Taking Liberties With Historical Characters. How Far is Too Far?
I’m hoping Clouders, especially those with interest or experience in writing historical fiction, can help me out on this.
I’m currently writing a short story for an American speculative fiction anthology, set in the early 19th century in the Lake District, with the main character a daughter of one of the Lakeland poets. In the story, she is aged about twelve or thirteen, on the cusp of adolescence. There is relatively mild horror, with dangers lurking in the woods, and references to the moon and dark moods (hence the links with adolescence). But there’s nothing offensive, and all turns out relatively well in the end, though there’ll always be a darkness in the background.
I’ve used her real Christian name, and the names of the nearby lake and mountains. Those who know anything about the poet and his family will pick up in the story who I’m talking about.
As some of you know, I write mainly for women’s magazines and anthologies, and occasionally venture into speculative fiction and horror, but this is the first historical story I’ve written involving a real person. There was a bit of a fuss recently about a young adult novel based on Anne Frank, though that was probably understandable as far as I can gather. But it’s made me wonder how far I can go with this, and it does seem to be a topical subject at the moment.
Any thoughts or suggestions?
Thanks.
RH xx
Comments
Subscribe
Visitor counter
Blog Roll Centre
Blog Hints
28 Comments
On the other hand, specifically, Val McDermid did a book on Wordsworth harbouring Fletcher Christian, which would have been a hanging matter at the time. She appears to be sailing on.
I'd say go for it - sounds great!
The second factor is the person's profile. Even if I have very clear preconceptions about what Henry VIII or Napoleon might have been like, I won't have the same preconceptions abou Napoleon's personal manservant or Henry's cook, mainly because I know very little about them.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying that I can't see any problem with your idea at all. It refers to an historical period with which the readers are familiar, but without being too specific, and the character, though real, was peripheral.
I certainly wouldn't be happy with myself if I felt I had taken advantage of someone's name (especially a good name) in a derogatory or unnecessary way. But I doubt you would do anything like that, so as long as you are happy about what you have written and feel comfortable with it, then absolutely go for it.
On a separate note, I do see a great deal of similarity in the general plot outline to a work written by my good lady, but I'm sure your story will be very different. Very good luck with it.
Wins my prize for laugh of the week...
Alan P I haven't heard of "image rights" but have a feeling there might be something in the idea of someone's estate safeguarding their reputation. I can't see it being a problem re someone living 200 years ago and who wasn't famous as such in their own right (though they are starting to get a little recognition now). As Emma says, historical fiction writers do this all the time.
Emma - Thanks for the advice. It's given me a more confidence to go ahead.
Weens - What I'll do is advise the editor that it's based on this person, and see what she thinks. The story might well not be up to scratch or what she's looking for anyway.
Wrath - So when will this little potboiler be on the shelves? I'll look for it in the local Christian bookshop. If anyone complains, point them out and I'll swing my handbag at them.
AF - You've basically said along the lines of what I was thinking. I just wasn't sure if it was just me. If it had been more famous, or more recent, I'd certainly steer well clear.
Steve - Similarities? Great minds think alike!! Some of the themes mentioned are ones that tend to recur, especially in this sort of genre, I suspect.
Kate J - Don't worry. :0)
Steve - Dawkins is a pain in the ****. Atheist extremism is as dangerous as the religious sort, in my view.
Ooh, that feels good to get off my chest. Now, what we're you actually talking about again...? Ah, yes... ahem... historical fiction... but what I've written above is how far I think too far is.
And hence, of course, the use of model release forms, and so on... That's really interesting. But presumably, if the person has to agree, you can't register on behalf of someone's who's already dead.
I read a historical novel by Daphne Du Maurier which could well have been a fictional account of what really happened to one of her ancestors.
Writers are in the public domain but, as an executor of several literary estates, I can see problems if descendants of a real person are still alive. Can you libel the dead? Apparently, executors of literary estates are the bane of many biographer's lives! But i think this only counts if you are well known writer and one of academic interest. There are societies 'The Keat's Society' for example, who might well be able to give you advice over these matters.
Problems have arisen over people putting family material onto web-sites. You suddenly find your great-grandmother was involved in a court case etc...
Ps. What about 'The Maid of Buttermere?' All the stories about this maid are based around a real event.
No.
"Apparently, executors of literary estates are the bane of many biographer's lives!"
Only because they usually control not only the published work, but also letters, diaries, MS and so on. So if they don't like what you're doing, then they can stop you quoting from the published work, beyond the 'fair dealing' rules, and not let you see the rest of it. But they can't stop you publishing the book.
Hence the advantages of being the 'authorised' biographer, with an agreement in the contract about what they'll let you do. On the other hand, I know biographers who say they'd rather be unauthorised, and not have their hands tied...
Click here to sign up now.