By Bonnie Stanard
Let's face it. The dead don't own anything, least of all their own story. And even if they wrote thousands of words when alive to describe their own life, it guarantees them no voice in history, at least not to those of us who believe only one truth—our own. But there are those of us who credit those voices from the past with truth, or more precisely, with relative truth (yes, that's an oxymoron, but you get the idea).
Historical fiction is controversial, and I look forward to participating in a panel discussion on the topic at the Aiken Book Fair on Saturday, November 13.
There are basically two camps of writers: (#1) those who do and (#2) those who don't try to stick to the historical record.
What Historical Record?
Writers # 2 jumble events, use purposeful anachronisms, disregard dates and places, and change personalities of historical characters. The Underground Railroad (set in the antebellum South) by Colson Whitehead is a prominent example with numerous historical inaccuracies (forced sterilizations, the 1930s Tuskegee syphilis experiment, a building with an elevator). Whitehead has been quoted as saying he was after "the truth of things, not the facts." Mmmm...whose truth?
Is the historical record fiction?
One argument we make is to question the veracity of the historical record. Historians, who have studied this question longer that fiction writers, continue to revise the record as more data are discovered. An example is the revisionist view of post-colonial history. In the past, countries that owned colonies were lauded for bringing civilization to primitive cultures. Today the cheering has turned to criticism about the treatment of indigenous peoples. Do revisions suggest the record isn't true or to the contrary, does it indicate a honing toward the truth?
"History is but a fable agreed upon"
This is a quote that is ironically attributable to several sources, most often Napoleon. The point is that the historic record is one that is agreed upon by educated, knowledgeable people. We can argue that the truth depends on who is telling the story (the history of wars is written by the winners), but the stories are vetted by enlightened historians. Our age is one of uncertainty and doubt. Everything goes gray, but should we throw up our hands and say no historic truth exists?
To take a more jaded look
By flinging dirt at famous personalities, we attract an audience, not least of which are publishers and literary critics. We've been making money off of the imaginary weaknesses and/or faults of celebrated characters such as Marilyn Monroe, Einstein, Frank Lloyd Wright, and Frank Sinatra. As Guy Kay wrote in TheGuardian, "These works can be ethically troubling but some are superbly imaginative."
Free Expression
Does sticking to the historical record suppress free expression? What about the First Amendment? Should our courts decide what we can or can't write about? When our imagination conflicts with what is accepted as historical fact, which is more important? To stick to facts or go with our imagination and forget about the record?
When I'm writing historical fiction, I study documents, books, diaries, etc. about the place and time and use what I learn to write events, characters, manners, whatever pertains to a given scene. As I write, I feel as if I am time-traveling into a different era, and I try for an authentic experience.
The same is true when I read. I want to be entertained, but I want to learn about our past at the same time. Don't give me jumbled history. I want to think of the characters as my predecessors, and even if the history we study is shot-through with questions, it's better than one author's concept of it.
No comments:
Post a Comment