How To Write Historical Fiction
by Ross Crawford
When it comes to writing a good story there are no definite, concrete ‘RULES YOU MUST OBEY’. If you are a skilled enough writer, you can make even the most hare-brained idea work, convention be damned. Quentin Tarantino’s playfully warped interpretation of World War Two in Inglourious Basterds is a prime example. Yet after assessing the merits and faults of both Spartacus and Vikings, I thought, perhaps brazenly, that it would be interesting to outline some of the common pitfalls of historical fiction.
In this study, we will branch out from television to envelop film in a big, affectionate cuddle (if we like it) or a brutish, rib-cracking bear hug (if we don’t). Without further ado, let us begin.
DO: ‘True Invention’ or more straightforwardly, ‘BE SENSIBLE!’.
In 1995, the writer and historian, Robert Rosenstone, proposed a theory on historical fiction which he dubbed, ‘true’ and ‘false invention’. Essentially, ‘true invention’ is engagement with the broader historical reality and serious consideration of various historiographical sources. Characters or events can be invented, so long as they adhere to the generally accepted historical ‘truth’ of the setting. Predictably, ‘false invention’ takes the exact opposite approach. With wilful ignorance, scenarios are created that completely contradict what we know of the time period.
In essence, this methodology promotes a responsible approach to the depiction of history, while still allowing for creativity to flourish. However, it is very notable that Rosenstone’s examples, Mississippi Burning and Glory, are both set in relatively modern historical time periods. The former is set in the south of America in 1964 and the latter during the American Civil War in the 1860s. Both have plentiful extant documents and literature that can provide considerable insight into the time period. Yet what if one wished to write a story centring around Pictland? In theory, you would be afforded much greater freedom and the lines between ‘true’ and ‘false invention’ would begin to blur.
Furthermore, rarely do historians ever reach a consensus on a particular time period. If one book presents a totally different historical ‘truth’ to the next, which one do you believe?
So there are clear limitations to this theory and in many ways, it can be boiled down to simple common sense. For example, much of Pictish culture may remain unknown to us but clearly they weren’t flying around in Apache helicopters and taking cute Twitter selfies. ‘True invention’, ‘being sensible’, call it what you want. Regardless, it’s probably the single most important maxim to take to heart.
DO: Be authentic and accurate (where possible).
Some of the following may fly in the face of ‘true invention’ but hey, this isn’t an exact science. As mentioned in my Vikings review, when faced with a decision between accuracy and authenticity, prioritise the latter. If you can evoke the feeling of the time period, immerse the audience in the world, then you have won half the battle. If you can interest the audience enough, they can consult the real history later. Yet as always, there is a balance to be struck here. Abandon accuracy too frequently and authenticity will undoubtedly suffer, to the extent that it could well undermine the credibility of the whole story. And admirable as it may be, slavish accuracy will rarely lead to a compelling narrative.
Like a pair of bickering siblings, these two qualities may not like one another very much but they both complement and inform the other. So don’t abandon either.
DON’T: Have an atheistic protagonist in a time of religious fervour.
As mentioned in the Vikings review, one of the most prominent offenders of this trope is Kingdom of Heaven. Orlando Bloom’s character, Balian, loses his faith after the death of his wife and becomes disillusioned with Christianity. Jaded, cynical and in dire need of an existential epiphany, Balian travels to Jerusalem and is quickly swept up in the tumult of the Third Crusade. The film takes a 21st century Humanist standpoint on the Crusades, with Balian as our conduit, and generally does an admirable job of portraying some of the iniquities of both the Christians and the Muslims. At times, the film is so desperate to be balanced that it becomes heavy-handed and preachy, yet overall, it highlights that both sides of the conflict were equally at fault. Therefore, we might identify this as an example of ‘true invention’.
However, depicting Balian as a humanist/atheist devalues much of the religious insight of the film. He is our main character; it is through his eyes that we see the world. And to Balian, both the Christians and the Muslims are as bad as each other: warlike, merciless and relentlessly ambitious. Beyond this, there is little attention paid to the actual ideologies of the two religions. If Balian had a crisis of faith mid-way through the film, we may have been afforded a truly in-depth study of the problems of organised religion. But with such a cynical protagonist, we are denied this. In truth, Kingdom of Heaven has very little to say about religion itself. If it has a message, it is quite simply, ‘Why can’t we all get along?’. It busies itself with condemning loathsome warmongers without questioning the mechanisms that allows the exploitation of faith for nefarious ends.
