Exploiting Historical Settings

[Myself]

Here's my dilemma --

Let's say I'm writing a story in a period setting.

Part of the plot involves real historical figures. They're necessary to the story, but I also need to change key aspects of their personalities and biographical details. Also, because the plot is fictional, I would need to involve these figures in events that they never historically took part in.

Now I have two choices: either include them in my story, or use them as inspiration for my own characters.

If I use them as characters, I would face legitimate criticism about historical inaccuracy. But if I use my own characters I would be creating an alternate history where prominent figures didn't exist.

I seem to be facing the same problem of historical inaccuracy no matter what I do. Either I distort the lives of real people, or I distort basic facts of the period.

Consider the following examples:

We the Living: Rand chooses to set her story in early Soviet Russia. As far as I can tell, she is able to keep the setting historically accurate because her characters exist outside of history.

The Fountainhead: Rand had the same problem here that I do. She wants to write a story about the fight for modern architecture -- which really happened. So what does she do? She doesn't use real historical figures like Louis Sullivan or Frank Lloyd Wright. She creates her own characters Henry Cameron and Howard Roark and she can do whatever she wishes with them. She doesn't want to use William Randolph Hearst, so she creates Gail Wynand.

Her characters only have a passing similarity to their historical counterparts, but they assume their places in her story. The Fountainhead takes place in some alternate history of the United States. I couldn't describe her story as taking place in the 1930's, but only in a setting that resembled the 1930's.

Atlas Shrugged: Rand sets her story in the United States in some indeterminate period. It kind of resembles the 1940's and 50's but no dates are given and the facts of the setting are completely fictitious.

Here Rand had a choice. She could have set her story in some totally fictional world, named her country whatever she chose, and still have been able to write her novel. But she chose to set it in the United States, which is a real country, demanding a certain level of historical accuracy.

By setting it in the US she exploited whatever historical details she wanted and discarded the rest. She used New York City, California, and Colorado, in order to make her story realistic for readers, but at the same time they only had a vague resemblance to their real counterparts.

Anthem: Here Rand used a completely fictional world that resembled nothing in real life. Because it was fantasy, she could legitimately create whatever fantastic details of character and setting that she wanted.

She could have set her story far in the future of our world and set it in the remains of NYC or LA. But she didn't. The world of Anthem could be set on another planet as far as we're concerned.

________________________________

As a writer I have two obvious choices in setting. Make it completely fictional or make it historically accurate. Anthem or We the Living.

The problem is when you try to mix the two. How do you do it properly? If you have fictional characters in an historical setting, can they interact with people who really existed then? Or do they have to remain like Kira, Andre, and Leo, completely outside of history?

I'm having a real problem with this, so any insight you have would be helpful.

Edited January 29, 2009 by Myself

[D'kian]

There's a third choice: make the whole story someone's dream, fable or fantasy. That way anything goes.

BTW you should look outside of Ayn Rand. "We The Living" is the only work she wrote with a definitive, identifiable background. "Fountainhead" uses what was then the present as regards to background, but without any mention of what was really going on at the time, even the depression gets only a passing mention near the end.

There's a reason for this. Literary works should be timeless and, since they are fiction, should not reffer to real events unless such events are historically notable. Victor Hugo said one "If I wrote only for my time I'd have broken my pen long ago." Rand takes this advice seriously and expounds on it in "The Art Of Fiction." Short version: make no reference to events less than 100 years old.

But that's different from historical novels. These are works set on purpose in some definite, identifiable era, which use the background as more than mere background. Since Rand didn't write that kind of literature, she's not accurate guide to it. Instead see what the better writers of hsitorical fiction have come up with.

Finally, there's nothing wrong with alternate histories. It's a legitimate genre. Of course, it doesn't get taken as seriously as other genres. it ranks with Science Fiction, as a matter of fact.

[khaight]

You might be interested in Ed Cline's essay "Lacunae and Artistic License". He discusses essentially this issue and how he dealt with it in his Sparrowhawk historical novels. (There is a slightly longer version of this piece reprinted in The Sparrowhawk Companion.)

[Myself]

You might be interested in Ed Cline's essay "Lacunae and Artistic License". He discusses essentially this issue and how he dealt with it in his Sparrowhawk historical novels. (There is a slightly longer version of this piece reprinted in The Sparrowhawk Companion.)

Hey, thanks for pointing that out! That's exactly what I was looking for.