[Caitlin]

Ahem. I've been absent from my own forum for an execrably long time, for which I apologize. I've been missing it, but too busy and distracted to post anything worthy. Today, finally, I feel a bit more together - and I have a question. Or several.

What do you forum-goers think about using real historical figures in genre fiction - or indeed any fiction? There was quite a bit of controversy here in Canada when Wayne Johnston's Colony of Unrequited Dreams came out a few years ago. His protagonist in this book is Joey Smallwood - a real person who was politically active only about 60 years ago. The author used the well-known facts of Smallwood's life, but he fabricated other elements, including a mistress. Smallwood's children and grandchildren were quite upset, as were some other authors. They claimed that plundering the lives of real historical figures for fictional ends was unnecessary and unacceptable - whether that real figure lived in 1500 BC or 1949 AD. Still others insisted that there was real potency in the use of a real person, and that the blend of fact and fiction was actually bracing and inspired.

Many genre writers have spun stories from real events or historical periods. Are their aims any different from those of mainstream authors who do the same thing? Is it somehow "lazy" to write books that depend upon real people for theme and action?

[Rob B]

Ahem. I've been absent from my own forum for an execrably long time, for which I apologize. I've been missing it, but too busy and distracted to post anything worthy. Today, finally, I feel a bit more together - and I have a question. Or several.

What do you forum-goers think about using real historical figures in genre fiction - or indeed any fiction? There was quite a bit of controversy here in Canada when Wayne Johnston's Colony of Unrequited Dreams came out a few years ago. His protagonist in this book is Joey Smallwood - a real person who was politically active only about 60 years ago. The author used the well-known facts of Smallwood's life, but he fabricated other elements, including a mistress. Smallwood's children and grandchildren were quite upset, as were some other authors. They claimed that plundering the lives of real historical figures for fictional ends was unnecessary and unacceptable - whether that real figure lived in 1500 BC or 1949 AD. Still others insisted that there was real potency in the use of a real person, and that the blend of fact and fiction was actually bracing and inspired.

Many genre writers have spun stories from real events or historical periods. Are their aims any different from those of mainstream authors who do the same thing? Is it somehow "lazy" to write books that depend upon real people for theme and action?

Some loaded questions there Caitlin! Seriously though, when something inspires one to put pen to paper and tell a tale, I think you have to go with it. I don't think it "lazy" at all to write books about real people as a basis for theme and action.

As for historical figures, I think it is fun to read about fictionalized accounts of historical figures. I enjoyed Philip Jose Farmer's Riverworld novels because of this, and the same goes for Orson Scott Card's Alvin Maker tales.

[KatG]

It's actually a lot more difficult, because it requires even more research. But it can be extremely profitable. Mainstream writers like Larry McMurtry have gotten bestsellers out of doing it. And of course, Truman Capote's "In Cold Blood" is the most famous roman a clef ever. I haven't heard anybody call him lazy. But it's usually safer to do it about someone who is long dead and unlikely to have complaining relatives. In fantasy, you can change so much of the source historic material that it doesn't really matter.

But my favorite of the let's use real people fantasies so far is J. Gregory Keyes' Newton's Cannon series, which features Ben Franklin and Isaac Newton. I disliked Card's Alvin series a great deal -- not the concept of it, which was interesting, but the execution, which I thought was really poor and made most of the story pretty boring.

[Hereford Eye]

Currently reading Katherine Neville's The Eight; she uses Charlemagne, Talleyrand, Voltaire, and Richilieu - and I'm only on page 67; recently finished Matthew Pearl's The Dante Club where he uses H.W. Longfellow, O.W. Holmes, J.R. Lowell and J.T. Fields as his protagonists. Dava Sorbel did a heck of a job with Galileo's Daughter. Seems as if there is a long and honorable history for this motif.

[Rob B]

But my favorite of the let's use real people fantasies so far is J. Gregory Keyes' Newton's Cannon series, which features Ben Franklin and Isaac Newton. I disliked Card's Alvin series a great deal -- not the concept of it, which was interesting, but the execution, which I thought was really poor and made most of the story pretty boring.
D'OH! How could I forget Keyes' great series, I liked it much more than Card's. I loved Keyes depiction of Ben Franklin.

[Yobmod]

I don't particularly care whether historical characters are accurate, but they are often flat cameos with a few facts added to spice them up. If they are written as proper 3D characters then its fine.

