Why Read Historical Fiction?

To my infinite delight, last night The Man in the Iron Mask was on the local TV station. Even though I've seen this movie before (the 1998 version with Jeremy Irons and Leonardo DiCaprio), my teenage daughter was watching it for the first time. She was entranced and so was I. So much so that I totally forgot about The Amazing Race, which was on at the same time. It bears noting here that I am wholly devoted to my favorite reality TV shows. I do not miss them and every time my favorite player or team doesn't win, I vow never to watch that show again - but I always do.

Anyway, it reminded me that the first book that really captured my imagination and made me a lifelong fan of historical fiction was another of 19th century French writer Alexandre Dumas' timeless works, of which the above is the sequel: The Three Musketeers. After that, there was no stopping me. I devoured every historical work in the classics section and then went on to read more contemporary HF authors of that time, like Jean Plaidy.

All this time, I was also scouring the historical entries in my encyclopedia set. Odd for a teenager, I know, but there was something about not just reading for pleasure, but dipping into the past that made the escapism factor that much more powerful for me. I never actually believed Louis XIV had a hidden twin brother, as is the pivotal element in The Man in the Iron Mask, or that d'Artagnan, Athos, Porthos and Aramis even existed. I simply enjoyed the stories. If Alexandre Dumas were writing today, I sometimes wonder if he'd be able to get away with his creative license, because his stories do involve real historical figures?

Still, I often ponder on why historical fiction has so many ardent readers? What is it about events and people from the past that so fascinates us? Adventure, romance, simpler times, or making sense of complex events and how human nature molded them? Lots of reasons, I suppose. What's yours?

Until later,
Gemi

Doors: A writer's best friend

True. I don't think I need to say much about this. And my friends who are photographers or artists who also spends loads of hours by themselves, content and absorbed in their work, also concur: Doors are a creative person's best friend.

Working at home (and yes, I do consider writing to be more than a hobby) provides tremendous distractions. Housework is the least of these. If the laundry needs to be done and I'm home alone, I can pop up from my swivel chair and attend to it in between scenes or when my brain gets stuck. Laundry does not bark at the meter reader, it does not ask to be fed or taken to school, and it does not rev up the power tools to give me a headache. In short, although it needs to be washed, dried and folded occasionally so that my family can venture out in public without the shame of smelling like the bottom of a gym locker, if I ignore it for a few hours a a few days, no one will die and the world will not end. Yay for that!

Lately, I've been in major writing mode. The family has not yet caught on to this. Me hunched over the keyboard, grumbling at intruders or altogether ignoring them has not been blatant enough. Apparently I need to send up signal flares and an airplane trailing a banner that says: MOM IS WRITING. PLEASE WAIT FOR HER TO EMERGE. UNTIL THEN, ASK YOUR FATHER.

Since I have neither of those, I will go back to hanging the little handwritten index card on my door that says: WORKING, DO NOT DISTURB. EXCEPTIONS - BLOOD, BROKEN BONES, VOMIT AND DOG FIGHTS.

Having said that, I'm having a guilt complex about being anti-social. Writers and artists work odd hours and do, by nature, tend to be reclusive - at least while they're in a creative mode. Some can shut out the world entirely, writing in coffee shops or painting while crowds pass by and ask questions. Some can snap out of the zone to attend to those nearby, then jump right back in. Some of us need chunks of uninterrupted time.

Me, I like my door.

P.S. And I still love my family.

Until later,
Gemi

Author bias

Author bias. Is it possible to write historical fiction without it? Does objectivity fly out the window when an author presents a character's point of view?

Hmm, uhhh... yeah. If the author didn't pick whose side to be on in the story, how would she ever get the reader to cheer for the dashing hero or feisty heroine and boo at the villain?

But what about non-fiction authors? Are historians biased? How could they be if history is supposed to be about the facts? This is a problem historical fiction writers are frequently faced with when researching their subjects. Even when delving into primary sources, bias can be present and secondary sources often perpetuate these. The truth is not always easy to sort out.

