Andrea/Cara here, happy to welcome back Tracy Grant to the Wenches! For those of you who aren't familiar with her Malcolm & Suzanne Rannoch historical mystery series, you are in for a great treat . . . and for fans like me, it's always wonderful news when a new book in the series is out, especially as Tracy, who is a meticulous researcher, always has such an interesting back story behind her plots. Gilded Deceit, the latest one, features appearances by (fluttery sigh) Lord Byron, Percy Shelley and Mary Shelley in Italy, where a murder draws them into a tangled web of . . . But wait! I'm now going to hand the pen to Tracy and let her tell you herself!
I have toyed for years with the possibility of including Lord Byron, Percy Shelley, and Mary Shelley as characters in one of the novels in my Malcolm and Suzanne Rannoch historical mystery series. Byron’s ex-lover Lady Lamb has played an important role in two of the books. I wanted Byron to appear in The Berkeley Square Affair (I thought the lost version of Hamlet at the center of the plot would appeal to him), but the book needed to take place in late 1817 and he had left England by then in a cloud of scandal around the break up of his marriage to Annabella Milbanke and accusations that he had had an affair with his half-sister, Augusta Leigh, and fathered one of her children. So he was relegated to a few mentions in The Berkeley Square Affair, with Lady Caroline intrigued by the manuscript in the hopes that it will intrigue Byron.
But my 2016 release, London Gambit ended with the "series game-changer" of Malcolm and Mélanie Suzanne and their family fleeing Britain because of Mélanie's past as a French spy. It was a plot twist I'd had in mind for a long time in the series, but even as I wrote London Gambit, I dithered. I felt guilty about putting my characters through so much. I wondered if I was writing myself into a corner. At the same time I was really excited about the possibilities their leaving Britain opened up for the series. New conflicts, internal and external, a new setting – and new characters.
When London Gambit ends, the Rannochs are planning to take refuge at Malcolm's villa on Lake Como. My new book Gilded Deceit finds them (after a stop in Switzerland to see Suzanne's friend Hortense Bonaparte and solve an unexpected mystery for her in the novella Mission for a Queen) arriving at Lake Como in August of 1818. When I sat down to research and plot Gilded Deceit, I realized that Percy and Mary Shelley also traveled to Italy in 1818, and that Byron was already there. In a book which thematically in many ways is about exiles and ex-patriates, the Shelleys and Byron seemed the perfect real historical figures for my fictional characters to encounter. I spent a lot of time trying to plot Gilded Deceit around the Shelleys' and Byron's actually chronology. But the over all chronology of the series and some developments with secondary characters locked me into a certain timeline. So in the end, I confess, I took shocking liberties with Byrons’ and the Shelleys' chronology in Italy in the summer of 1818.
This literary trio had already spent a now-famous summer together on the Continent in 1816 when Percy was still married to his first wife Harriet. He and Mary (then eighteen) and run off to the Continent, accompanied by her stepsister Claire Clairmont. They stayed with Byron at the Villa Diodati on Lake Geneva. Byron proposed that everyone at the house party write a ghost story, and Mary came up with an idea for a short story that ultimately became the novel Frankenstein. Her sister Claire, meanwhile, was more interested in captivated a poet of her own. She and Byron had begun an affair before he fled to the Continent. By the time they all met up in Switzerland Claire was pregnant with his child. They briefly resumed to their affair that summer, but in the end Claire returned to Britain with Percy and Mary and gave birth to baby Allegra, her daughter by Byron.
Claire doted on the baby, but she was penniless and could not support herself if she was known to be the mother of an illegitimate child. Despite being known for their bohemian ways, Percy and Mary (by the time married after the suicide of Harriet Shelley) were at some pains to conceal Allegra’s parentage. In the spring of 1818, Claire, Percy, and Mary traveled to Italy with Allegra, and William and Clara, Mary and Percy’s two young children. The plan was to take Allegra to Byron, who had agreed to raise her, though he wanted nothing to do with Claire. Claire was very conflicted about this, but she was single and penniless. Maintaining a fiction about Allegra's birth was getting challenging.