DO: Use modern swears.
Some grumbled at Deadwood‘s panoply of inventive vulgarity, decrying the use of certain terms as ‘inauthentic’. Yet inarguably, the entertainingly lurid vocabulary of Al Swearengen and the other Deadwood residents ended up being one of the true highlights of that show. Strictly speaking, our historical ancestors may not use exactly the same words and phrases that we do but nasty insults, vicious put-downs and good old-fashioned vulgarity are present no matter where you look in history. There is an immediacy granted by the use of modern swear-words as the audience instantly understands what is being conveyed. We would certainly want to avoid awkward imitations of Shakespearean dialogue wherever possible. (Admittedly old Will certainly came up with some brilliant insults. Personal favourite: “Away, you mouldy rogue, away!”)
Apart from these relatively subjective reasons, there is real historical evidence that ancient Romans were just as foul-mouthed as we are, if not more so! For example, take the famously obscene poem, ‘Catullus 16’. WARNING: Don’t click on this if you’re offended by some naughty language!
DON’T: Shoehorn in a romance sub-plot.
Braveheart and Gladiator are the worst offenders here. In both films, the primary motivation for both protagonists is to avenge the death of their wife (or at least the death of their wife awakens their sense of moral duty). Both films take great pains to emphasise the undying love Wallace and Maximus hold for their sadly departed love. Yet both films fatally undermine this message by having them succumb to the throes of lust with another woman almost immediately.
Spartacus intelligently subverts this trope. After the death of his wife, the titular hero submits to such carnal pleasures, yet he is doomed to never find true love again. If you absolutely have to have a sex scene in your historical tragedy, this is the way to do it.
DO: Research material culture.
Sorry Braveheart fans but I’m taking another swing at Mel Gibson’s monolith! Braveheart is a great film. It’s impeccably plotted, well-acted and hits all the right emotional beats. But it’s not a good historical film. One of the principal reasons for this also happens to be one of the most easily avoidable: the film grossly misrepresents the attire of the Scots. Perhaps it’s not as romantic to depict the Scots as near identical in appearance to the English, but it’s much closer to the truth. The kilted, claymore wielding, woad-painted William Wallace is a bizarre amalgam of various tropes, centring around the concept of the ‘noble savage’. Half-Pict, half-West Highlander, he bears literally no resemblance to the medieval Lowland Scot of history.
Much of this may seem like historical pedantry but in the case of Braveheart, it has been a pernicious and troubling problem. Scottish tourism is now almost entirely enslaved to Gibson’s interpretation of Scotland; to abandon it would be economic suicide. At the moment, there are many Scots who loathe the Braveheart connection; just look at the reaction to the Braveheart inspired statue at the Wallace Monument which was attacked so often it had to be ensconced in a protective cage. (Yes, ‘Freedom’ is trapped in a cage. The irony is palpable.)
Many people are more than happy to accept that what is presented in film, or television, or in a book, is reflective of historical reality. If it doesn’t, their understanding is at least flawed and at worst it can be extremely damaging to cultural identity.
DO: Be Black Death.
This little-known film was first released with little fanfare in 2010. Set in the fourteenth century when plague was ravaging the population of Europe, Black Death evokes a hugely foreboding, hostile atmosphere. The film explores the dark corners of organised religion; the lengths the faithful will go to protect (or punish) the faithless. Such a thematic concept matches up perfectly with the grim historical setting, a symbiosis that elevates the film to greatness, while an opposite trajectory is followed by the film’s characters who descend into an ever darker, plague-infested world.
DON’T: Be Season of the Witch.
The Crusades, witch trials and bubonic plague; all in the same film?! Please, just no. Everything Black Death does right, Season of the Witch does wrong. Even Nicolas Cage’s boggle-eyed, over-acting can’t save it.
Conclusion:
Hopefully this has provided an overview of the most obvious problems that can befall historical fiction. Embarking on a historical narrative is a brave move; you’re always walking a very wobbly tight-rope between accuracy and story-telling. Yet with some effort, the former does not always have to be surrendered to the latter.
And Hollywood execs, if you’re listening, I’d be really interested in developing my Picts-in-Apache-helicopters idea. Get in touch, it could be huge.
Thanks. Great tips. I’ve been writing and editing my first attempt in this genre, and have been surprised how tricky and time consuming authenticity is.
It’s a difficult balancing act for sure! I’m glad this article was of use!
