[Caitlin]

What about alternate histories, then Caitlin?
I figured this question would come up! And I've been thinking about it anyway, since there does seem to be a distinction between real historical figures popping up in fantasy novels, and fantasy novels that take real historical figures, fictionalize them, and delve into the "what ifs" of their lives. Alternate histories presume more than a thorough knowledge of the periods in question, I think; they indicate the authors' desire to question those periods, or re-envision them. In a way it's just a kind of intellectual game: What if the Moors had stayed in Spain? What if the Neanderthals hadn't died out? (I guess all genre fiction is about "what if" - but the exercise seems more pointed, in alternative histories.) At its best, though, this "sub-genre" transcends the purely intellectual. And the books should also stand on their own; you shouldn't need to know the real story to enjoy the fictional one.

Anyone else? :)

[Ouroboros]

When I was reading this thread, the first thing that occurred to me was a book which remains awesomely ambitious and hugely controversial: Michael Moorcock's 'Behold the Man'.

Moorcock doesn't so much write about the historical jesus as we would recognise him in real terms, his christ is a slack-jawed mentally disabled youth. The time traveller who finds him is forced to assume the mantle of the historical jesus, and the book is really a reenvisioning of the whole christ myth as much as a simple alternate history.

The pitfalls are obvious, mainly in this case the problems implicit with playing with the faiths of millions of people (or at least being perceived to, by the thinner-skinned ones). I don't think it could ever be described as an exercise in intellectual laziness, however.

I've always been more interested in alternate histories from the likes of S.M Stirling, David Drake, Harry Turtledove and especially Eric Flint, where the alternate history premise really takes Flight. Flint in particular is engaged in a tremendously ambitious project with his 1632 series, he is literally attempting to re-write the history of the western world (and as such, de facto the rest of the world as well) based upon the premises he has set for himself: Namely, what if the american revolution occurred several hundred years early, in central europe?

One of the nicer touches that Flint plays with is the idea that as soon as his alternate history begins to diverge from established history, there is the implicit assumption that he cannot be so lazy as to still introduced higgeldy-piggeldy later historical characters as though they would have been shaped by this new alternate history in the same way as they were in real history. For example, one of his 1632 characters adopts a baby that would have grown up to be the dutch jewish philosopher Baruch de Spinoza. Flint is quick to have a character point out that of course, this baby may be genetically identical to the Spinoza of western philosophy fame, but he will grow up to be a very different person by virtue of his growing up in a different world, with an adoptive family.

Its all interesting stuff, though.

[KatG]

I like fantasy alternate histories more than I like the sf ones. The fantasy ones have the magical elements, which basically just skew things or provide an alternative explanation for events. Tim Powers' Regency-set "The Anubis Gates" is one of my favorite fantasy stories, for instance. (And makes use of Lord Byron and others.)

But the sf ones simply have a different history, no fantasy to it, and they tend to be just difficult to sustain believably for me. They take one major fact and change it, give it some consequences, but then they tend to freeze everything else, as if further things would not change from how they were on Earth, or technology would not progress as well, and it becomes very hard to buy it as a real alternate history. But sometimes they are really interesting anyway, especially time travel ones, and that Eric Flint one sounds interesting. Also the recent sf series that's getting so much attention that speculates what things might be like if the Ottoman Empire had never fallen -- which author is that again? So even if I eventually find them flawed, it's kind of fun.

I think anybody who's been dead a hundred years or more is fair game. I love and adore Ben Franklin, but he wasn't a perfect person, and I think it's okay to tackle his memory, even to imply that Ben was a member of a power-hungry cult through the Masons and turns out to be the villain of the story. Ben can take it. But you'd have to really impress me with the story, which is the challenge whether you use real people or not. Like, say, "Bill and Ted'ss Excellent Adventure," which is certainly a fine cinematic use of historical figures.

