Below, as requested by several readers, fellow authors and friends, I have finally got around to putting my notes online and I have also put the worksheets here from Dr Trafford's handouts with some useful information. These are at the end of the blog, and they apply to the UK, although if you reside elsewhere, you may also find them interesting. You will have to click on them to enlarge in order to read them more easily.
My talk Notes
IHR CONFERENCE: Researching Historical Fiction.
FINDING THE DEEP
MAGIC
For those of you who
don't know me or my work, I write
mainstream, popular historical fiction. If you were looking for authors
of similar style I’d be roughly on the same page as Alison Weir, Bernard
Cornwell, Sharon Kay Penman, Helen Hollick.
One reviewer called me the inheritor of Anya Seton’s Crown, but one
shouldn't believe all the hype. I am me and in the end I have my own voice
I suppose I should
talk a little bit about how I came to writing historical fiction in the first
place. The story part is simple enough. I can remember telling myself tales
from first having language and memory. I learned my craft from reading widely
and from repetition. I told myself stories verbally throughout childhood
exploring and changing beginnings, middles and ends, introducing new characters and
new dilemmas to the same story and making it different just to see what would happen. I was having great fun without realising that
I was teaching myself the art of storytelling.
I came to historical
fiction in my teens via visual media. I did not read much historical
fiction as a child, it was mostly myths, legends and the hero’s journey, but
I'd always loved historical adventure films. In my early teens the BBC aired The Six wives of Henry VIII starring Keith Michell. Falling hard for the latter, I
began writing a Tudor story, but didn't get very far and put it away after the
school holidays, even though I’d enjoyed the experience. The following year the
BBC put on another program dubbed from the French on children's TV. It was
called Desert Crusader, was set in the 12th century and starred a handsome
young knight in flowing white robes galloping around the holy land having
adventures. Aged 15 now, I totally fell in
love and began writing I suppose what amounts to a fan fiction story. However
it grew from those beginnings into its own story and then a novel. I didn't know anything about the holy land in
the 12th century, and had to begin researching. I think my mother despaired of
me. She would ask what I wanted for Christmas or birthday, hoping that am I
want girly things such as clothes and make-up, and I would request Sir Stephen
Runciman’s History of the Crusades volume 1 and 2 or some other research book.
I wanted my novels to
feel as real as possible. In order to visualise the world my character’s lived in, I had
to know the history, and the history was the underlying skeleton on which my
story was built. The more I researched more interested I became and the more I wanted to write about the period. I began to
find out what was often taught as correct history in schools or popularly perceived wasn't true.
I discovered that contrary to what Dorian Williams said on the Horse of the
Year Show, the warhorse of a mediaeval knight wasn't some whacking great shire
beast, but a creature akin to a Welsh cob about 15 hands high. I discovered that
rather than having to be Conan the Barbarian to lift a medieval sword, as long
as you were fit and trained, you could easily handle and wield the 3-4 pounds that a sword actually weighed in the 12th century. This
was all intoxicating information to me because it was opening up a whole new
world. It’s one I've been researching for 40 years now, and I realise the
more I research, the more I need to know.
Of course if you are
writing a historical novel it's not about dumping all that knowledge in the
text. That's the last thing you want to do. Your aim is to entertain readers, not bore their socks off. Research is about
informing yourself so that you can walk with confidence in the world you are
creating. It's about credibility. Robert
McKee in his lectures on story structure in film script says in his 10 Commandments for
the writer, ‘thou shalt know thy imaginary world as well as
the one thou livest in.’ Wise words.
I view authors of
historical fiction as bridges between the reader and the past, and this is true
whatever genre you write in. Readers tastes are wide and varied and what they
want and what you yourself are drawn to write, will affect the kind of bridge you build. Some readers are only after entertainment when they come to historical
fiction. They want a good story but basically with a fancy dress or wallpaper background.
Others will be looking for rich and detailed novels that explore the past in
more depth and minutiae. Sometimes the
bridge you build will attract readers who really should be crossing on one
better suited to their requirements and expectations. With my novels I have
seen a review of The Greatest Knight saying 'I was expecting more romance. I wanted to be wooed
by the hero.' And then another one saying ‘this novel is too romantic.’ Or there's too much fighting, or Not enough
fighting. You have to take on board that
you're not going to suit every reader’s taste and that readers bring their own
ideas and prejudices to the reading of the novel. You can't legislate for that. Just build
your bridge the best you can and how you want it to look, and build it with
integrity. Don't sweat the stuff that's out of your control.
One of the sayings
that I get irritated about is when people talk about historical fiction
and say ‘If I want facts I'll look in a history book.’ Sometimes to judge by my research reading on Eleanor of
Aquitaine, chance would be a fine thing! But that aside, of course story is massively important, but in the case
of historical fiction, the story should rest solidly on historical integrity.