Percy and Mary visited Lake Como soon after their arrival with the idea of taking a villa there for the summer and inviting Byron to join them. But Byron preferred to remain in Venice, and in the end the Shelleys, their children, and Claire spent time in Milan, from whence Claire tearfully sent baby Allegra to Venice to live with Byron. The Shelleys and Claire then traveled south, stopped for a month in Livorno, and spent the summer in the spa town of Bagni di Luca, in the Apennine Mountains.
On 17 August, Percy and Claire left for Venice to try to see Allegra. They found Byron in an agreeable mood. He offered the Shelley party the use of his villa at Este for the summer. Claire could spend time with Allegra there which was ideal. The only problem was that Percy had told Byron Mary was with them, so that Byron, who could be surprisingly puritanical, wouldn't be shocked at Percy and Claire traveling alone. Percy wrote to Mary that she needed to join them at Este at once with the children. Their baby daughter, Clara, already ill, worsened on the journey. Mary and Percy took her to a doctor in Venice, but by the time Percy brought the doctor to the inn where Mary was with the baby, Clara was dying.
In Gilded Deceit, I have the Shelleys and Byron in Milan over at least part of the summer, so they can meet some other characters in the book with whom their connection later becomes significiant. I have also moved Clara's death back about a month from the end of September to the end of August. And rather than Percy and Mary spending time in Este and Venice after Clara's death, I have the Shelleys go to Lake Como, accompanied by Lord Byron.
I agonized, as I always do, when changing historical facts. But all three characters add an immeasurable amount to Gilded Deceit. Both the novel and the Rannochs benefit from their presence. Not only does their exile from Britain resonate with that of the fictional characters, the Shelleys complicated marriage both echoes and contrasts with the the Rannochs’ marriage and those of other couples in a series where marriage in an ongoing theme. And both Claire’s and Mary’s situations echo issues Mélanie Suzanne and many of the other female characters face trying to carve out lives for themselves beyond the confines of what is expected of a wife and the consequences of defying society’s expectations.
So, how do all you readers feel about authors changing historical chronologies? Writers, how do you approach such situations yourselves? Tracy will be giving away a e-book copy of Gilded Deceit to one lucky person chosen at random from all who leave a comment here between now and Thursday evening.
(For further reading about Mary and Percy Shelley and Lord Byron, I recommend Miranda Seymour's Mary Shelley (New York: Grove Press, 2002); Florence A. Thomas Marshall's The Life and Letters of Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley, Volume I (London: Richard Bentley & Son, 1889); Daisy Hay's Young Romantics: The Tangled Lives of English Poetry's Greatest Generation (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2010); and Benita Eisler's Byron: Child of Passion, Fool of Fame (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999). Author photo credit: Raphael Coffey
So excited to be back at one of my favorite places to talk books online – thank you, Cara/Andrea, and all the Wenches!
So excited to be back at one of my favorite places to talk books online – thank you, Cara/Andrea, and all the Wenches!
So excited to be back at one of my favorite places to talk books online – thank you, Cara/Andrea, and all the Wenches!
So excited to be back at one of my favorite places to talk books online – thank you, Cara/Andrea, and all the Wenches!
So excited to be back at one of my favorite places to talk books online – thank you, Cara/Andrea, and all the Wenches!
IF the changes is history are noted at the end of the book, however briefly, and the book works, I don’t mind changes.
I have frequently done the type of research mentioned above after reading a novel concerning a real-life personage. The note from the author helps me do this.
After all fiction is just that — fiction — not history.
IF the changes is history are noted at the end of the book, however briefly, and the book works, I don’t mind changes.
I have frequently done the type of research mentioned above after reading a novel concerning a real-life personage. The note from the author helps me do this.
After all fiction is just that — fiction — not history.
IF the changes is history are noted at the end of the book, however briefly, and the book works, I don’t mind changes.
I have frequently done the type of research mentioned above after reading a novel concerning a real-life personage. The note from the author helps me do this.
After all fiction is just that — fiction — not history.
IF the changes is history are noted at the end of the book, however briefly, and the book works, I don’t mind changes.
