Book Idea...

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

So I'm contemplating writing something. I'd call it my own amateur novel project as I'm no professional writer by any means. But, I have a story idea that is set in the early years of the 1st Century AD. Now without getting into too much of exactly what kind of story it is, and giving too much away... I have a question for everyone.

What is/are your thought(s) on writers who portray an event or series of events of the time period (we'll say for the sake of argument all of Rome's existence)... but do not follow history?

We've all seen or read the Historical Fiction books of say Bernard Cornwell, Simon Scarrow, etc. They created realistic environments based on actual factual events (or at least loosely based on events). What I'm talking about is an author who takes history (let's say the scene of Julius Caesar's assassination) and turn it around into a sort of Sci-fi, or Fantasy, or action adventure.

Do you guys look down upon writers who change history or make wild fictional claims in their creative writing? Can you pick up a book, read it, and enjoy it if it isn't based on history?

Now what I'm getting at is I wanted to write a story that is historically accurate (the uniforms, weapons, civilian life, etc), but take a certain point or events and put my own spin on it in a COMPLETELY different manner. I was looking to make it a suspense, thriller, horror style story but still keep the majority of the elements realistic (proper of period equipment, language, etc).

Would anyone read a story like that? Would anyone be offended if a scene or event was portrayed differently? Am I likely to get the mass hatred of the die hard's (those that want the event(s) told as it was intended)?

I'm just curious to see the general consensus. I think I have a very unique idea up my sleeve (though I'm wearing a t-shirt, so they're short sleeves), but I'm wondering just how receptive it would be by the reader. Of course, not mentioning the abilities as a storyteller I would need to perfect to capture an audience. But I wonder just how many people might be interested in reading a Roman period story (that doesn't follow the historical fiction norm).

I saw a book that seemed to be a Sci-fi story set in Rome. I didn't pick it up or read it. Though it did get fairly decent reviews. I wonder just how big the base is for readers like that (which is the purpose of my post here I suppose). What are your thoughts? What books do you really enjoy? Could you enjoy something that I mentioned above?

[Jona Lendering]

Do you guys look down upon writers who change history or make wild fictional claims in their creative writing? Can you pick up a book, read it, and enjoy it if it isn't based on history?

It depends. If in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose, we encounter a glass mirror, I think that is acceptable because the book is to some extent a joke: think only of the German mystic who is quoted as saying that "one must throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it" (=Wittgenstein). Eco's literary aims are no to recreate the past, but to play with texts. So I think an anachronism is acceptable. If, on the other hand, the author really wants to evoke the past, he must be an excellent author if he wants me to forget that novels did not exist in Antiquity - the text he wants me to believe in, could not exist back then. Still, Yourcenar managed to make me forget that Hadrian's Memories was a contradiction in terms. Gore Vidals' Julian is also a good one.

Would anyone read a story like that?

Of course. Just ask the publisher of Yourcenar how many copies he has sold! :wink:

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

On a related note, does anyone know if Gore Vidal's Creation is worth reading? I was thinking about buying it. I know his non-fiction is usually quite good.

Titus, a lot will depend on the quality of your writing. I can only speak for myself, but I don't mind deviation from the facts as long as the story is compelling.
For example, Ross Leckie wrote three novels about Carthage that are based on the history but filled with a bunch of made-up characters and subplots, but the stories were good because they seemed authentic; i.e., not accurate, but plausible characters and events that could have existed.

Of course, you'll never please everyone. Even if you follow the history as closely as possible, someone is going to say "this is implausible rubbish."

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

Of course, you'll never please everyone. Even if you follow the history as closely as possible, someone is going to say "this is implausible rubbish."

Well I was thinking of more along the lines of taking events and manipulating them but keeping the general setting the same. So a battle would be completely different (and fictitious), but the environment would still be accurate (descriptions of equipment, terrain, weather, etc). It wouldn't be like a portal to a different world, or any such extremes.

It's hard to explain without killing the story idea.

