Can I make up History?

When historical facts are sketchy, how much freedom has a writer to "fill-in" the gaps?

Take a historical figure who probably existed, but his identity is not known as a fact, who might have influenced events of his time. Let us accept he existed and his influence was real. In such a case, true history did not turn out as he would have wished. Unless, that is, he was intending the opposite result from the one he appeared to want. Or he was duped by others.

Is it legitimate to make assumptions as to his motives, and to attribute acts and, indeed, machinations, to him and to other real historical figures to "explain" why events unfolded as they did?

Historical fiction abounds with just that sort of thing, and is most interesting because of it!

Hell, even fantasy does it with history. Check out Tim Powers' "The Anubis Gates" for some true virtuoso playing with history.

The trick of course is to make your version of history both compellingly readable, and accurate on all points that can be easily verified. If you can do both, and make your version of history more interesting than any alternative version, then, well, you win!

I don't have any trouble with attributing motives, friendships, connections or even illegitimate children to somebody whom you surmise must have been around (or should have been around, for your story to work). The trouble for me starts when somebody is messing around with known facts, changing them around, and hardline pretending this is how it really was, this is historical truth, period - a story in a historical setting doesn't so definitely do that.

Like, the film Gladiator is mostly fiction-based and Maximus and his family are invented characters, but it starts out from a point of issues and events that really happened. Marcus Aurelius did wage war in present-day Czechia and Bavaria, and it's true he died at the Roman camp of Vindobona (Vienna) in 180 AD. It's also true his son Commodus was a remarkable piece of scum, a sadistic scoundrel and a gladiatorial games aficionado - there is one historian that lived in Commodus' own time who says that His Highness planned to address the Senate at its annual opening of session dressed in gladiator costume instead of a purple toga, which is pretty much as if the US President delivered the State of the Union tv speech dressed in a swim suit! - but almost certainly he didn't kill his father. So the film uses this to frame its own story - like The Three Musketeers did - and, at the same time, to do some discussion of show and politics. That's a brilliant idea.

Yeah, I've read some really good alternative histories. Harry Turtledove has several really good ones where the South won the American Civil War and Robert Harris has alternative World War II where Germany won and the US lost.

When done well, with just enough 'true' history to make it believable, the story can be incredibly compelling. Good luck on your work.

If you feel especially guilty about messing with 'real' history then do a 'what if' alternative history to assuage your guilt.

If you want to go for uber accuracy, then find a consultant who is a historian of some level and get them to advise on it. They will know stuff about the period (assuming they are a period spe******t) which may not be common knowledge.

Imo a historically wrong or at least arguable assumption should only be used if it's function is worth it. Is it necessary for the story, maybe even it's core? - No problem. But it has to be clear to the reader that fictional elements are involved.

I have no problem with setting pure fiction in a historical plot - real events happening in the background, even influemcing the heros' actions. There's no misrepresnetation there.

My concern is this: my main character would appear to want a certain outcome, but in real history, that outcome did not happen. Therefore, I would like to suggest that history turned out the way it did because the main character was, in fact, antagonistic to his espoused cause and eventually betrayed it, or, alternatively, that he was manipulated by real historical characters (who probably did meet him).

I am aware of no evidence to support or refute my suggestions, but they do seem to make more sense than the current interpretation of the few facts there are. But the current interpretation is based purely on those facts, whereas I would attribute motives and actions that are completely unrecorded.

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

---

I think that's the essence of all historical fiction. The good stuff, anyway. Nobody really knows why things turned out as they did, so your interpretation, using your fictional characters, is as good as any.

And if your characters are believable enough, people may go away thinking, "I wonder if that character really existed! That explanation makes so much sense!"

And I think that's your goal.

Thanks ... I'm off to do more research!

:)

Hey MMI,

Make up all the facts you want as long as you make it clear your story is a piece of fiction. If the inflamous Howard Hughes 'autobiography' was presented as a fictional story, then no one would have been surprised when it was not real and (maybe) the author would not have been sued or gone to jail.

If the person is dead - long dead, and relyable facts about him are not known, or are scarse, then as long as you call your work 'historical fiction', then I think you are O.K.

Or at least present your story as based on questionable information. I wrote one like this (see 'Letter from the Inquisition, written 10-08 or so).

Neal

can you give me a link?

Alternative history is great. There is a series by Robert Silverberg in which the Roman Empire continued since Christianity did nor arise. Such alternative history can be very entertaining. It is even better with an erotic twist

Ultimately, you can do anything you want. :P

I think it's a particularly nuanced issue and part of the problem in giving any advice is that you are speaking in generalities rather than specifics. Being a History major I get squeamish when people go mucking about in facts. A different interpretation to the facts is certainly acceptable. As all my professors say, "I don't care if you disagree with my assessment of the facts; just make a case for yours." There is also an incredible amount of history (especially very old history) that people regard as completely factual when it is actually considerably more nebulous.

So if you aren’t changing anything that is largely regarded as factual, then it’s completely fine. Perspectives and shades of gray can get twisted, especially for good fiction. Even changing minor facts and aspects of the events is acceptable in my opinion as long as it is relevant to the story. Don’t change things that don’t need changing.