No author can get everything right, but there's nothing to stop us trying and
doing the best we can. If you are twisting history to suit the story, then
you're not a good enough writer. Part of the fun of being a historical novelist
is working out how the narrative can weavein the historical facts and remain a
thumping good story. It's like putting
together the pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, and if you work at it they will fall
into place. There's no need to shift a battle or a date by a couple of years. Work with it, work around it. If you do the best research you can and don't warp the history while telling a
bloody good story then the historical detail anoraks will
stay off your back, the people who just want a story won't notice, and
everyone's happy except the extreme whingers and trolls who will moan whatever. Simple.
When I first began
writing I wanted my characters to live in a world that felt as real as possible
which is why I began asking my mother for all these research books for
birthdays and Christmas. However my
early work was still very much a case of characters wearing the right clothes
having the right weight of sword riding the right sort of horse, but the
mindset -how they thought about things, how they felt about things was still
pretty modern. So it's not just a case
of getting the physical details right, but also of establishing the right
mindset. Don't ask what would I have done in a situation, but what would they have done? How would it feel in 1200 to be 13 years old and
told that you had to marry a guy in his late 30s? The
character might indeed be grossed out and horrified. She might find herself
beaten and locked in a room by despairing parents unable to understand why
she’s being so disobedient. It's a shame and a disgrace to them. It’s more
likely given the social upbringing of the times that the girl would feel at
best proud to go through with it and at worst resigned, because it's her duty
and she’s helping her family. She might
feel that here is a strong protector. She might feel honoured. The 21stC reader might think oh my goodness
this man is a paedophile for taking a 13-year-old bride, but at that time, 13
wasn't childhood. You became an adult and you entered the adult world with all
the adult duties and responsibilities. It was a different lens. Even for those
who did not marry childhood ended as one became a teenager. You have to think outside your own box and
into theirs and bring the reader with you over the bridge.
So how then do I go
about researching a historical novel when I write it?
It's a blend of many
aspects, and we are currently blessed with more information than at any other
time in the history of the world, even if the piddling little fact that we
really need to know is often hidden away in a JSTOR article that we can't
access - but we have learned more from Simon today on how to get around that!
I digress. I have a manyfold
approach to the historical research that goes into my novels.
1 I read primary sources. For my period it's
mostly ecclesiastical with a few bits of secular writing here and there, so one
does have to take into account the biases of the church, and also the biases of
one's particular chronicler. Gerald of Wales for example is a man with a very
poisoned pen and one should always, always doublecheck his statements and ask
is this at face value? This is what he
says of William Longchamps, Bishop of Ely.
He was
short and contemptible in stature and crippled in both haunches, with a big
head and with the hair on his forehead coming down almost to his eyebrows like
an ape. He was very dark, with little sunken black eyes, flat nose, snarling
face. His beard below his eyes and his hair above them were all shaggy; his
chin was receding, and his lips spread
apart in an effective, false, and almost continual grin, which he very suitably
used as a disguise. His neck was short, his back was humped, and his belly
stuck out in front and his buttocks at the back. His legs were crooked, and
although his body was small, his feet were huge. He also accuses him of being
greedy stuffed with ambition, sexually perverted unscrupulous.
One needs to take
statements such as this with a big spoonful of salt, but then it leads one to
wonder Why was Gerald saying this? What were his thought processes? What axes did he have to grind above and beyond his usual snarkiness? What’s
fiction, what’s fact? ALWAYS question whatever you are reading. The primary sources will give you an idea of
the mindset of the time - the thoughts behind the world in which your characters
live - politics, social attitudes. It helps to look at the world from both
sides of an argument. To look at the pros and the cons, because one size never fits all. People still had individual ways of thinking, but one
can get an idea of the broad scope. Read
widely in primary source, then you get the nuances of the time and they'll sink
into your subconscious and you’ll absorb them by osmosis.
2 Secondary Source
This is where all the
academic works come in covering a broad spread from the life and personal times
of the person I’m writing about to wider social and detail issues. It also
brings in archaeology. The things they touched and handled. Where were they found?
What are they made of? What were they for? I'm quite amused sometimes by the
notion that just because something is set further back, you can't find out
about it, or there aren't as many books about it. I think Hillary Mantell said
that at our last talk, and I would have to disagree with her on that point. She
just hasn't looked. Let me tell you, there are enough works at Oxbow books on
my particular period to fill a mansion. You can find out everything you need.
