This week I start a new series about the challenges of writing novels about real historical figures.
While I
have been writing historical fiction all my life, I only started to focus on
biographical fiction after earning my PhD with a biography of General Friedrich
Olbricht. Combining the skills of a
biographer were those of a novelist is an even greater challenge than combining
the skills of an historian with those of a novelist. History provides a context
for fictional characters, but leaves the novelist almost infinite freedom to
fit their characters into the general historical framework. Biographical
fiction requires a higher degree of discipline and forces a novelist to operate
within a more rigid structure. The rewards of evolving an internally consistent
and legitimate interpretation of a historical figure are, however, almost
indescribable.
The fact
is, for most historical figures information about what went on inside their hearts
and minds is scarce. We might have the
odd letter or two, or if very lucky a diary, but the farther back in history a
person lived, the less likely we are to have authentic, first-hand material. Most of what we know about historical figures
was recorded at best by contemporary chroniclers, and more often by observers
who lived decades or even centuries later.
Many historical records come from foreign sources – Athenians writing
about Sparta, Christian monks recording the raids of the Vikings, or Frenchmen
decrying the atrocities of the English in the Hundred Years War. Even where we
have contemporary, domestic sources, these may be hostile to the subject, for
example the interrogation records of the Inquisition describing the Cathars or
Gestapo memos on the German resistance to Hitler.
What
this means is that the best information we have about historical figures is
usually their actions. My father always
told me to judge a man by what he did, not what he said, but this can be very
difficult across the distance of 500 years or more. And, of course, in certain situations we
cannot even be sure that deeds attributed to one personality or another were in
fact committed by them. Did Richard III
order the murder of his nephews or didn’t he? The sons of Edward IV disappeared
while Richard III was king. Bones have been found that appear to match boys
their age. Carbon dating suggests a death date within the period of Richard’s short reign.
Yet anyone familiar with the Richard III controversy knows there are powerful
arguments against Richard’s guilt and a number of other historical figures, who
could have committed (or ordered) the murders.
In short,
while a novelist writing biographical fiction has to keep to the known facts, he/she
still has a great deal of leeway. In
most cases, there is almost unlimited freedom when it comes to describing
emotions and attitudes, and these in turn determine the nature of relationships
and – ultimately – the character of an individual. With the identical set of
facts, two good historical novelists could create equally convincing and yet virtually
opposite characters. Sticking to my Richard III example: the bald fact is that
Richard married Anne Neville, the widow of his arch-rival, the Lancastrian
prince Edward. Depending on how one interprets this fact, he either forced
himself on a helpless, grieving widow or he rescued his childhood sweetheart
after her father bartered her into a hated first marriage.
It is
all about interpretation, a phenomenon that actors will recognize well. In a play, the same actions, even the same
lines, can be transformed by interpretation – and that is what makes writing
biographical fiction so much fun.
Envoy of Jerusalem won the Pinnacle Award for Best Biographical Fiction 2016.
Buy now!
Envoy of Jerusalem won the Pinnacle Award for Best Biographical Fiction 2016.
Buy now!
An excellent piece, Professor.
ReplyDeleteI was going to make an observation, but you made it for me as the article continued. LOL