Let us Talk of Many Things; of Books and Queens and Pirates, of Mystery and Kings...: AN INTERLUDE:

Past Perfect? Writing historical fiction – how much of it should be historical, how much of it fiction?

by Helen Hollick

Powerful stories that recreate the history of the past.

How far does a historical fiction author have to go to provide a good read? Are facts more essential, or is the story the prime importance?

I have a confession to make; well a couple actually. One of the reasons why I so enjoy writing my Sea Witch Voyages is because they are more adventure/supernatural/fantasy than historical. It doesn’t matter if I get the 'facts' wrong. They are stories - sailors’ yarns.

Or does it matter?

For instance: Woodes Rogers and William Dampier were in Cape Town in 1711 not 1715, as I have written. If two men who were real people appear in a story several years later than historical records show, does this inaccuracy matter? Well, possibly yes - UNLESS - the author explains why the dates have been changed. (As I do in my author's note.) I try to get the sailing detail correct because by making one thread as realistic as possible all the rest becomes believable – and using incorrect sailing terms will ruin the story. Facts help suspend the unbelievable. A good book makes the unbelievable believable. But how much should be 'real', how much 'made up'?

One of the reasons why I have not embarked on a follow-up to Harold The King (I Am The Chosen King in the US) is because my Glaucoma has seriously affected my eyesight. I can no longer read the essential text books, so cannot do the research required.

But: Jean Plaidy, Georgette Heyer, Norah Lofts et al, back in the day, wrote some brilliant novels, but they were far from accurate regarding 'fact'; one I read had Elizabeth I as a married queen. (I think it was a Plaidy – can’t remember, I read it back in the 1970s.)

Rosemary Sutcliff, my all time author heroine, made factual errors in her stories. “A sky as blue as a Robin’s egg” is a phrase I remember from her. The American robin has a bright blue egg, the English robin’s egg is much paler. But so what? Her stories bring the past alive! And I love them.

As an aside: I recently re-read her Mark of the Horse Lord. It is my all-time favourite of hers. The detail, the feeling that you are there watching, is awesome. But what struck me during this re-read, was that when I first read it, again back in the 1970s when I was dreadfully unworldly and very naïve, I hadn't realised that one of the characters was gay. Such was her skill with words... homosexuality was illegal until 1967 in the UK. This inclusion was not sensational or disgraceful - she portrayed the character as ordinary. Well done Ms Sutcliff!

My treasured handwritten letter from
Rosemary Sutcliff

There is an error I have come across in several historical fiction books; a nautical term, mostly used as an expression but sometimes mentioned when aboard a boat. Gunwale. “Up to the Gunnels”

The Gunwales (or Gunnels) are the upper edges of the side (or bulwark) of a vessel, the uppermost planking which cover the timber-heads and reach from the quarterdeck to the forecastle; i.e. from the back to the front. The term “up to the gunnels” means full up, filled to overflowing, coming from when a vessel heels over and her gunnels are almost underwater. The original gunnel use was from circa 1500, a platform on the deck of a ship to support the heavy, mounted guns. The word ‘gun’ somewhat gives it away!

Authors writing novels set pre-1500 really should not use this term as it is so out of place. I confess I used it in my first novel The Kingmaking but I changed it as soon as I realised there would not be a 'Gun Wall' on a post-Roman boat!

Other out of place phrases I have come across: “He stood still like a rabbit caught in the headlights” ... in a novel set in George I England. "Let off steam"...

Am I being picky? Good Queen Bess referred to as ‘Elizabeth I’ in a novel about Mary Queen of Scots? Until 1952/3 she was the only Queen Elizabeth the Tudors would not have called her 'Elizabeth the First'.

Swear words. The 'F' word is of Dutch origin (Fok: meaning to penetrate) first came into use with the spread of the Dutch East India company and the merchant shipping empires, circa 1600’s. On the other hand, any author using “Gadzooks” or similar unless writing comedy, would be laughed out of a bookstore!

In a way, does it matter what words we use? Romans would have been talking in Latin, Saxons in Olde English; we are writing in modern English - a translation if you like, maybe it is OK to use 'OK'? Or is it?

Out of place words do not create the right atmosphere - do not add to the illusion of believability. And that's the whole point of writing good, enjoyable stories - to create a believable world that might be fictional... but seems real.

We all make slips - authors are only human - but I suppose there are slips, and there are slips... Romans eating rabbit and potato stew on Hadrian's Wall ruined a novel. A little thing, but it made me feel I couldn’t believe the rest of the story. Surely everyone knows that potatoes came to England during the Tudor period?

In Harold the King I mentioned snowdrops. I was writing it during the late 1990s - before the wonder of the Internet - I searched through books to discover whether we had snowdrops in the English countryside circa 1066, couldn’t find a single reference, so went with it. I then discovered this lovely little white flower came to England much later, and is not a native plant. Oh well...

I have to add here, the slip of 'double headed axe' in an early edition of Harold the King was a typing error that never got corrected. It should have been double-handed.

I have had a few American readers contact me to complain about my use of the term 'corn fed horses'. Ah, this is a difference between American English and English English.

To an American 'corn' is corn on the cob – sweetcorn. In England the term 'corn fed' means a horse well fed on oats and barley. In other words a horse belonging to someone with wealth and land, able to harvest enough to feed horses on more than grass and hay. A corn fed horse is fitter, healthier. Racehorses are corn fed. A children’s riding pony? Not a good idea! And technically all horses were horses, not ponies. The word 'pony' is quite a modern use, but how many authors are going to write 'little horse' - especially when considering prior to the 1100's most horses were little (modern pony-sized) anyway!

Little horse? Or pony?
(actually to be correct, just use 'Exmoor')

So how far do we go with accuracy? I read with interest a note Sharon Penman wrote. She had used accurate - to the actual day - moon phases for the novel she was writing about Richard I and the Crusades. While writing Bring It Close, I became aware, during editing, that I had a full moon half-way through October and it was still a full moon two weeks later. These sort of inaccuracies are most important to check, because otherwise the author is not bothering with the detail of continuity. And if the author can’t be bothered, why should the reader?

I once mentioned a similar sort of inaccuracy to an author I know – how could her characters see that a valley was beautiful in the pitch black of night? Her answer “No one will notice” appalled me. I noticed, and you can bet your life other readers did.

For Sharon’s novel the moon phase was important - Muslim fasting for Ramadan is connected to the sighting of the new moon. Thanks to Google and NASA technology these dates can now be checked. But in an ordinary scene where a character is looking at a new moon on the day before the Battle of Hastings, for instance? Does it matter if the moon phase is precise? Maybe if there is a documented mention “the moon was new on the night before battle” then yes, include it. Otherwise will it really spoil the story if we make this sort of thing up?

Which brings me back to making the past perfect. All historical fiction (and nonfiction come to that!) amounts to imagination and interpretation. Unless we were there, we can't be certain of fact v fiction.

Does the past have to be perfect to make a good novel a good novel? I guess it depends on what facts are used... and which aren't.