One of my tips for any sort of reading when you're writing historical fiction,
is not just to read the books that you know are essential to your novel, but to
browse material as a matter of general interest. I pick up many interesting books on my core mediaeval subject matter just by pottering, and
they can add so much to your writing. It's as if you didn't know you needed it
until it popped out at you from the pages. There are books that might seem
obscure but you never know when they're going to come in handy. So I have such
titles on my shelves such as the Archaeology of Rabbit Warrens, On Farting:
language and laughter in the middle ages, or the Devils Cloth history of
stripes and striped fabric. None of these things are immediately necessary to
my novels - except perhaps the farting one where in TO DEFY A KINGg we encounter
Roland the Farter, a man who actually lived, and held his lands for the task of
coming to court each Christmas to perform a leap a whistle and a fart in front
of King Henry. I am waiting for Eleanor of Aquitaine's reaction when I get to
book two of my trilogy!
3. I
research on Internet.That has some wonderful resources these days and I expect
everyone here uses it extensively. When one's been doing it for a while one
tends to develop and inbuilt crap detector and know which sites to avoid. The
Internet has made a terrific difference to the amount of primary source
material available online, and I hope it continues to flourish.
4. Location, location! I
go to places to gain a feel for the lie of the land, for what was there before,
and to make a physical connection. I can't get to every place I'd like to go on
writing a novel, but I try and visit a selection. I buy the guidebooks and just
think myself into time and place.
5. Re-enactment. The
other thing I do is to re-enact with early mediaeval society Regia Anglorum.
This brings artefacts out of the museum and into 3-D. You can interact with
replicas and find out how it feels to use them. For example this cooking pot….
If I ever need to write a scene with one of these, I know how it will react on
a fire, how its contents will cook, how long it can be left to simmer without a disaster happening. You can't get that from looking at a specimen in a museum.
I
have to add that I also use the psychic is a form of research but I'm not going
to go into that today as it’s a personal thing, and while I find it superb for
adding to the blend, it's not everyone's cup of tea and it obviously works in a
different way to the more conventional researches that I’ve mentioned above. I find it immensely useful as a strand when developing my
novels, but it doesn't fit into the cannon of the research we've been discussing today.
Then
I add in imagination because after all it is fiction. It’s a story set in the
past. All these research elements are like facets in a cut gemstone. It gives you different
surfaces that glitter with their own light but are part of a whole, and
depending on how you use that information, and your own personal talent,
you will either end up with something out of the bran tub, or a piece from
Cartier!
The salient points are: (bear in mind this is my opinion and how I work - I'm sharing, but these are not the be-all and end-all rules of how to write historical fiction).
1
don't info dump. Take all this research, turn it into an essence and use it
judiciously like the best perfume.
2
make sure your characters reflect the times in which they lived. Don't make
them modern people in fancy dress unless you are specifically writing for
readers who want that experience.
3 If you can't find something out, don't let it stall you. Use your best guess.
If you have done the research, then your best guess is likely to be plausible.
Sweat it, but don't kill it. Don't defame the dead.
4.
Senses. Use them. The touch, taste, feel, sound, sights of the
time are vitally important in giving the reader the sensory experience of
another world. They are a major building
block of your bridge. Check how your
character would react to these things as well.
For e.g. I have a book on the senses in the Medieval period which goes
into depth about people’s reactions to certain smells or colours. While we have the similarity of the human
experience, just check that it remains the same.
5 Language. A knotty one.
I would say don’t use twisy twasery and don’t use ultra modern
slang. The latter can work but only if
you really know your subject and your genre, the novel and your readers are in
cahoots with you. Think very carefully. Plain, serviceable English will tend to be
your best tool.
6 Depth. Don't just take one source, take
several. Don't be satisfied with the superficial report. Always look underneath
- unless again you are writing a novel that doesn't require in-depth
research. I found this when writing a
novel called A PLACE BEYOND COURAGE, about John Marshal the father of William Marshall, star of THE GREATEST KNIGHT. John is famous for having said of his little
son who was a hostage and being threatened by death. ‘That he had the anvils and hammers to get
better sons than him.’ I began to wonder what would lead a man to say that sort
of thing. What kind of father would do that? In our own time John has been
vilified for that statement. What an appalling parent! But when you begin looking under that surface,
something very different emerges. That tale was told as a family saga intended
to be recounted round the fire at night by family members, and John's action
was viewed with approbation in his own time. The anvils and hammers were a pun
on the symbols of the Royal Marshal. The remark was also a pun on John Marshall's virility and a proverbial
up yours at King Stephen. The King is
supposed to have been very tender hearted and to have prevented William from
being hanged. He did do the latter and did play with the child, but not before
he had let his men subject little boy to more casual taunting in the camp.
There was a lot more than met the eye, but to notice it, you had to have read
and studied beyond the superficial and beyond that one source and with an open,
enquiring mind.
CS
Lewis talks in his Narnia books about the magic and the deep magic and that's it. Knowing the difference between the
superficial and the depth boils down to the finding out on many levels and then distilling it into your prose.
Dr Trafford's tipsheets on finding out what you need to known - click to enlarge