I have frequently done the type of research mentioned above after reading a novel concerning a real-life personage. The note from the author helps me do this.
After all fiction is just that — fiction — not history.
IF the changes is history are noted at the end of the book, however briefly, and the book works, I don’t mind changes.
I have frequently done the type of research mentioned above after reading a novel concerning a real-life personage. The note from the author helps me do this.
After all fiction is just that — fiction — not history.
Welcome back to the Wenches, Tracy! And what rich historical fodder you have for this story. I’ve never been bothered by a bit of timeline fiddling as long as it’s noted in an afterword.
Welcome back to the Wenches, Tracy! And what rich historical fodder you have for this story. I’ve never been bothered by a bit of timeline fiddling as long as it’s noted in an afterword.
Welcome back to the Wenches, Tracy! And what rich historical fodder you have for this story. I’ve never been bothered by a bit of timeline fiddling as long as it’s noted in an afterword.
Welcome back to the Wenches, Tracy! And what rich historical fodder you have for this story. I’ve never been bothered by a bit of timeline fiddling as long as it’s noted in an afterword.
Welcome back to the Wenches, Tracy! And what rich historical fodder you have for this story. I’ve never been bothered by a bit of timeline fiddling as long as it’s noted in an afterword.
Isn’t it wonderful when a novel leads one into research, Sue? My love of history started that way growing up!
Isn’t it wonderful when a novel leads one into research, Sue? My love of history started that way growing up!
Isn’t it wonderful when a novel leads one into research, Sue? My love of history started that way growing up!
Isn’t it wonderful when a novel leads one into research, Sue? My love of history started that way growing up!
Isn’t it wonderful when a novel leads one into research, Sue? My love of history started that way growing up!
Thanks so much, Mary Jo! It was a bit intimidating to try to give voice to Byron and the Shelleys, but I found all three of them (or at least my versions of them) were surprisingly easy to write once I got started.
Thanks so much, Mary Jo! It was a bit intimidating to try to give voice to Byron and the Shelleys, but I found all three of them (or at least my versions of them) were surprisingly easy to write once I got started.
Thanks so much, Mary Jo! It was a bit intimidating to try to give voice to Byron and the Shelleys, but I found all three of them (or at least my versions of them) were surprisingly easy to write once I got started.
Thanks so much, Mary Jo! It was a bit intimidating to try to give voice to Byron and the Shelleys, but I found all three of them (or at least my versions of them) were surprisingly easy to write once I got started.
Thanks so much, Mary Jo! It was a bit intimidating to try to give voice to Byron and the Shelleys, but I found all three of them (or at least my versions of them) were surprisingly easy to write once I got started.
I don’t mind if the facts are fudged a little, especially if there is an author’s note explaining it. There have been times that I wouldn’t have even noticed at all except for the author’s note.
Great post. Your book sounds really interesting.
I don’t mind if the facts are fudged a little, especially if there is an author’s note explaining it. There have been times that I wouldn’t have even noticed at all except for the author’s note.
Great post. Your book sounds really interesting.
I don’t mind if the facts are fudged a little, especially if there is an author’s note explaining it. There have been times that I wouldn’t have even noticed at all except for the author’s note.
Great post. Your book sounds really interesting.
I don’t mind if the facts are fudged a little, especially if there is an author’s note explaining it. There have been times that I wouldn’t have even noticed at all except for the author’s note.
Great post. Your book sounds really interesting.
I don’t mind if the facts are fudged a little, especially if there is an author’s note explaining it. There have been times that I wouldn’t have even noticed at all except for the author’s note.
Great post. Your book sounds really interesting.
Thanks so much, Mary! Yes as a reader I find authors notes explaining what’s been changed really interesting.
Thanks so much, Mary! Yes as a reader I find authors notes explaining what’s been changed really interesting.
Thanks so much, Mary! Yes as a reader I find authors notes explaining what’s been changed really interesting.
Thanks so much, Mary! Yes as a reader I find authors notes explaining what’s been changed really interesting.
Thanks so much, Mary! Yes as a reader I find authors notes explaining what’s been changed really interesting.
