Reflections on the Challenges of Writing Biographical
Fiction
Writing
historical fiction in which real historical figures play a role creates the
obligation for careful research. Biographical fiction requires an even higher
standard of research, since the entire book must adhere to the known
biographical data. Biographical fiction ought to be a biography -- written in a
fashion that is easier and more enjoyable to read.
Yet
any biographer can tell you that two completely accurate, non-fictional
biographies can produce radically different images of the subject. There are
always gaps in the historical record, phases of a person’s life that were not
meticulously recorded, or events so controversial that no one version of them
exists. Unless the subject of a biography also kept diaries of their thoughts
and doings every day of his/her life, there is also the challenge of trying to
understand motives for recorded actions. And even if they did keep diaries or write letters, there is the issue of how honest
or self-serving such documents are. Biographers, like novelists, fill in the
gaps, select which of several competing versions of events seems most plausible
and speculate about motives and emotions not recorded. Non-fictional
biographers do (or should do) this openly, by discussing various possible
explanations and explaining their interpretation of events. Novelists do this
by turning their interpretation into a novel.
But
whereas the best biography is inherently the image that is most like the
subject (most comprehensive and accurate in every detail), the same cannot
necessarily be said of the best biographical fiction. A very “good” biography can
be long, dry and boring, but biographical fiction strives to be not only a
record of history (in this case a historical personality) but also a work of
art. This means that biographical fiction must be more than just accurate, it has to also be exciting, evocative,
moving, and well-written.
Let
me give an example from the world of painting. There is only one known (or
surviving) painting of Isabella the Catholic, Queen of Castile, which was painted
during her life time by an artist who met her.
It is not a very good painting; it is stiff and lifeless, dark and,
well, almost amateurish. Yet, there are many portrayals of Isabella by artists,
who did not know what she looked at all. These later works may not as accurately
depict Isabella’s features, yet they may capture her “spirit” in that they make
the viewer “see” aspects of Isabella’s known personality – her piety combined
with iron will etc. etc.
Or
consider sacred art. No one knows what Jesus or his mother looked like, but
this does not detract from the magnificent works of art portraying them. We
judge sacred art not on whether the image correctly shows Jesus as blond or
brown-haired, with a long beard or clean shaven, but rather on whether the
depictions of Him move and inspire us. Michelangelo’s pieta is not necessarily
more accurate in depicting Christ and Maria’s features, yet it stands out above
other works of art on the same subject by virtue of its ability to convey the
agony of a grieving mother for her murdered son.
This
explains how different biographical novels about the same subject can be very
different, yet equally good. Is Schiller or Shaw’s Joan of Arc better? I cannot
say off-hand which historians would choose as more accurate, but I do know that
both – regardless of which is more accurate – are great works of biographical
fiction.
My
goal with my biographical novel of Balian d’Ibelin is to create a work of art
that stands on its own merits – as well as being a tribute to a fascinating
historical personality. This will
require more than accuracy; it will require careful crafting of presentation –
and time.
No comments:
Post a Comment