[Jona Lendering]

On a related note, does anyone know if Gore Vidal's Creation is worth reading?

I think it was not worth the effort. His "Greek wars" are just the Persian Wars with reverse bias, not a really novel reading of the events, even though that would have been possible. He falls for the charms of Herodotus, like so many other authors. I have been told that the Chinese episodes are extremely unreliable; I can not judge it.

If you want to read a nice historical novel by Vidal, take Lincoln or Burr; if it has to be ancient, take Julian, which is superb. Kennedy was reading it during the Cuba Missile Crisis.

I thought that Life from Golgotha was withing the limits of acceptable satire (the joke is on televangelists, not on Jesus), but people may disagree here; still, it is not a really historical noval - it's satire, and although he raises valid points, the old fox looks like an old man who tells the same joke several time.

It is sad that Vidal got recognition when he was no longer a good author. I love the man who gave us Myra Beckingridge, Julian, Lincoln, and countless excellent essays. But somewhere, he lost his rudder and drifted away to mediocre writing. Life from Golgotha for example, or his crazy defense of Timothy McVeigh - raising interesting questions and at the same time spoiling the effect by overstating his case. So sad. Still, we should remember our writers not by their youngest, but by their best publications - so let him remain the author of Julian.

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Thanks, and I'm glad you wrote because I was very close to ordering Creation, but my bookshelf is already full of stuff on the Greco-Persian wars anyway, and my late Roman Empire section is a bit thin.

Titus bear in mind Jona's point about novels in the ancient world... your work might have a more authentic "feel" if you write it in first-person narrative, and if you're considering that I would definitely recommend that you read Xenophon's Anabasis, if you haven't already.
It is some of the most enjoyable literature I have ever read, as compelling as any suspense novel you'll read today. Some passages make you laugh, others make you wince, and others will bring you to the verge of tears.

[Titus Juventius Tertius]

I've never been a huge fan of first person books myself. I have a hard time relating to the characters if the story is so far fetched. But, first person may be the way I'm going to go with this because the concept is based on a find of a journal. I figured if I had gone with the 3rd person there would be a disclaimer to explain that some information was added to enhance the content. I still haven't decided on the exact course yet.

Do you guys prefer 3rd or 1st person stories? I know that it would depend on the quality of the story, but which style are you generally inclined to read?

[Justin of the New Yorkii]

Well I used to prefer first-person narrative because that's what I grew up reading, but then I read Herodotus, Xenophon and Thucydides, and now it just "feels" more authentic to read about ancient history in the first person.

I think that's what Jona was getting at when he said you'd need to be an excellent author in order to make the reader forget novels didn't exist in the ancient world.

An ordinary reader who is used to the modern third-person novel wouldn't think anything of it. But if someone who is well-versed in the classics is reading, they'll find it odd because it doesn't "read" like Xenophon etc. or the other works from that era to which they've grown accustomed.

[Jona Lendering]

Do you guys prefer 3rd or 1st person stories?

The construction chosen by Vidal in his Julian worked fine: two people exchanging letters about the autobiography by the emperor. It combines three perspectives.

[Epictetus]

What is/are your thought(s) on writers who portray an event or series of events of the time period (we'll say for the sake of argument all of Rome's existence)... but do not follow history?

It depends upon the book. I think there is a difference between a “historical novel” and “novelised history.”

Do you guys look down upon writers who change history or make wild fictional claims in their creative writing? Can you pick up a book, read it, and enjoy it if it isn't based on history?

I can certainly enjoy a historical novel. I loved Jenning’s classic Aztec, for instance. I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at, but if the writing is good it will be enjoyed.

Would anyone read a story like that? Would anyone be offended if a scene or event was portrayed differently? Am I likely to get the mass hatred of the die hard's (those that want the event(s) told as it was intended)?

Some people don’t like historical inaccuracies in fiction. Just look at the response to the movie Gladiator or HBO’s Rome. I do it too sometimes. I’m not really sure what sets me off. Probably just how the media is billed compared to its contents. If there is a discrepancy there I tend to get annoyed.