[Severance]

Not strictly fantasy, but you did add the caveat of 'any fiction' Cait, so I thought I'd just mention the murder mysteries of Max Allan Collins that largely involve actual people in actual historical events. The series started in late 1920's Chicago, so naturally the hero/detective knew and socialised with Al Capone, Frank Nitti and Eliot Ness. Subsequent novels have progressed through to the McCarthy era and such people as Barney Ross, Charles Lindbergh, Amelia Earhart, Frank Sinatra, Jayne Mansfield and Joe McCarthy have wandered through Heller's life, most of the women through his bedroom!. The amount of research that Collins must have made on the real life cases, in many of them actually 'solving' them' - as well as on the locales and the real historical figures (not only the famous but also the relatively unknown lawmen, politicians and gangsters) is absolutely staggering. I can't believe that, after reading one, anyone could accuse him of being 'lazy'.
The few I've read so far have provided an education in 20th century American history that would be difficult to acquire through any other medium, and I'd recommend them wholeheartedly to anyone who enjoys the odd murder mystery mixed in with their fantasy and SF.

[Caitlin]

The few I've read so far have provided an education in 20th century American history that would be difficult to acquire through any other medium, and I'd recommend them wholeheartedly to anyone who enjoys the odd murder mystery mixed in with their fantasy and SF.
Very, very cool, Severance! I'll be sure to check these out - and to see if my sister (a voracious mystery reader) has come across them. I've always been a proponent of the "reading historical novels for educational purposes" thing. I'll even admit to reading the first few (ahem) Diana Gabaldon "Jamie novels", ostensibly for their edifying Scottish history content... ;)

[glendalarke]

The ethical question is one that fascinates me. I think there are several distinct elements to it, the main question being: do we have the right to use anyone's name and deliberately distort their life by fictionalising it?

Let's give it a personal basis. Let's assume that somewhere along the line you yourself become a public figure for some reason or another. How would you feel if an author wrote about your life and made you the villain of the piece, or gave you a dark history, portrayed you as a paedophile, or similarly distorted the truth? Would it worry you that your grandchildren would read this stuff? Would it worry you if someone read it two hundred years into the future? Or would you just be delighted that your name was immortalised in print? Or would you be totally indifferent - I'm dead, so what does it matter?

My own gut feeling is this - if it's obviously fiction, I wouldn't give a damn. An alternate history is just that, and everyone knows it. The Napoleonic Wars weren't won by magical help in real life, so the Wellington of Susannah Clarke's work is obviously fictional no matter how much he is based on the real man.

But if a book (or film) were to deliberately portray my life as something it wasn't, and at the same time implied that this is the way it really happened, I think I would be upset. And it wouldn't matter if it was written two years after my death or 500 years...

Where the ethics comes in, I feel, is in whether it is a deliberate attempt to distort truth - and have the reader believe it to be the way it really happened. If we are writing fiction, the reader should always know it, either by implication (hey, I'm writing about wizards, you aren't silly enough to believe any of this is true, are you?) or by a disclaimer.
Anything else is unethical.

[KatG]

Unless of course you sold your story to the movie people and let them do what they wanted with it. For instance, "The Hurricane" which was an excellent movie but not accurate about the details of the man's case and who fought to get him released. Biographical movies are rarely very accurate. Even the recent "Walk the Line" has taken lots of liberties with facts, and probably not everybody portrayed in it is thrilled that they're in there. It's part of the problem with turning someone's life into a two hour tale.

Or writing a non-fiction biography. If you bring out material about someone's life, they might assert that you distorted it, that you slandered them with your interpretation of the information, even if it's an authorized biography. It's not cut and dried.

But the world of fiction is pretty much a free-for-all. And in sff fiction, where you are added imaginary elements that don't exist in reality, you have a much wider license because you are not portraying reality. But even if it's not sff, because it is not a real story, the author is free to reimagine what happened in a non-accurate way. If, say, I was accused of child abuse and was acquitted, a novelist could do a story in which I was not acquitted and was indeed guilty of child abuse. If the author used my actual name, I could possibly sue him for slander or libel (I never remember which is which,) if I can prove that the author maliciously set out to damage my reputation and life with the novel. That has happened, but rarely.

I myself have an aversion to using real people figures in fiction. But I do like historical fiction which uses them all the time.