1
You come to understand that history might be, as Thomas Carlyle put it, “a distillation of rumor, ” or, as Napoleon said, “a set of lies generally agreed uponJames Alexander Thom
2
A novel, or so-called “fiction, ” if deeply researched and conscientiously written, might well contain as much truth as a high-school history textbook approved by a state board of education. But having been designated “historical fiction” by its publisher, it is presumed to be less reliably true than that textbook. If fiction were defined as “the opposite of truth, ” then much of the content of many approved historical textbooks could be called “historical fiction.” But fiction is not the opposite of truth. Fiction means “created by imagination.” And there is plenty of evidence everywhere in literature and art that imagination can get as close to truth as studious fact-finding can. .James Alexander Thom
3
My own definition of bad historical fiction hits these points: It fails to transport the reader to a former time. It fails to put the reader in another place. It fails to bring characters to life. It fails to make the reader shiver, sweat, sniffle, sneer, snarl, weep, laugh, gag, ache, hunger, wince, yearn, lust, lose sleep, empathize, hate, or need to go potty. It seems dubious. It has characters who seem too good or too bad to be true. It has anachronisms. It has clichés and stereotypes. Its writing style distracts the reader from the narrative. It takes historic license with times and facts. It is pointless. It is carelessly written. It is easy to put down. .James Alexander Thom
4
Before you're ready to tell that story well, you might have to study and learn the equivalent of an entire specialized college education on the society in which your story takes place, because all sorts of things were happening that you need to understand before you can even begin to tell a story in that milieu.James Alexander Thom
5
Mortmain is an old French word that should be tattooed on the inside of any historical novelist's skull. This wonderful and terrible word means “dead hand.” Its definition is: “The influence of the past regarded as controlling the present.” (It is also used as a legal term with the same basic meaning.James Alexander Thom
6
If you don't know what those old occupations were, how they were done, and how they interacted with the passersby, you're not prepared to write a historical novel. A historical figure doesn't pass through a blank countryside. That means you, the novelist, must learn by research what the whole place was like in those times. As much as you can, you must be like someone who has lived there, because you're going to be not just the storyteller but also the tour guide taking your readers through the past. .James Alexander Thom
7
Some writers don't believe they're ready to begin writing the story until they've finished all the research they can think of to do – until they're sure of everything. That's a logical approach, of course. The more factual knowledge, the less likelihood you'll have to throw out a lot of glorious prose when you find out that something you assumed to be true wasn't. But one problem with delaying your start until the research is all done is that the research is never all done. .James Alexander Thom
8
Lucia Robson's facts can be trusted if, say, you're a teacher assigning her novels as supplemental reading in a history class. “Researching as meticulously as a historian is not an obligation but a necessity, ” she tells me. “But I research differently from most historians. I'm looking for details of daily life of the period that might not be important to someone tightly focused on certain events and individuals. Novelists do take conscious liberties by depicting not only what people did but trying to explain why they did it.” She adds, “I depend on the academic research of others when gathering material for my books, but I don't think that my novels should be considered on par with the work of accredited historians. I wouldn't recommend that historians cite historical novels as sources.” And they sure don't. They wouldn't risk the scorn of their colleagues by citing novels. But, Lucia adds:“ I think historical fiction and nonfiction work well together. … I'd bet that historical novels lead more readers to check out nonfiction on the subject rather than the other way around, ” she says, and then notes: One of the wonderful ironies of writing about history is that making stuff up doesn't mean it's not true. And obversely, declaring something to be true doesn't guarantee that it is. In writing about events that happened a century or more ago, no one knows what historical ‘truth’ is, because no one living today was there. That's right. Weren't there. But will be, once a good historical novelist puts us there.James Alexander Thom
9
Most historical accounts were written by fallible scholars, using incomplete or biased resource materials; written through the scholars' own conscious or unconscious predilections; published by textbook or printing companies that have a stake in maintaining a certain set of beliefs; subtly influenced by entities of government and society – national administrations, state education departments, local school boards, etcetera – that also wish to maintain certain sets of beliefs. To be blunt about it, much of the history of many countries and states is based on delusion, propaganda, misinformation, and omission.James Alexander Thom
10
In my long career in this historical fiction business, though, I've found that the most effective storytelling concept is this: Once upon a time it was now. That has become my credo and my method as a longtime historical novelist. It's quite simple, if you see as Janus sees: Today is now. Yesterday was now. Tomorrow will be now. Three hundred years ago, the eighteenth century was now. You, as a historical novelist, can make any time now by taking your reader into that time. Once you grasp that, the rest is just hard work. Stay with me, and you'll see how such work is done.James Alexander Thom