Researching the murder of John 'the Red' Comyn at Greyfriar's Kirk in Dumfries in 1306 brings about a key question: Who exactly killed him? Robert the Bruce - or someone else? The chronicles of the Englishman Walter of Guiseborough claim the Bruce lured Comyn to the church with muderous intentions; the writings of John Fordoun, a Scotsman of the time, stresses Comyn's betrayal of the Bruce. If you read a translation of the well-known Lanercrost Chronicle, a recording of happenings at the the time by holy men in an abbey just south of the Scottish border, then Bruce 'seditiously' lured Comyn to the church and 'did slay him'. Ronald McNair Scott's 'Robert the Bruce, King of Scots', refers to 'oral tradition' and a 19th century chronicle called Liber Pluscardiensis. Scott writes that Bruce confronted Comyn about his treachery, they quarreled, Bruce struck the first blow and then one of his companions, Roger Kirkpatrick, killed Comyn.

When examining an event that occured centuries ago, the facts are often muted, muddled and scattered. The English version of Comyn's death is obviously going to have a different slant to it than the Scottish one. It just goes to show you there are two sides to every story.

Until later,
Gemi

Free Kindle for PCs

While I will always prefer real paper books pressed between my fingers, I don't really mind reading on my computer screen. In fact, having been in a critique group for a couple of years and swapping manuscripts electronically with fellow writers, I've gotten rather used to it. When traveling, I almost always take my laptop and sometimes there just isn't room in my carry-on luggage to cram another book.

I've held off on buying a Kindle because if I have to choose between a $299 device that only downloads books (when I know a year or two from now it will probably be outdated) and new carpet for the bedroom (although I'm very fond of the coffee stains, dog puke spots and indescribably colored traffic pattern), well, I'm gonna buy the carpet. First we have to drywall the garage, though.

But hold on! Amazon.com recently announced it is going to release FREE Kindle software for PCs! The e-reader companies are at war. Hey, works for me. I can support new authors, buy 3 downloads for the price of one hardback, AND save trees all at the same time. (Yes, I'm a tiny bit excited about this.)

Awhile back I blogged about the Espresso Book Machine. The publishing world seems to have been one of the last to be affected by technology, but the 'current economic situation' is applying new pressures to the system. It's hard telling what will stick and while things may seem tough in publishing right now, what is likely to emerge is something more efficient, greener, and with a myriad of options. In fact, it's already started.

Until later,
Gemi

Upcoming releases!

Fanfare, please. Some wonderful news from fellow writers over at Authonomy! In the year I've been on the site, I've had the pleasure of getting to know some talented, emerging authors, a few of whom are now breaking into the world of publishing.

First up is the wonderful May 1812, by M.M. Bennetts, due for release on November 14th, 2009. In the time of Napoleon, the Earl of Myddelton must break the French code to spare men from dying in battle. When the Prime Minister is assassinated in May, 1812, Myddelton is immersed in an ever-increasing crisis, even as his personal life crumbles around him. For more information, check the press release or visit the publisher's website at diiarts.com. Trust me, when you read Bennetts' stories, you will believe they were actually written by someone who lived in early 19th century Europe and experienced it all.

Next is this gobsmacking piece of news from the publisher Gollancz: Elspeth Cooper was signed for a three-book deal, with the first story in The Wild Hunt Trilogy, entitled Songs of the Earth, due out in early 2011. Associate publisher Jo Fletcher described Cooper's work as "an unputdownable fast-paced adventure with characters who leap off the page". Having read an early draft, I concur completely. Cooper's writing is brilliant - in descriptive prose, characterization and pacing. It reminded me why I fell so in love with the fantasy genre in my teens. Cooper's name will be added to my now resurrected list of favorite fantasy authors, like Brooks, LeGuin and yes, even Tolkien.

In a time when new writers often despair of ever getting into print because publishers are paring down on their lists, this is evidence to the contrary. Talent will find a home. And the world will have new writers to read.

I have the feeling there will be more good news to come.

P.S. Yes, I know I promised a post on author bias and it is coming. Honest! I've just been busy writing, really!!! I figured while I had momentum I'd better run with it.

Later,
Gemi

How much is too much?

Last week in a fit of retail therapy, I ordered research books online. They sneakily arrived while I was out of town (judging at the Australian Shepherd Club of America National Specialty, which was one of my lifetime goals - yay!). This morning I decided to organize my desk before jumping back into the writing. Good intentions and all, but alas I made the mistake of opening up the packages. I should have ruthlessly shoved them aside for weekend reading. Shoulda, woulda, coulda. Did not.

