Writing Historical narratives

[TheRedLantern]

There's another thread about writing historical stories, but that one seems like the "getting started" thread. It talks mainly about doing research and the types of research that authors have done.

In my case, that research is mainly done but continues (historical Korea). The characters are based loosely on real people from the time, the stories I've started are based around real events that happened, and the types of characters I want to focus on make adding sex scenes extremely natural.

Everything should be going my way, but my drafts keep sputtering. I have two main stories that I've been working on (targeting the Jasmine Tea event next year). I've iterated on the openings of both but can't get the "tone" right. All my stories until now have been set in a very modern time, and I'm wondering if "I'm" getting in the way.

My question to the authors who have written historical fiction (and I would include a lot of fantasy in this category) is whether you felt that you were doing something differently when you were writing this kind of story (other than the research and immersion), whether your writing came out different either intentionally or not, and whether there were things you needed to accept or let go of about your process. Basically, was there something different for you when writing this type of story?

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

For me, the hardest part is simply getting the details of the setting right and making sure that my character actions fit the time. This isn't easy, but that's what research is for. Especially reading stories set in that time period and works from that time period can help. In the end, though, you're writing for a modern audience, so the historical aspect is just part of the scenery. The interactions among the characters is where the difficult lies, but I tend to write them like I would characters in a modern setting, albeit tweaking the language so it doesn't sound too out of place.

At least for me, I've been writing a lot of near-history stuff (set in the 70s and 80s), so some of it is close enough to now that it's relatively easy to find media to watch and see that helps fit, and the language is similar to today.

For older stuff (like my Valentine's Day story), it was much harder, and I had to do my best to rely on things I'd read and watched, but I know there are bits that are just my style of storytelling (especially how I write sex scenes) in there that may not always be appropriate for the setting and time period, but will appeal to the prurient interests we tend to appeal to. You just have to be willing to let some of this slide as author's discretion, and hope that you've done enough of a good job that the reader can suspend disbelief and go with it.

You are a great author, so I know you can write compelling sex scenes. If you throw those in along with all the work you've done on the setting and the history, I'm sure it'll be a great read!

 

[AG31]

Watch out for the trap of doing too much research and forcing details into the story that don't need to be there for the story's purpose. Now, the purpose may be to evoke a vivid sense of that historical period. I expect that's what some readers of historical fiction are looking for, but not me.

 

[Writer61]

I recently finished my first non-contemporary story, which is set in colonial Malaya and also destined for the Jasmine Tea event.

The research took up most of a week, but knowing something about the setting was a massive help because I knew what I needed to know. In writing the story, the most challenging part was getting the language right, at least I hope I did, by trying to avoid neologisms. Searching for common phrases of the time helped.

 

[HordHolm]

I've written five pieces over the last 18 months set in early 20th century Britain and the Western Front. I think I've improved at historical writing over that time, and I believe that the last two pieces are certainly better than the earlier ones. What I think I've learned is:

1. I've immersed myself in the period, but only used a fraction of what I've researched.
2. People's motives and emotions haven't changed - one hundred years ago people were just the same, so emotional character traits can - should - remain the same.
3. On the other hand, societal beliefs may (probably were) very different in the past, so modern attitudes are anachronistic. I am happy to live with that, and to use modern attitudes if that serves the plot. That means that the historical pieces I've written are anachronistic. So be it.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Not for writing, but for D&D. I didn't want to use the typical medieval fantasy because it's been way too overdone, so I went for the Caribbean during the Golden Age of Piracy at the beginning of the 18th Century as my basis; more specifically, the countries at the south of Cuba and the Hispaniola island (Haiti and Dominican Republic), all the way down to the coast of Venezuela. Most of these were Spanish colonies, and it was difficult to research on the actual mythology of these countries because the natives didn't precisely kept records, and when Spain came, cultures blended up way too much. The only thing I have as a guideline was a book that compiled a list of pirates that went down the Venezuelan coast during that time, plus their doings chronicled, and used that as my starting point instead.

What I learned from this is to start with what I have, use the resources that I have, and do research later. I didn't even get to ship battles or ship raids until nearly a year into the campaign, but I was learning everything I could about it slowly, just to have enough information to pull it out if someone at the table decided to go sailing. There's always a temptation to learn everything, but trust me, it's better to stay focused on one single thing that your story is about instead of scattering yourself through different rabbit holes, because you both learn too little about everything, and have no progress done whatsoever.

 

[YmaOHyd]

For me the difficulty is getting the dialogue right when you're trying to blend historical accuracy with genre conventions.

 

[HordHolm]

For me the difficulty is getting the dialogue right when you're trying to blend historical accuracy with genre conventions.

Depends on how far back in time you're going - Roman or medieval is very difficult. The danger is that it'll end sounding very corny. One hundred years ago, OTOH, just needs a little tweak: some slang, slight changes in syntax. Much depends on the status of the speakers, too. But I must admit, dialogue is a major reason why I've kept my historical pieces firmly in the recent past.

 

[Writer61]

Depends on how far back in time you're going - Roman or medieval is very difficult.

Cruenta Latina.

What have the Romans ever done for us?

 

[NotWise]

When I wrote "One Night in Gormaz" I did what you have probably done, and first immersed myself in the history. When I started to write, I concentrated on the people, the power, and the politics because those things are about the same now as they were then. I just made sure that the story was consistent with historical details without making those details a big part of the story.

After all, people are and will always be people, and their humanity is probably what you most want to talk about.

