank you for your reply. I think your answer sums up my attitude to including historical people in fiction. I think that where possible you try to get the facts right and portray the person in a way that their contemporaries would recognise them. But, fiction being fiction, you usually have to 'bend the truth' to some degree to fit the constraints of the plot. This was my attitude to my first novel. I hope to write a novel based on Constance Despenser in the near future and, apart from a few dates and comments about her, I have found little to help establish her personality, so I think some 'reading between the lines' will be required to try and imagine the person.

Best Wishes,

Mansel

[Chris Eich]

When reading historical fiction I like to think that all 'verifiable' historical facts are accurate. The story is woven within this framework. This still allows lots of scope for imagination, probably more the further back in history the work is set. For example, C. J. Sansom's Matthew Shardlake novels are set in Henry VIII's England, mainly in London. As far as I know any historical facts are accurate. So if he talks about Henry being in York on a particular date, he was (if verifiable historically). However, what Henry says to Matthew while they're there is up to Mr. Sansom! Who's to say Henry didn't denigrate a hunchbacked lawyer in York in 1541?
I recently read Robert Ryan's 'Death On The Ice' about Scott's last Antarctic expedition. I read Scott's own journals of the expedition a while ago and Ryan's novel seems pretty accurate, although his description of the characters and their dialogue are his creation. Ryan didn't have too many sources (!) to check verifiable facts against, giving him plenty of freedom.

In a different (or sub-) genre, if an alternative history novel asks 'what if' things played out differently, then, I guess, anything goes!

[Bretwalda]

Hi. One of the greatest historical novels of all time, Katherine, by Anya Seton must surely take many liberties with Katherine's personality, simply because we have no way of knowing what that was like as we have so little knowledge of her life. But that in no way detracts from the brilliance of the novel.

Alison Weir in her excellent biography of Katherine Swynford concedes the impact of the novel despite it clearly not being history. I would say that where we know little or nothing about a person then sensible poetic license is apporpriate. But it would be odd, say, to write about Henry VIII in his later years as a fun loving guy who loved small animals and children! Or to attribute common sense and flexibility to the character of Charles I.

On the other hand it is perhaps easier to write with more freedom about purely fictional charcters e.g Ken Follett's excellent Pillars of te Earth (where the main charcters are all fictional but it is a fantastic historical novel).

Good luck with your book. Afraid I know very little about Constance Despenser so can't help with the research but would look forward to reading about her.

[mansel jones]

Thank you for your reply. In regard to writing historical fiction I think I find it easier to work with people who did exist. Obviously you want to be true to them to the best of your ability and you would like to think that if their friends could travel in time and read your book then they would recognise the person you have portrayed. In regard to Constance Despenser, the best I can find out about her so far is via her husband, Thomas. I think the events they went through, and their attitudes to those events, give an insight into their characters and a starting point for my book.

Best Wishes,

Mansel

[eliza robinson]

i'm writing a historical novel set in the sixteen sixties, i usually dont like it when people use real people, in case they get them wrong, but i've got king charles the second as a minor character, and i'm kind of worried in case i get a fact wrong or something. but i think just so long as people try to stick to the facts which are mostly known, then that way it's less likely to be incorrect.

[the reiver]

eliza i believe that you should just go for it. regarding some one like Charles there are plenty of facts in books etc to give one an idea of what he was like. i read many books and on occasions i do think the way a person is described can be wrong but i dont let it spoil the story. you will though find that there will always be some historical anorak who will find fault. the area where i some times feel a little less comfortable is when the author writes that certain characters did exist , they have simply taken their names and details from various rolls and records. they have then given them a character which may be evil foolish, nasty etc. they have no evidence for this but it suits the story they are writing. again i can enjoy the story but i always feel a little guilty that some ones name has been used in such a way

[eliza robinson]

thanks, i feel a bit better about it now, it's nice to hear somebody who actually is making me feel better about me writing history stuff. it always feels lonely being interested in history. but yeah, i'm going to try and do as much research as possible on king charles II, though my local library doesnt have any books on him. though i'm having loads of writing problems due to lack of books on particular subjects. cos my main character is an actress in 1661 the first actresses were in 1660, and i cant find a single book anywhere on them, and so im aving to trust the internet, cringe! i mean, one website said the theaters didnt re open after the civil war till 1669, meaning i would have had to put my book forward 9 years which would have totally screwed up everything, and some websites are totally full of crap (sorry about my language). and i'm just so sick of the internet in general. sorry, i didnt mean to write all my book troubles....

[@HistoryGems]

I think it all depends on context. Take the film 300, although based on the real battle of Thermopylae, it's obviously fantastical so therefore liberties can be taken and accepted. We should not force every historical drama to be a documentary.

However with films that create at least the illusion of authenticity and seriousness like Braveheart then they do have a duty to try and close to things. With Braveheart I think it fails, its a great movie because it's history turned into Jack against the giant. However as a way to show the events of late 13th century Scotland its close to useless and biased to the point of xenophobia. Let me put it this way if Edward I was alive today he would have strong grounds to sue Mel Gibson.

@HistoryGems (check us out on Twitter and Facebook for fun historical facts)