Let us Talk of Many Things; of Books and Queens and Pirates, of Mystery and Kings...: Doing The Dishes : Writing For Readers by Carolyn Hughes...Authenticity

Our Easter Special - Part 3

“The best time for planning a book is while you're doing the dishes. ”

― Agatha Christie

Exploring the Creation of Fictional Worlds

The problem with historical fiction: Authenticity

by Carolyn Hughes

What “problem” with historical fiction, you might well ask…

Since I’ve been writing historical fiction, I’ve read a few opinions about it that might have made me consider the whole enterprise a complete waste of time! Such as: “historical fiction can never be authentic”, “historical fiction is a lie” and “historical fiction invariably fails to portray the strangeness of the past”.

But, surely, that can’t all be true? Otherwise, no one would want to write it, let alone read it. For those of you who haven’t come across these negative opinions before, let me explain…

The nineteenth-century novelist Henry James famously disparaged historical fiction. It was not the practicalities of the past that James thought difficult to describe, but imagining with any degree of realism, or perhaps “naturalism”, the inner lives of those who lived in earlier times.

Yet imagining the inner lives of characters (historical or fictional) for readers to experience is surely exactly what historical novelists attempt to do.

So how does a writer make the characters of a novel set in the fourteenth century seem mediaeval? I want the readers of my novels to put them down feeling that they have been immersed in the mediaeval world, yet without really noticing its “mediaevalness”, as might happen, for example, if they found themselves wondering if this or that thing or image or phrase or thought was “authentic”. To achieve an appropriate degree of authenticity, artefacts and environments must be, or seem to be, of their time, and noticeable anachronisms of fact or notion must be avoided, to save throwing the reader out of the illusion. Mindsets (the characters’ thought-world) must be convincingly mediaeval, and language, in narrative and dialogue, must reflect that thought-world.

Which all sounds fine in theory but how does it work in practice? James would presumably say it cannot ever work, that historical novelists and readers delude themselves in thinking the novels are in any way authentic. Yet writers do their very best to portray their characters and settings with authenticity. They undertake months or even years of research, in history books, in contemporary writings where they exist, and in art, and they use their intelligence and their imagination to transport, first, themselves, and then their readers into the inner lives of their historical characters.

Occasionally, an error of fact or understanding may slip through but, with the effort authors make, and with the eagerness of so many thousands of historical fiction devotees who happily allow themselves to suspend any disbelief in order to enjoy the story, the enterprise (of writing historical fiction) surely is not doomed, as James implied?

And I think what is true of historical fiction is true of any fiction.

Historical fiction may not be able to fully convey the experiences of the past, but it is difficult for any type of fiction to wholly convey the experience of a character’s life, especially if that character, for example, commits murder, or blasts off into space to save the planet from a rogue asteroid, or perpetrates any number of actions beyond the experience of the average reader (or writer).

Although this is, of course, exactly what all novelists, historical or otherwise, attempt to do.

In 2000, Richard Lee, president of the Historical Novel Society, gave a talk to an audience of writers entitled ‘History is but a fable agreed upon: the problem of truth in history and fiction’.* The title alluded to a comment attributed to Napoleon, which suggested that history is a form of fiction, for its “truth” depends on who is telling the story: the written history of war differs depending on whether its author comes from the camp of the conqueror or that of the conquered.

But it is also true that the “facts” of history are continually changing, as the latest research inevitably reveals previously unknown information and offers new interpretations of historical truths.

Lee quoted a literary critic who, in a Telegraph book review that year, had said the ‘historical novel has always been a literary form at war with itself. The very term, implying a fiction somehow grounded in fact – a lie with obscure obligations to the truth – is suggestive of the contradictions of the genre.’

Richard Lee considered that the critic, and others, misunderstood the nature of historical fiction, saying that, anyway, surely all fiction is a lie ‘somehow grounded in fact’. No one, he said, thinks that either Trainspotting or Bridget Jones’ Diary is true, but rather that ‘they were in some way drawn from life’. Historical fiction is no more a contradiction than any other form of art, all of which seeks ‘both accuracy and illusion’.

All fiction is an illusion created by the writer’s imagination. Yet historical, no less than contemporary, fiction must be sustained by a foundation of fact, creating a sense of “authenticity”, in order for readers to accept the illusion as temporary reality. Even fantasy fiction, science fiction and some forms of thriller, despite being illusion writ large, must be founded, if not on fact, at least on sufficient rationality or logic to sustain the illusion.

I found myself almost apoplectic with indignation when I heard what that critic had written. He seemed to be implying that historical fiction was somehow “invalid” as a concept. Richard Lee’s comment rings true for me when he suggests that historical fiction, like all art, aims to achieve both accuracy, or perhaps authenticity, and illusion.

Illusion, not a lie.

* For more on Richard’s speech, see ‘History is but a fable agreed upon: the problem of truth in history and fiction, https://historicalnovelsociety.org/but-a-fable-agreed-upon-speech-by-richard-lee/

CAROLYN HUGHES started working life as a computer programmer, then a very new profession, but it was technical authoring that later proved her vocation, word-smithing for many different clients, including banks, an international hotel group and medical instruments manufacturers.

She’d written creatively for most of her adult life but, when her children flew the nest, writing historical fiction took centre stage. But why historical fiction? Serendipity! Seeking inspiration for her Masters project, she found a decades-old, handwritten draft of a novel, set in fourteenth century rural England… Captivated by the era and setting, she concluded that, by writing a novel set in the period, she could both discover the medieval past and interpret it – surely a thrilling thing to do! The first Meonbridge Chronicle, Fortune’s Wheel, was soon under way…

Eight published books later, Carolyn does now think of herself as an Historical Novelist. And she wouldn’t have it any other way…

Website: https://carolynhughesauthor.com

Twitter/X: x.com/writingcalliope

Facebook: facebook.com/CarolynHughesAuthor

Bluesky: carolynhughes.bsky.social