Reblogged this on hayleebragg.
love the idea …. just wonder who would star
I’ve got a couple of ideas. 😉
oh do tell
I could definitely see James Cosmo as a Pictish chieftain!
that is true …
The balance between accuracy and authenticity such a delicate equation. Surely this is one that applies to all genre not just historical fiction?
Yes, to an extent, but I think it’s particularly pertinent for historical fiction. By attempting to depict past events, there is a responsibility to be as faithful as possible. But such a balance would certainly exist in science fiction, for example.
Thanks for the comment!
Awesome blog! Keep up the great work.
Stephen and Alex.
Thank you very much for your kind words!
I dunno if Black Death is the best example, since it shifts a phenomenon from the 16th-17th centuries back a few hundred years to make a rather shaky point. Large-scale witchcraft persecution didn’t occur until after the Renaissance & Reformation. Which is not to say it isn’t a good film–it certainly is–but no better than Braveheart as a historical film.
That is a fair point, I may have a bit of a blind-spot for ‘Black Death’ just because I love it so much!
However, I think there is some room for manoeuvre here. As you say, large-scale persecution didn’t occur until later, yet nevertheless people certainly feared the plague represented God’s wrath, or the machinations of the Devil. I think the film taps into that paranoia.
Thanks for the comment!
“Picts-in-Apache-helicopters idea” — kilts, no underwear, talking Pictish? And recovering a diamond necklace that the President’s wife gave over to the Duke of Somethingborough! “Three Picts”. Huge!
Love it!
Since the work I plan to be my magnum opus takes place to be in Nazi Germany, I was very interested in reading this post. Thanks for giving me great advice and I’ll make sure to utilize them in the future.
You’re very welcome, thanks for the kind words! Good luck on your work, I look forward to reading it!
Thanks, though it might be a few years before I write that story. I want to build a reputation first.
Great post! When I was a kid, I used to watch Xena (nobody’s perfect). Nowadays, I do not even own a television, but recently decided to download some of the episodes, just for laughs. Your point on Season of the Witch is also perfect for Xena. All in the same time period it had: Julius Caesar, the Trojan War, the Persian War, and so on. Really? Seriously?
Sincerely,
Julien Haller
P.S. I think we use roughly the same blog format 🙂
Thanks, Julien! That’s definitely true with Xena! However, I think it’s less problematic for Xena because it’s more strictly a mythological show, rather than historical. In fact, I kind of enjoy that it’s a big hodge-podge of various historical and supernatural events–it’s very messy but fun!
This just proves that there truly are no rules!
P.S. Great minds. 😉
Reblogged this on doingsomereading.
Thank you for this excellent blog. You have addressed many vital issues connected with historical fiction (and film). I agree wholeheartedly with your advice and observations. I am a history teacher and often spend too much time telling children that no, it really wasn’t like that!
Thanks for the comment, I’m very glad you agree! Best of luck with your most noble of professions.
Informative and engaging 😀 … I’d never attempt historical fiction but kudos to those who do!
Thanks so much! Writers of historical fiction are a brave bunch!
Reblogged this on adoredblog and commented:
Cracking article
Thank you!
Interesting blog. I personally like historic fiction and I’m sorely disappointed when the story isn’t accurate or when it’s not authentic. There’s nothing I hate more than watching a film that takes place in the Middle Ages and then see a woman with perfect French manicured nails. It just completely ruins it for me
It can definitely be frustrating! I’m confident that some day someone will crack the authenticity/accuracy formula. Watch this space!
Reblogged this on The Traveling Librarian & Her bookbag and commented:
OHGOOD LORD YES. THIS ARTICLE IS GOLD. PURE GOLD
Much obliged! 🙂
Great advice here… I just finished a historical fiction novel, and I think after writing the first one, I have much more understanding of how to attack the second.
Cheers!
Courtney Hosny
Thanks, Courtney! Sounds great, best of luck with your second novel. As with all writing, the more you do, the better you’ll get! 🙂
Reblogged this on RebornPublications and commented:
I stumbled upon this today and thought it might be helpful for anyone looking to get into writing historical fiction.
Thank you!
Very useful information here. We need more likes.. 🙂
I agree. 😉 thanks very much!
Great post!
I love reading (or watching) historical stories. The upside, for me, is that I don’t remember my high school history, nor do I care. If the story is well presented and interesting, I’m easily hooked. I do appreciate what you are writing, and if a book/movie is going to tout itself as a ‘historical story’ well then, it better get it’s facts straight.
Congrats on being freshly pressed!!