I’m afraid that I don’t really like fiddling with historical facts. The world is incredibly complex and chaotic. Remember the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and thus starting a hurricane in America …. quite possible from chaos theory and that’s just the weather. Making minor ‘adjustments’ with historical characters could completely change the course of history, and that would worry me. Though I guess it’s OK as a thought experiment where you freeze the rest of history and just change local events, assuming that the perturbation doesn’t spread too far!
I do like historical novels that speculate on events that are not recorded in history books, perhaps delving beneath the veneer of established history to uncover details of private lives. For example I remember a time slip novel by Nicola Cornick that explored the relationship of Catherine Parr and Thomas Cromwell without distorting known historical facts. Why change history when there is a vast amount that is not recorded and is wide open to speculation?
I’m afraid that I don’t really like fiddling with historical facts. The world is incredibly complex and chaotic. Remember the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and thus starting a hurricane in America …. quite possible from chaos theory and that’s just the weather. Making minor ‘adjustments’ with historical characters could completely change the course of history, and that would worry me. Though I guess it’s OK as a thought experiment where you freeze the rest of history and just change local events, assuming that the perturbation doesn’t spread too far!
I do like historical novels that speculate on events that are not recorded in history books, perhaps delving beneath the veneer of established history to uncover details of private lives. For example I remember a time slip novel by Nicola Cornick that explored the relationship of Catherine Parr and Thomas Cromwell without distorting known historical facts. Why change history when there is a vast amount that is not recorded and is wide open to speculation?
I’m afraid that I don’t really like fiddling with historical facts. The world is incredibly complex and chaotic. Remember the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and thus starting a hurricane in America …. quite possible from chaos theory and that’s just the weather. Making minor ‘adjustments’ with historical characters could completely change the course of history, and that would worry me. Though I guess it’s OK as a thought experiment where you freeze the rest of history and just change local events, assuming that the perturbation doesn’t spread too far!
I do like historical novels that speculate on events that are not recorded in history books, perhaps delving beneath the veneer of established history to uncover details of private lives. For example I remember a time slip novel by Nicola Cornick that explored the relationship of Catherine Parr and Thomas Cromwell without distorting known historical facts. Why change history when there is a vast amount that is not recorded and is wide open to speculation?
I’m afraid that I don’t really like fiddling with historical facts. The world is incredibly complex and chaotic. Remember the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and thus starting a hurricane in America …. quite possible from chaos theory and that’s just the weather. Making minor ‘adjustments’ with historical characters could completely change the course of history, and that would worry me. Though I guess it’s OK as a thought experiment where you freeze the rest of history and just change local events, assuming that the perturbation doesn’t spread too far!
I do like historical novels that speculate on events that are not recorded in history books, perhaps delving beneath the veneer of established history to uncover details of private lives. For example I remember a time slip novel by Nicola Cornick that explored the relationship of Catherine Parr and Thomas Cromwell without distorting known historical facts. Why change history when there is a vast amount that is not recorded and is wide open to speculation?
I’m afraid that I don’t really like fiddling with historical facts. The world is incredibly complex and chaotic. Remember the butterfly flapping its wings in Peking and thus starting a hurricane in America …. quite possible from chaos theory and that’s just the weather. Making minor ‘adjustments’ with historical characters could completely change the course of history, and that would worry me. Though I guess it’s OK as a thought experiment where you freeze the rest of history and just change local events, assuming that the perturbation doesn’t spread too far!
I do like historical novels that speculate on events that are not recorded in history books, perhaps delving beneath the veneer of established history to uncover details of private lives. For example I remember a time slip novel by Nicola Cornick that explored the relationship of Catherine Parr and Thomas Cromwell without distorting known historical facts. Why change history when there is a vast amount that is not recorded and is wide open to speculation?
Wonderful post! It’s always a pleasure to have you come visit!
Wonderful post! It’s always a pleasure to have you come visit!
Wonderful post! It’s always a pleasure to have you come visit!
Wonderful post! It’s always a pleasure to have you come visit!
