There are the facts in the history books, and then there’s the fiction in my books. That’s the basic problem I have as an author – establishing a balance between the two. I’m a bit of a perfectionist; if I write a story set aboard a ship of the Royal Navy in the 18th century, I want the setting, the language and the characterisations to be as historically correct as possible. But there’s a group of people I’m not allowed to forget in my navy-induced euphoria: my readers! Some of them would appreciate a book written in the language of the 18th century, or lengthy descriptions of uniforms; they’d greatly enjoy tons of naval terms and information regarding a purser’s handling of payments and book-keeping.
But the majority wouldn’t. I write to entertain (myself and my readers), and I can’t expect the audience to buy three lexica, four guides and a special edition of The Young Officer’s Sheet Anchor just to understand what the hell I’m talking about. My work must be understandable. It’s a difficult balance act to find the right words and terms to keep the characters and their actions in the correct timeframe but not bore the readers out of their skulls. And don’t say that couldn’t happen – it happens faster than you think! Yesterday I went through a chapter I’ve been very proud of, only to realise that, from a reader’s point of view, it was about as exciting as an article about the mating rites of dung beetles. Now I’m not saying that there aren’t folks out there who would find great pleasure in the love-life of bugs, but – you know what I mean. The chapter had to go.
Too much realism or historical accuracy can ruin my work. I write historical naval adventure with supernatural elements and male/male romance, not a history book or a naval manual. Reading about a supper the heroes enjoy is probably more enjoyable than the details of the food’s contents. Of course, no Age of Sail story without mentioning weevils at least once, but personally, I draw the line at whipworms, hookworms and pinworms. It’s great if a reader thinks at the end of the story “Mmmm, now wouldn’t it be nice if Captain Denningham walked right through that door and stayed for dinner?” I don’t want said reader to add “…but I’ll have him deflea’d, dewormed, thoroughly bathed and sent to the dentist first before we move on to the dessert.” It might be true and historically accurate, but – no. Just no.
If I wrote gritty, realistic drama, things would be different. There couldn’t be enough dirt and stench and whips and whipworms, I guess. But I’m a 21st century person. I have to create a scenario in my head that allows me to throw some romance into the adventure, and that scenario does not allow too much dirt and parasites. Well, not of the animal-kind.
Looking at the final draft of “The Purser, The Surgeon, The Captain And His Lieutenant” now, I can say that all the characters are fitting into the time-period and behave accordingly. But the only character who’s really “authentic” to the core is the purser, Sebastian Quinn. And while many of his actions are ruthless from our modern point of view, they make perfect sense for the man he is and the time he lives in.
Actually – and that’s really a weird thing I noticed – I had more problems writing the chapters set in modern London than those in the 18th century! It was more difficult to describe something I actually know! Switching from one time period to the other really wasn’t easy, especially as the language of the characters differs greatly between the two centuries.
Denningham is not a problem, nor is his sister, but Quinn and Barnett? Somebody pointed out to me that these two are really bad role models, and that it might not be such a good idea to describe the “good guys” as drinking, smoking and swearing. But what can I do? They are swearing. They are drinking. They are smoking. It’s part of their lives and personalities.
I’m all for “cleaning up” the 18th century setting (far thee well, beloved ringworms!), but I refuse to clean up the characters for reasons of political correctness. This is non-negotiable. But maybe I’ll put a special warning label on the front cover: “Being the purser is hazardous for your health! Especially when the lieutenant is close by!” It might increase sales…
April 24, 2008 at 5:42 pm
If you were able to bring back 18th century characters how many of us living today would be shocked by their language and morals? Quite a bit, I must say…
Mick Dementiuk
April 24, 2008 at 6:40 pm
LOL! How funny, I was just in the middle of writing something on this subject myself. I’ll carry on with it, if you don’t mind because I think I have a slightly different slant – I suppose I probably *would* clean up the characters (at least a little) for reasons of reader empathy.
I totally agree though about the need to keep some of the research out, because although the minutiae of hard-tack production might be fascinating to you, it might not be for your readers. (Though I must say that I learned a lot about brass cannon founding and gunpowder manufacture from the last Lord John book.)