Thanks very much indeed! 🙂 It’s great to hear your perspective, I can totally understand it–not everyone will be hung up on the nitty gritty details.
Forget painting the pilot in pictish blue, why not paint the helicopter?
Ooh, I like it! 😀
I’m writing a short story, and I’ve been researching the history Ireland so that I can put my story in the right time and place. So, this helped me out a little bit. I specifically thought the ‘true and false inventions’ part was helpful. That’s what I’m trying to do with my story.
Also, your “Picts-in-Apache-helicopters” idea sounds interesting! Good luck. 🙂
Thanks very much! Rosenstone’s theory definitely makes a lot of sense. Best of luck with your short-story, I’d be keen to read it when it’s done!
Thanks! I’ll be posting the first chapter on my blog when it’s done 🙂
Picts in Apache helicopters? Great way to end an otherwise sensible, intelligently written article.
Always nice to end with tongue-in-cheek! 🙂 Thanks a lot!
Congratulations on being Freshly Pressed! I write historical fiction. Must reblog this over at lillian888.wordpress.com.
Thank you, Lillian, it’s quite an honour! 🙂
Reblogged this on Hopes and Dreams: My Writing and My Sons and commented:
I would quibble with a few points here and there, but that’s because I write historical romance. Otherwise I think this is very well written.
I should maybe clarify. Romance in historical fiction is great! But sometimes it can be parachuted into a story in a manner that disrupts the overall message and love-story of the film, eg. ‘Braveheart’. If William truly loved Murron so much, to the extent that her death initiated his rebellion, would he really fall for Isabella so quickly?
Thanks for your comment, I hope my reply makes sense!
No problem. I thought that was a very valid point.
A very interesting post. I actually liked “Season of the Witch” mostly because I have a weird love-hate relationship with Nicolas Cage and very bad movies. The number of bloggers who liked the post restores my faith in humanity (the number is also the reason why I’m commenting, I don’t want to spoil the perfect hundred).
Bad movies are a guilty pleasure of mine too, no doubt! And Nic Cage is an actor of ‘peculiar talents’, shall we say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2blye05dwZ0 😀
‘Season of the Witch’ didn’t quite reach ‘so bad it’s good’ levels for me, unfortunately. I was actually hoping it would!
Thank you very much for the comment, I’m delighted and humbled by the response so far!
Peculiar talents indeed, haha, he’s so creepy. You may be amused by this website http://pokemonxniccage.com/
I was truly enchanted with the badness of the witch fight in the beginning of “Season of the Witch” and I think the movie stole my heart at this point. I have a similar thing for M. Night Shyamalan’s movies. Just can’t help myself and I always go to see the next one.
I agree with you completely on all of this.
Even more than the romance sub plot, I think Gladiator’s worst offense was the portrayal of Commodus. The sniveling, scheming and childish version of him in that film is utterly at odds with what is actually known of him.
He is one of the most poorly and incompletely documented of the Roman emperors, but what is known is that he was actually popular early on in his reign and brought about many needed reforms to Rome. It was only later in his reign that he started getting strange.
The only people that truly hated him were the Senate because he raised their taxes put the public ahead of them in importance.
I suppose the advice in that to a historical fiction writer would be to not perpetuate a misrepresentation when you have an opportunity to set the record straight, or at least get things close enough to the truth that there is some resemblance between the character in your work and their historic counterpart.
Absolutely, I totally concur. Thanks for such an incredibly well-worded and thoughtful comment! Sometimes, it baffles me that writers decide to portray historical figures in the way that they do. Often, they seem manifestly less interesting than history would suggest!
Very true, there is very often enough known about the actual historical figure that it should be obvious when they are interesting enough in their own right to not require many embellishments.
Joaquin Phoenix’s Commodus was more an amalgam of qualities attributed to Caligula and Elagabalus than to the actual Commodus.
When he was going on to his nephew about the bee, that certainly would have been closer to Caligula as it was him who took the bee as his personal symbol, not Commodus.
Mind you, Rome had it’s own version of tabloid culture. Nearly every emperor who experienced some degree of unpopularity was followed by insinuations of insanity and sexual perversions.
Reblogged this on all around this world , funs,news….
I enjoyed your post until you got into profanity.
I served in the US Army. And I can choose to swear with the worst of them, or I can
Choose to write like I know how to.
Ghost.
We swear. Our ancestors swore. Therefore, I think historical-fiction should feature profanity.