Wonderful post! It’s always a pleasure to have you come visit!
A very interesting observation Quantum. I don’t want to see history changed, even in fiction, for any specific event or notable occurance. However, I don’t mind fudging with small things, like having Byron be in Italy a week later than he really was as long as an author notes it at the end of the book, so I trust the research of other things. That said, I like your point about being able to play with speculation, as so much is unknown.
In any case, an interesting point for discussion!
A very interesting observation Quantum. I don’t want to see history changed, even in fiction, for any specific event or notable occurance. However, I don’t mind fudging with small things, like having Byron be in Italy a week later than he really was as long as an author notes it at the end of the book, so I trust the research of other things. That said, I like your point about being able to play with speculation, as so much is unknown.
In any case, an interesting point for discussion!
A very interesting observation Quantum. I don’t want to see history changed, even in fiction, for any specific event or notable occurance. However, I don’t mind fudging with small things, like having Byron be in Italy a week later than he really was as long as an author notes it at the end of the book, so I trust the research of other things. That said, I like your point about being able to play with speculation, as so much is unknown.
In any case, an interesting point for discussion!
A very interesting observation Quantum. I don’t want to see history changed, even in fiction, for any specific event or notable occurance. However, I don’t mind fudging with small things, like having Byron be in Italy a week later than he really was as long as an author notes it at the end of the book, so I trust the research of other things. That said, I like your point about being able to play with speculation, as so much is unknown.
In any case, an interesting point for discussion!
A very interesting observation Quantum. I don’t want to see history changed, even in fiction, for any specific event or notable occurance. However, I don’t mind fudging with small things, like having Byron be in Italy a week later than he really was as long as an author notes it at the end of the book, so I trust the research of other things. That said, I like your point about being able to play with speculation, as so much is unknown.
In any case, an interesting point for discussion!
As do I!
As do I!
As do I!
As do I!
As do I!
Thanks so much!! Always so fun to be here!
Thanks so much!! Always so fun to be here!
Thanks so much!! Always so fun to be here!
Thanks so much!! Always so fun to be here!
Thanks so much!! Always so fun to be here!
You raise good points, Quantum. Like Andrea/Cara, I don’t mind changing things, either as a reader or a writer. If real historical figures appear in stories with fictional characters and interact with them, one is already to a degree changing the historical record. But I do also love stories built on speculative it-could-have-happened-this-way plot-lines.
You raise good points, Quantum. Like Andrea/Cara, I don’t mind changing things, either as a reader or a writer. If real historical figures appear in stories with fictional characters and interact with them, one is already to a degree changing the historical record. But I do also love stories built on speculative it-could-have-happened-this-way plot-lines.
You raise good points, Quantum. Like Andrea/Cara, I don’t mind changing things, either as a reader or a writer. If real historical figures appear in stories with fictional characters and interact with them, one is already to a degree changing the historical record. But I do also love stories built on speculative it-could-have-happened-this-way plot-lines.
You raise good points, Quantum. Like Andrea/Cara, I don’t mind changing things, either as a reader or a writer. If real historical figures appear in stories with fictional characters and interact with them, one is already to a degree changing the historical record. But I do also love stories built on speculative it-could-have-happened-this-way plot-lines.
You raise good points, Quantum. Like Andrea/Cara, I don’t mind changing things, either as a reader or a writer. If real historical figures appear in stories with fictional characters and interact with them, one is already to a degree changing the historical record. But I do also love stories built on speculative it-could-have-happened-this-way plot-lines.
There are two kinds of tweaking history. It can be harmless, as it is here (but I do love to read about Venice, as it’s a place I know well!). And then there’s the kind of “tweaking” that credits the wrong people with massive achievements or attributes something like war crimes to the wrong group of people (the Kremlin loves doing that!).
I’m fine with the first kind, and cannot imagine how hard it must be to fit real people into the story you want to write. They’d never behave exactly the way the need to!
There are two kinds of tweaking history. It can be harmless, as it is here (but I do love to read about Venice, as it’s a place I know well!). And then there’s the kind of “tweaking” that credits the wrong people with massive achievements or attributes something like war crimes to the wrong group of people (the Kremlin loves doing that!).