Sometimes there seems to be a rather odd blurring of perceptions of reality. For example, I’m still baffled at the response to The Da Vinci Code, which is simply a novel and was always billed as such.

Do you guys prefer 3rd or 1st person stories? I know that it would depend on the quality of the story, but which style are you generally inclined to read?

Probably 3rd, simply because I’m more used to it. There is nothing wrong with 1st, though. Aztec, like I mentioned early, is mostly told in the first person. The point-of-view can be very interesting depending on the story and the writer. George R.R. Martin has really done some amazing things with changing point-of-view in his A Song of Ice and Fire fantasy.

[Jona Lendering]

I’m still baffled at the response to The Da Vinci Code, which is simply a novel and was always billed as such.

Dan Brown inserted a list of what he considered to be historical facts that were ignored by the Christian religious authorities. He blurred the distinction between fiction and history. Besides, we all know that the Vatican is crowded with archvilains, that ancient history is only taught on universities to make us develop tunnel vision, and that all artists leave behind hidden codes about big secrets. :wink:

[Alanus]

Hello Titus,

I pity and envy anyone who attempts to write a historical novel. It's tough. The reward of doing it WELL is satisfying; and the real key is "sucking in the reader." If a reader can't empitize with the characters, all the historicity in the world isn't going to help. All it takes is one anomaly or weak characters to turn a reader off... and once you have lost him/her, all is lost. Strong characters and good plotting (and pacing) are far more important than historical accuracy. But little details (like an orange in "Merlin's Apprentice," or someone eating turkey or potatoes) will be caught by readers who know period history. If the reader enters your fictional world and remains there throughout the novel, you have won the battle.

My first novel (about Vercingetorix) was written in the first person-- a huge mistake. In my second novel (the many trials of Alaric) I wrote in the third person omnipotent and it worked out much better. When I wrote my third historical novel, I rewrote it at least seven or eight times, getting the pacing correct. So I guess what I'm saying is that it takes practice and study to create a believable world for the reader.

I don't know if you are planning on publishing your tale or whether it's simply for your own enjoyment. Here are a few hints from a professional non-fiction writer who switched to fiction. When your test readers enjoy the plot and characters, when they rave, then you have a good story. Antiquated language, aka Herodotus or Xenophon, turns off the reader. Modern language, even in an ancient context, will keep the reader turning pages. Characters don't have to be totally real. In my third novel, I have a Merlinesque character (called Merjands) who hibernates and never grows older ("the curse of being forever old"). My Lady of the Lake is a Taifali/Alanic warrioress who is the product of transmigration. You can cross from historicity to metaphysics IF the reader believes in the characters. Then (like myself) you will be ready to approach a publisher.

Write well, and good luck,

[VespilloAD64]

The one cautious thing that I would bear in mind is that people who are not into History/Roman History and you write a story and change detail or make up something the reader will tend to belive that it happened.I know its a hard thing to do but all you can do is try to be as historical as poss but also make it colourful with distorting history.Good luck!

[Alanus]

That's correct. A writer of historical fiction should adhere to actual events. How the fictional characters are involved in these historical situations makes for the fictional plot. If characters are actual personalites of the period, then keep to a reasonable personality as recorded in history; in other words, don't make them much different than they actually were. Characters that are totally fictional can be protagonists or antagonists to drive the plot forward. Good characters ARE plot, and they make the story real... even though it's actually fiction.

[Alanus]

The Dan Brown phenomenon is actually amazing. Frankly, I couldn't get into the characters. Yet the plot was strong enough to carry his book to becoming a Best Seller and then a hit on the Big Screen. A number of writers have the ability to create exotic plots that somehow carry weak characters to an exciting conclusion. This is especially true in modern techno-thrillers-- aka Hunt for Red October, A Clear and Present Danger, etc. But this is not good literature, only super-entertaining. In historical fiction, we do not have torpedoes coming at us-- Is it activated, and can we close the distance and have it strike us before it activates? This is all plot and one-dimensional characters.