A wrinkle in time then occured. 'Tis true. A black hole opened up beneath my chair on rollers and somehow I lost an hour of writing time. One moment it was 11:02 a.m. and the next thing I know, I glanced at my watch again and it was after noon.

One book follows the life of Robert the Bruce, and another about Edward II is still en route. Neither of these were available when the seeds of my stories were but moldy little sprouts in the lightless recesses of my brain. I'm hoping they'll help flesh out some weak points in the plot, but also afraid I'll end up adding another 30,000 words to bring realism to the story, then deleting the same amount later so as not to overwhelm the reader . It's a vicious cycle in the chaotic process that is writing, but it happens.

Next, I opened The Medieval Fortress, by Kaufmann and Kaufmann. I forgot I had laundry to fold, a story to finish and even, I'm pretty sure, my own name for awhile. Page after page of detailed sketches of castle gates, timber hoardings, and arrow loops (who knew there were so many different kinds?). Oh the glory and wonder of research! I read, I see PICTURES, and I am THERE!!!

Then I realized the danger that lurks for writers of historical fiction. Detail brings reality and credibility to stories, but it can also overrun them. Like dark chocolate and Toasted Almond coffee, both of which I love, research for me is best done in moderation - otherwise, I'd never get on with writing. So maybe the question is not 'how much is too much', but 'how much is enough'?

Okay, drawing on my inner strength and sliding those pretty books far, far awaaaaayyyy from me. I will not touch them until I have written today. I will not touch them until I have written today. I will not touch them until I have written today. I will not...

Until later,
Gemi

Redeeming the past

Recently, I had a comment from someone who'd read the beginning chapters to my story Isabeau, which is about Queen Isabella, the wife of Edward II of England. In essence, the remark was, "We all know the gruesome end that Edward met." For those of you who don't know yet, the myth that has been perpetuated for centuries was that Edward II was murdered in Berkeley Castle by having a hot poker inserted up his rectum. Here is where I bow to the sage Alianore, whose blog on the life of Edward II is an absolute goldmine. In a recent post, she addresses some of the misinformation surrounding his death, and if you peruse past posts, she sheds a whole new light on his life.

A letter written in 1340 by an Italian priest named Manuel Fieschi to Edward III more than refutes that rumor, it purports that Edward escaped, took refuge for a time in Corfe Castle, and eventually found his way to a hermitage in Lombardy. I must say, the murder theory is more sensationalistic, but the possibility of a fallen king living in disguise among monks is pretty darn intriguing, too. Edward II is not one of England's best loved monarchs, because clearly he made a lot of bad choices, but I think a lot of what motivated him was that he placed love and friendship above compromise and peace. In short, he was willing to accept conflict (or perhaps delusional enough to think people would just forgive him and let him live on his own terms) in favor of rewarding those (Gaveston and Despenser) he felt undying loyalty towards.

When I was writing about Robert the Bruce, making him into a likable character was almost too easy. Who couldn't admire a rebel who leads his ragged band to battle to overcome great odds and rise victorious? But I've also embraced the challenge of writing about historical figures who've not always had the best reputations, such as Edward I, Edward II, Piers Gaveston, Hugh Despenser, Queen Isabella and Roger Mortimer. I'm not going to say which, but some of these I simply cannot redeem. Some, I can, to varying degrees.

How? you ask. By looking at all the available information, not just popular theory. And, perhaps even more importantly, by attempting to understand what drove these people to do what they did. Was it greed, power or lack of morality? Or fear of losing control of their fates, the hunger for revenge or the trials of forbidden love? I mean, were they really evil and unscrupulous, or were they restricted by the mores and laws of their day, born into situations they would not have chosen, or trapped in toxic or dead marriages? Hmm, when you think about it that way...

More and more these days, writers of historical fiction and non-fiction are tackling the perpetually maligned figures of the past and providing plausible motivations for their actions. Note that I don't say excusable, but if we attempt to understand the psychological and emotional causes, then we can become less judgmental and more sympathetic. I suspect, though, that it will take many more decades to undo the erroneous information about many past events and people that has already survived for centuries.

I always liked a challenge, though. So bring on the bad boys. I like digging around inside people's heads to figure out what made them tick.

Until later,
Gemi