Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm writing a historical fiction novel based upon a transcript of my ancestor's journal of his travel in 1798 from Massachusetts to the Ohio and his later life from newspaper articles and Ohio pioneer documents. His journal which includes a genealogy record was published in 1929 by a family member who was seeking entry into the DAR.
His journal contained only a brief description of his daily travel and I've quoted this information (in a different font so it stands out) then expanded upon this information as a fictional account. As I wrote, I also used a distance calculator and Google's map feature to follow his journey and noted any discrepancies that I encountered.
While my direct ancestor was not famous, his uncle definitely was famous. In doing my historical research, I found that one land company was comprised of speculators who sold the land before they even purchased it. The speculative land company had made their purchase through his uncle's company but defaulted on the payment when one of its directors embezzled their monies.
I made a brief mention of the speculative company in my fictionalized account and I've provided further details on this company in my Endnotes with corresponding bibliography.
Though the bulk of my novel is fiction, I'm trying to keep it as historically accurate as possible. I think it is also important to show that, like modern times, there were scoundrels and embezzlers back in the 1790's.
Do you think my addition of information about the speculative company is too much detail for a work of historical fiction?
I'm writing a historical fiction novel based upon a transcript of my ancestor's journal of his travel in 1798 from Massachusetts to the Ohio and his later life from newspaper articles and Ohio pioneer documents. His journal which includes a genealogy record was published in 1929 by a family member who was seeking entry into the DAR.
His journal contained only a brief description of his daily travel and I've quoted this information (in a different font so it stands out) then expanded upon this information as a fictional account. As I wrote, I also used a distance calculator and Google's map feature to follow his journey and noted any discrepancies that I encountered.
While my direct ancestor was not famous, his uncle definitely was famous. In doing my historical research, I found that one land company was comprised of speculators who sold the land before they even purchased it. The speculative land company had made their purchase through his uncle's company but defaulted on the payment when one of its directors embezzled their monies.
I made a brief mention of the speculative company in my fictionalized account and I've provided further details on this company in my Endnotes with corresponding bibliography.
Though the bulk of my novel is fiction, I'm trying to keep it as historically accurate as possible. I think it is also important to show that, like modern times, there were scoundrels and embezzlers back in the 1790's.
Do you think my addition of information about the speculative company is too much detail for a work of historical fiction?
Too much? That depends on the reader.
Tom Clancy's novels delve deep into the minutiae of military technology with characters that are thin and one-dimensional. And they sell by the tens of millions. I wouldn't read another one (I read Red October) but obviously many would.
S.M. Stirling's science fiction also gets highly technical, with weaponry and sailing details. As some of his works involve time travel, this also gets pseudo-historical. But like Clancy, he is an author would would do better with more nuanced characterization and less detailed instruction on how to rig a barque (and to lose his lurid obsession with lesbians - but, hey, that probably sells).
Alternately, Sharon Kay Penman's historical fiction of medieval England seems to get the balance just right. She is generally as true to history as possible, while still keeping story and individuals in the fore. And at the end of her novels, she has a section where she details the liberties she took with history. She explains what she portrayed where the historical record was silent, allowing her to fill in the gaps. She also lists what she changed from the record, for the benefit of the story - these are usually minor details.
In my opinion, Penman gets it right. There's a reason that she is the only one of the above author's that I've bothered to read more than once. But Clancy's estate is worth many times more than she'll ever make. It's about the readers, the author, and the publisher. Which of those are you most interested in satisfying?
It's your creation. You call the shots. Never forget that.
I prefer my historical fiction to jive with whatever was going on at that time period. Yes, it is fiction and should be fiction, but the background should not be totally invented out of nothing.
Adding this: I think that the land embezzlement could be a very interesting addition to the story, but if you want to use it in the story, it should directly affect a character in your story. Perhaps not your relative, but maybe someone who he meets on his journey. You can't just plonk it in there as an orphan bit of information; it has to be part of the story in some way.
Adding this: I think that the land embezzlement could be a very interesting addition to the story, but if you want to use it in the story, it should directly affect a character in your story. Perhaps not your relative, but maybe someone who he meets on his journey. You can't just plonk it in there as an orphan bit of information; it has to be part of the story in some way.
I've brought one of the principal players into the story and had an acquaintance call this person a scoundrel and then explain why he felt this person was a scoundrel. At this point in time my ancestor and this acquaintance were traveling to the settlement where the people had been swindled out of land.
You can get into legal trouble if you name some names but not others in historical fiction.
You could change the name of the companies to protect the innocent.
Dead people cannot sue for libel, nor can their descendants. Once you are dead, your legal rights in regard to libel expire as soon as you draw your last breath.
As to corporations, you do have to be much more careful, because...sadly..."Corporations are people", and if those corporations are still extant, you might wind up being sued.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