 

[YmaOHyd]

Roman dialogue to me is simpler than, say, Georgian English. Romans were vulgar enough and funny enough in public that it feels surprisingly close to modern English, especially if you read idiomatic rather than formal translations. Many of the most famous Latin aphorisms are pretty simple. Odi et amo; I hate and I love. Carthago delenda est; Carthage must be destroyed. Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres; Gaul is a whole divided in three parts.

So you can end up with fiction that appropriately represents the period that reads like this:

"Then why not apply to your sister Clodia? She must have plenty of seats at her disposal, surely. She's the consul's wife."

"Clodia?" Her brother reared up, his voice becoming loud enough to attract the attention of those in the vicinity who were not already listening to these two avowed enemies being terribly nice to each other. "Clodia? She wouldn't give me an inch!"

Cicero giggled. "Well, why should she give you an inch when I hear that you give her six of your inches regularly?"

 

[joy_of_cooking]

People's motives and emotions haven't changed - one hundred years ago people were just the same, so emotional character traits can - should - remain the same.

I'm not sure this is true. People might still get angry, happy, jealous, scared, but what makes them feel that way has changed substantially.

 

[HordHolm]

Roman dialogue to me is simpler than, say, Georgian English. Romans were vulgar enough and funny enough in public that it feels surprisingly close to modern English, especially if you read idiomatic rather than formal translations. Many of the most famous Latin aphorisms are pretty simple. Odi et amo; I hate and I love. Carthago delenda est; Carthage must be destroyed. Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres; Gaul is a whole divided in three parts.

So you can end up with fiction that appropriately represents the period that reads like this:

This is all good, but I would argue that one danger here is that the dialogue doesn't sound antiquated enough - it sounds too modern.

 

[HordHolm]

I'm not sure this is true. People might still get angry, happy, jealous, scared, but what makes them feel that way has changed substantially.

Like you, I'm not sure - I would argue that the basics of why people get those emotions have stayed pretty consistent over the whole of recorded history: the loss of someone, finding someone, someone's betrayal, etc. I would agree, though, that the context of when someone might feel those emotions might be different.

 

[KittyOfSteele]

Roman dialogue to me is simpler than, say, Georgian English. Romans were vulgar enough and funny enough in public that it feels surprisingly close to modern English, especially if you read idiomatic rather than formal translations. Many of the most famous Latin aphorisms are pretty simple. Odi et amo; I hate and I love. Carthago delenda est; Carthage must be destroyed. Gallia est omnis divisa in partes tres; Gaul is a whole divided in three parts.

So you can end up with fiction that appropriately represents the period that reads like this:

Things didn't change much with Spanish either, other than some weird verb conjugations that stood until the 19th century and feel outdated at this point, but they still show up in a few translations of some old works. Old Spanish isn't as different as modern Spanish, and even when Latinamerica was mostly Spain colonies, the Spanish spoken during that time is not so different than the modern Spanish spoken currently at Spain. If I start speaking Spanish the way people at Spain do, I'd be speaking very similarly to the way colonial Spanish was spoken.

Same goes with pirates. While pirate speak is fiction, they were one hell of a vulgar lot. It was quite refreshing to see pirates not speaking like that when I watched Black Sails for the first time, in spite of being based on the characters of the one book that introduced the seed of pirate speak: Treasure Island. Modern pirates speak their language according to their place of origin. I don't know about pirates down at the Indean Ocean, but modern Caribbean pirates, the Venezuelan pirates to be precise, do speak like the rest of Venezuelans, especially those who live in the criminal underworld.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Definitely. I just finished my western, link below if interested, and describing the setting and characters clothing was crucial to setting the scene. I also chose names that seemed to fit the archetype as well. Hank isn't a common name anymore, but it sure fits in a western, doesnt it?

 

[iwatchus]

I'm not sure this is true. People might still get angry, happy, jealous, scared, but what makes them feel that way has changed substantially.

I don't want to turn this political, but I don't think it has changed that much in this country. The big issues in 1925 are not that different than now in many ways. The shifts are far more subtle than many want to view it.

 

[HordHolm]

I don't want to turn this political, but I don't think it has changed that much in this country. The big issues in 1925 are not that different than now in many ways. The shifts are far more subtle than many want to view it.

I agree - personal things have a far greater effect on the vast majority of people, and those things don't really change.

 

[Writer61]

I'm not sure this is true. People might still get angry, happy, jealous, scared, but what makes them feel that way has changed substantially.

I agree that the drivers of emotions may differ, but I think the feelings remain.

Getting the causes right probably helps anchor the period. For example, unwanted pregnancies would be a far bigger issue before the widespread availability of contraceptives.

 

[iwatchus]

I agree that the drivers of emotions may differ, but I think the feelings remain.

Getting the causes right probably helps anchor the period. For example, unwanted pregnancies would be a far bigger issue before the widespread availability of contraceptives.

That is a good example, especially for here.

 

[Writer61]

I don't want to turn this political, but I don't think it has changed that much in this country. The big issues in 1925 are not that different than now in many ways. The shifts are far more subtle than many want to view it.

I assume that you are referring to the US.

In the UK, the post-war creation of the NHS and other aspects of social security have probably changed the landscape since 1925.

 

[iwatchus]

I assume that you are referring to the US.

Yes I'm American, so I routinely forget other countries exist.

 

[HordHolm]

Something to remember is that nationality is only one driver. There are others: class, wealth, religion, personality, gender, sexuality (and remembering that sexuality as an identity is largely a modern construct), profession/job, location within a country (city vs country), status (as in free or unfree), and many, many more...

 

[Writer61]

Yes I'm American, so I routinely forget other countries exist.

It has not gone unnoticed .

 

[Jackie.Hikaru]

When I write historical fiction, I try to read historical fiction by authors I assume are more knowledgeable about the given period than I am.