Furthermore, swearing is a totally legitimate form of expression when utilised within reason. It’s just another tool in our vocabulary; as long as it is not abused excessively, it should be used like any other.
But thank you for your comment!
We disagree. I get sick when I read people using the ‘F’ word as if it was their job to make me sick.
But, to each their own.
Thank you for your blog. And I enjoyed your writing to that point.
Indeed, I guess it depends on our own contingent viewpoints. To boil it down, I don’t think the past (or indeed present) should be sanitised unnecessarily.
Nevertheless, thanks for your comments, I appreciate that you took the time!
Excellent post.
Many thanks, David!
Nice post!
Thank you!
Thank you, your article is very informative and has been very helpful. 🙂
Thanks a bunch! 😀
I quite agree with you, especially the first one. History should be made close to the facts because it kind of ruins everything.
As close as possible anyway! Thanks very much!
Interesting tips! I’m a budding writer and I’ve always considered doing historical fiction in the future. And THANK YOU for pointing out the faults in Braveheart and Gladiator with the protagonists suddenly forgetting about their dearly-departed to get some action… while we are supposed to be okay with this. I hated that randomly William Wallace and Princess Isabella get it on after having a flirtatious conversation in French. Like, really? Just STOP IT.
Exactly, I’m glad you agree! Thanks for the comment!
Good article. Congratulations on being freshly pressed! One of my pet peeves is the modern, liberated, smart-ass woman main characters in historical fiction. If you want to write a novel in current times, go ahead, but not in the 1800s!
I think this fits into authenticity?
Thanks very much! Yes, authenticity, but also I think it falls under a similar boundary to the ‘atheistic protagonist’. Essentially, characters with anachronistically modern viewpoints are thrown into period pieces. This can be quite jarring at times, for sure!
This has given me food for thought, I see I could have explored these ideas even further. Thanks a lot!
Reblogged this on Books and More.
lucky you your country has rich culture. to which you can get different ideas. thanks for the tip!
[…] How To Write Historical Fiction. […]
I am making a novice attempt. The main challenge I find is way too much historical detail on the web, for author and readers. It seems easy to drown in details.
The question of romance or strong emotions in a story is tricky. I do songwriting, a story in 3.5 mins. Evoking an emotion can be a good hook, but it can also overwhelm the story and it’s progression. I want listeners to pay attention thru the end of the song and not get stuck in one or two scenes in their mind’s eyes.
The subject of my novel I am working with has very strong emotional elements already – some of the strongest in history in fact. I already am experiencing the way these elements can over take the storyline.
My priority is to move my reader through the story but I also want to be aware of scenic-emotional hooks to keep them engaged. Right now I am choosing to avoid evoking strong emotions in the story. Really, letting the story line do it – or not.
I’m an aspiring writer and I’ve always wondered about how to start writing fiction and this certainly is a guide. Thank you.
Reblogged this on – Pen set to Paper –.
Really enjoyed this, every point! I know that strictly speaking, Game of Thrones isn’t historical fiction,but it offers some similar examples…the profanity point being one 😉 I’m for it.
Loved the article! Great work! It gave me some insights on writing Historical Fiction, which I’ve been putting off writing for some time now, though this article may have inspired me to actually begin instead of just floating words on paper. 🙂
Thanks very much, I’m glad it was useful! 🙂
Reblogged this on Between Left and Right and commented:
Interesting article on writing historical fiction, relating it to examples such as Kingdom of Heaven and Braveheart. I’m a cinephile so I enjoyed it.
Wonderful advice.
This article was very well written. Precise, accurate and very well laid out. I’ve been looking to do some historical fiction and this gave me some solid advice I hadn’t look at before.
Thanks very much for the kind comment, it is much appreciated! I’m very glad this article was useful, I wish you all the best for own story!
I agree with it–and it’s well written, except on the swearing. Did a noble in the time of King Ethelred (1001 AD) REALLY say cunt? Just doesn’t sound “authentic? Like your style though and hope to read more.
Thanks for the comment! Well, maybe actually, it was used as far back as the 13th century and probably earlier. There would likely be equivalent words for that particular vulgarity too, it’s just that particular instance is more familiar to us.
Furthermore, it’s all about WHO says it. It would be silly to have a cleric swearing like a sailor but with other characters (like sailors!?) it seems more plausible. Again, cheers for the comment.
On swearing in general, if you’re setting out to make an adult work of historical fiction, I would encourage its use, but it’s all within reason–abstaining isn’t necessarily a bad thing.