An example I can give you that I did for a project I’m working on is related to certain historical discoveries. In this work of fiction, Phoenician has never been translated in any great detail and instead is kept alive solely by a select group and used as their private language. In truth it has never been fully worked out or deciphered (to the best of my knowledge, I’m not always up to date on current discoveries) but it has been given quite extensive work and as such is far more translatable than I give it credit. Is that correct? No. Not really, but it works for the story.

Whatever works for you works. You’ll also never make everyone happy. No matter what you do, some will be angry because you deviated from history a little. Others will be annoyed that you didn’t take more creative license. Just do what you think is best and it’ll either work out, or it won’t. Good luck.

- Geoff

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MMI

I have no problem with setting pure fiction in a historical plot - real events happening in the background, even influemcing the heros' actions. There's no misrepresnetation there.

My concern is this: my main character would appear to want a certain outcome, but in real history, that outcome did not happen. Therefore, I would like to suggest that history turned out the way it did because the main character was, in fact, antagonistic to his espoused cause and eventually betrayed it, or, alternatively, that he was manipulated by real historical characters (who probably did meet him).

I am aware of no evidence to support or refute my suggestions, but they do seem to make more sense than the current interpretation of the few facts there are. But the current interpretation is based purely on those facts, whereas I would attribute motives and actions that are completely unrecorded.

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

---

If his sympathies are known, I would go for the version where he is frustrated by events, rather than attributing motives that are historically doubtful.

But if his preferences are not recorded, only assumed from the results, then it would be an interesting plot device to paint a picture of his motives which is contrary to what is popularly assumed, but which you can show to be consistent with the known facts.

There is a particular flavour to historical novels where the protagonists are striving to achieve something which we know did not, in fact, happen. Since one knows that they will fail, there is a tragic fascination in waiting to see how.

An additional point on this...

You can do as much as you want so long as what you write is consistent with the way things happen (unless you are doing what ifs). So, you can happily have hostorical characters doing things that are 'in character' so long as they don't, for example, prevent the assasination of Kennedy or shag queen Victoria...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fetishdj

So, you can happily have hostorical characters doing things that are 'in character' so long as they don't, for example, prevent the assasination of Kennedy or shag queen Victoria...

---

It can be even more fun to have them do things that seem counter-historical, but fit them into history. Your hero could, for instance, deflect Oswald's gun only to have JFK shot from the grassy knoll (thus explaining some of the inconsistencies in the official story), or shag Victoria and be the father of one of her children (find one that was strikingly different, or that she treated differently, and make that the reason). It's fun for the reader, as it becomes a get-out-of-that plot.

how about i give you all a very good example of making it all up.....and having it be successful.....



The De Vinci code

Foccault's Pendulum... so much better because it is consistent. Same plot, better written (albeit originally in Italian...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thrall

how about i give you all a very good example of making it all up.....and having it be successful.....



The De Vinci code

---

Well, that proves that you don't have to make up much. Nearly all the sources in that book are historically authentic. Some of them are also considered fake by everyone but the true believers, but that's another matter; you can have fun with a conspiracy theory that's been around long enough to have acquired a convincing patina of age.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StephVE

Alternative history is great. There is a series by Robert Silverberg in which the Roman Empire continued since Christianity did nor arise.

---

Which shows that he didn't do his research, since Xianity didn't cause the fall of Rome, it held it off for a while.

I've had more fun working on an alternate that I plan to write some day, where the Isis-cult became Rome's State religion. Both Isis and Xianity were minority secret cults in Rome - the Isis-cult were the "foolish women who offer cakes to the Moon" that Paul attacked - but Paul turned his cult into a mass movement with political clout. If the Isis-cult had had the charismatic preacher instead, your hometown church might be dedicated to the Great Goddess.

Ask Herodotus!

Agree with all that historical fiction is a compelling niche. I like Buckley, especially "Getting it Right".

I did a couple of short 'news' articles about the suicide of Abraham Lincoln a while ago. Can't remember exactly where I left them on the internet.

"Flashman" books by George Macdonald Fraser.

A character who nearly existed. Who could have existed. Who diddn't exist!

Lol

For what it's worth, I agree with all who say "do whatever you want in fiction." It is fiction and nobody should take it as reality. historical or not. I am working on a non-fiction book right now and what do you know, all sorts of things that are taken as fact today turn out to be pure fiction, so I have to provide source documentation (that will be ignored, I am positive).

Different related problem, I wrote a four book series set in the 2030s. Two people who worked with me on it wrote sequential fanfic stories on a similar timeline. I wrote a new story with an "alternate future" beginning at the same point in the 2030s as the original. Now, I have a hard time explaining that "alternate future" means nothing more than same characters, same setting, different events. Even with stories that are pure fiction, readers want to argue with you about details that you made up all by yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by leo9

Your hero could, for instance, deflect Oswald's gun only to have JFK shot from the grassy knoll (thus explaining some of the inconsistencies in the official story),

---

I only just caught up with the Red Dwarf episode where they do exactly that - accidentally distract Oswald through some clumsy time travelling, and have to go back and shoot JFK from the grassy knoll to put history right.

I loved that episode in the X-Files when the history of the 'Cigarette Smoking Man' was shown and how he's helped to shape load of different things in history like the assassinations of JFK and MLK.