April 25, 2008 at 2:28 am
My editor begged me to explain *everything* about the Civil War that my narrator, Ron, related to Brandon, his *guest* as if Brandon were totally ignorant of the time period.
It made no sense because Brandon is a parapscychologist specializing in Civil War era phenomena. One would hope that he knew a *little* about that time period.
Frankly, I found it a bit patronizing.
April 25, 2008 at 9:48 am
Great article and very interesting. I too have had to try and find the balance between fact and fiction in my writing. I still have nightmares, sometimes, wondering if I got it right. Only time will tell, I suppose.
April 26, 2008 at 8:41 pm
Excellent blog, Emma. I’m blogging something similar for Lust Bites next month about “how to have historical sex without having the characters worry about the filth.” The thing is that character A probably wouldn’t even think “I’ll have him deflea-ed” because they’d all be used to the dirt, fleas and the smeg!
I’m completely – completely! – in agreement with you about the difference between blurring some lines (like hygiene) but keeping steadfastly to portraying the characters in their correct era. There’s nothing more likely to make a historical reader throw a book against the wall than finding a Sue, or a modern man or woman in the 1700’s. They make. ME . MAD!
I loved this post. More please.
April 26, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Jeanne – bravo – I agree with you. There’s nothing worse than a character doing the “As you Know, Bob” dialogue. e.g. “As you know, we’ve been at war with x for 2 years now and now we are pressing forward towards x town”
I was reading “The Alienist” the other day which is 99.99 superb in most respects but then suddenly we get this:
“I’m sure you remember when you were in England covering the Ripper murders 3 months ago.”
Well – DER. I think the character would have remember that for the rest of his LIFE.
April 27, 2008 at 12:19 pm
@ Mick: That’s true, but I think the 18th century people would be even more shocked by today’s morals and language. We pride ourselves of having progressed so much, but if I look at the history of the 20th and 21st century, I wonder if we really have made a progress…
@ Alex: Heh! Well, as I said elsewhere, I’m really curious to read your view on this. 🙂
I’m always very excited when I find new information, and when I went through the draft, I could exactly tell what book I’d bought while writing certain chapters. What I read automatically mirrored in my writing, and I had a lot of “very interesting, but only to me” bits to delete!
@ Jeanne: Very patronising, I agree. Rather pointless as well. I also think one can expect your readers to know a bit about the civil war, so your editor is underestimating the customers, which is never a good thing. I can understand explaining basics which are necessary to understand the story, but beyond that? It doesn’t make much sense to me.
@ Margaret: I’m with you on the nightmare-bit! I’ve sent the draft for the last book to a friend who has absolutely no knowledge about the Age of Sail before it was printed. I wanted to know if it would make sense to somebody who has no idea what the 18th century or life aboard a ship of the RN has been like back then. It did make sense to her, and so I felt reassured. I’ll definitely do this again with the next one.
@ Erastes: Thank you! I’m very much looking forward to your blog; interesting subject! I’ve discussed the issue on my LJ, and I fully agree with you that the characters in their setting don’t notice the same things as we do, because to them, it’s normal, everyday business. They wouldn’t care, so I don’t think it’s a problem leaving certain things out altogether. I do sprinkle some hints at times (like the content of a jerry being poured out of the window), but try to keep away from giving too much information.
May 7, 2008 at 6:03 pm
re: whipworms, et al… I have a friend who adores Stephen Maturin–but, as she says, she’d have to strip and boil him before she’d let him into bed.
I tend to appreciate detail in a story –but in small doses, not pages at a time.
Love your nom de plume–and I’ll bet Nelson would, too!
May 18, 2008 at 11:17 pm
@ Rowan: Your friend has a healthy attitude! I try to use historical details the same way I use spices and salt in the kitchen, but I’m afraid at times I get carried away.
*Love your nom de plume–and I’ll bet Nelson would, too!*
Thank you! Yes, he probably would, but I don’t think he’d like my books very much…
December 30, 2008 at 1:49 pm
[…] 22-12-2008 Common Parasites That May Affect Your Shitzu Saved by monicasatx on Thu 18-12-2008 The Balance between Facts and Fiction and Characters Behaving Badly Saved by Maddockkinen on Tue 16-12-2008 Rainbow goes ‘Barefoot’ with Neil Simon (Lancaster […]