But i do get annoyed with time travel books when yet another famous person happens by. The world was just as big in 1887 as now - people in the past didn't know everybody else, and didn't hang around waiting for time travellers to give them something to do.

Overall, Its OK as a gimmick, but has been massively overused.

[Caitlin]

Wow - thanks to all of you for your fine examples of history-based fantasy!

A couple of responses: there seem to be two ways in which authors (again, authors of all sorts of fiction) can harness historical figures: as featured, main characters, or as secondary ones whose actions are viewed through the lens of a common-man-type protagonist. The latter may be a slightly less involved or ambitious route, as the author doesn't have to go near the historical person's point of view. There's something scary and maybe even hubristic about attempting to inhabit, even fictionally, the minds of people who've actually lived; Anne Rice's latest, anyone? ;) (Having mentioned that, though, I definitely do understand the appeal of assuming such a voice.)

Secondly: Yobmod's meeting-famous-people-via-time-travel point is a good one. It's kind of like the reincarnation thing: why does everyone claim to have been Cleopatra or King Arthur, when a tubercular serf would be more likely, statistically? (If one can apply statistics to reincarnation, that is.) It's interesting that there's so much breadth of possibility in fiction, particularly fantasy, but that even within it, certain kinds of disbelief are just harder to suspend.

[KatG]

Well, we're interested in historical famous people. I mean, do you want a rock star to show up at your party or no? Putting them in can explore the flavor of a particular time because those people represented the culture, development and voice of that time period. For instance, in Caleb Carr's historical thriller, "The Alienist," he used Teddy Roosevelt as a main character because Roosevelt was, in his role as Commissioner, trying to clean up the New York police department and modernize it at that time period. So it worked with the story and what it was trying to do, as did throwing in some other historical figures. It gives the flavor of the setting in a way that can be easily understood.

Plus, it's fun. My daughter got quite a kick out of watching the remake of "Around the Worlds in 80 Days" when the Wilson brothers portrayed Orville and Wilbur Wright, because she'd studied them in school. It didn't matter how accurate the portrayal was, especially as it was a comedy.

We also want to understand historical famous people, who have often led interesting lives, which is why we get novels where they are the protagonist. The author gives an interpretation -- I Claudious, the life of Calamity Jane, Queen Elizabeth I, etc. In fantasy, it can be an interesting thing to say, what if Alexander the Great did have magic powers and that's how come he was so successful? In fantasy, we can also simply take real life and change it into something else. Martin used the War of the Roses as a main basis for his SOIF series, for example.

[Caitlin]

In fantasy, we can also simply take real life and change it into something else.
Which kind of brings me back to my original questions. Is it ethical to "simply take real life and change it"? It can be enjoyable, provocative, controversial - but is it right?

Human beings (say, Homer) have been telling fantastical stories about real people for millennia. The fantastical elements might have blurred historical truth, but they also enhanced it. But once you move from the battle of Troy (or those of Alexander the Great - KatG's fine example! the only historical fiction I've ever written was about him) and other such long-ago time periods, things seem to get murkier. What if an author decided to write a fantastical spin on Hitler, attributing his actions to some sort of magical, rather than purely human, agency?

I guess the thing is: real life of any era is fair game, as fictional fodder. But it seems important that historical people and events be treated with a bit of extra care. The fantasy should serve the fact, not the other way round.

Aaah! Too confusing. Must go drink more coffee.

[Hobbit]

Welcome back, Caitlin!

You know, that's a really good point. Thinking around the issue, there has been a lot of films for example that have just done that (altered facts) for the sake of entertainment: from Titanic (the infamous shooting incident on the deck) to U571 (see HERE). (http://www.jamesfollett.dswilliams.co.uk/u571%20lies%20damm%20lies.htm)

and I get really annoyed with them when I watch them. Same as historical characters speaking contemporary language.

I should feel the same about books too, though I enjoyed Greg Keyes (so far). And recently of course Susanna Clarke has mixed in her imaginary characters with real people such as The Duke of Wellington - and I didn't mind that!

I guess the difficulty for me is whether you pass it off as entertainment or claim it has really happened.

I must admit that I like the use of historical people and events - see Dorothy Dunnett's books, or Sharon Penman's The Sunne in Splendor, where great pains seem to have been taken to fit the characters to events, but not all they say and do was for real. I guess that we need to feel the need that it could've, even when we know it might not be exactly the same.

What about alternate histories, then Caitlin?

Hobbit