I’m fine with the first kind, and cannot imagine how hard it must be to fit real people into the story you want to write. They’d never behave exactly the way the need to!
There are two kinds of tweaking history. It can be harmless, as it is here (but I do love to read about Venice, as it’s a place I know well!). And then there’s the kind of “tweaking” that credits the wrong people with massive achievements or attributes something like war crimes to the wrong group of people (the Kremlin loves doing that!).
I’m fine with the first kind, and cannot imagine how hard it must be to fit real people into the story you want to write. They’d never behave exactly the way the need to!
There are two kinds of tweaking history. It can be harmless, as it is here (but I do love to read about Venice, as it’s a place I know well!). And then there’s the kind of “tweaking” that credits the wrong people with massive achievements or attributes something like war crimes to the wrong group of people (the Kremlin loves doing that!).
I’m fine with the first kind, and cannot imagine how hard it must be to fit real people into the story you want to write. They’d never behave exactly the way the need to!
There are two kinds of tweaking history. It can be harmless, as it is here (but I do love to read about Venice, as it’s a place I know well!). And then there’s the kind of “tweaking” that credits the wrong people with massive achievements or attributes something like war crimes to the wrong group of people (the Kremlin loves doing that!).
I’m fine with the first kind, and cannot imagine how hard it must be to fit real people into the story you want to write. They’d never behave exactly the way the need to!
(*they* need to)
(*they* need to)
(*they* need to)
(*they* need to)
(*they* need to)
Playing with the weather or whether some one was in this town or that town in Italy is OK. Changing the date of a volcanic eruption is more iffy and totally wrong to change the date of the battle of Waterloo.
In many cases people worry too much over social mores and bend or ignore the laws of the day. Authors are forever having engagements announced in newspapers and women being handed dance cards at balls–neither of which were done in the regency. That is OK but allowing proxy marriages isn’t.
BTW Byron did not have an affair with Augusta and I can’t find anything to say he left the country because of accusations on that head. The accusations were made in 1870’s.
Playing with the weather or whether some one was in this town or that town in Italy is OK. Changing the date of a volcanic eruption is more iffy and totally wrong to change the date of the battle of Waterloo.
In many cases people worry too much over social mores and bend or ignore the laws of the day. Authors are forever having engagements announced in newspapers and women being handed dance cards at balls–neither of which were done in the regency. That is OK but allowing proxy marriages isn’t.
BTW Byron did not have an affair with Augusta and I can’t find anything to say he left the country because of accusations on that head. The accusations were made in 1870’s.
Playing with the weather or whether some one was in this town or that town in Italy is OK. Changing the date of a volcanic eruption is more iffy and totally wrong to change the date of the battle of Waterloo.
In many cases people worry too much over social mores and bend or ignore the laws of the day. Authors are forever having engagements announced in newspapers and women being handed dance cards at balls–neither of which were done in the regency. That is OK but allowing proxy marriages isn’t.
BTW Byron did not have an affair with Augusta and I can’t find anything to say he left the country because of accusations on that head. The accusations were made in 1870’s.
Playing with the weather or whether some one was in this town or that town in Italy is OK. Changing the date of a volcanic eruption is more iffy and totally wrong to change the date of the battle of Waterloo.
In many cases people worry too much over social mores and bend or ignore the laws of the day. Authors are forever having engagements announced in newspapers and women being handed dance cards at balls–neither of which were done in the regency. That is OK but allowing proxy marriages isn’t.
BTW Byron did not have an affair with Augusta and I can’t find anything to say he left the country because of accusations on that head. The accusations were made in 1870’s.
Playing with the weather or whether some one was in this town or that town in Italy is OK. Changing the date of a volcanic eruption is more iffy and totally wrong to change the date of the battle of Waterloo.
In many cases people worry too much over social mores and bend or ignore the laws of the day. Authors are forever having engagements announced in newspapers and women being handed dance cards at balls–neither of which were done in the regency. That is OK but allowing proxy marriages isn’t.
BTW Byron did not have an affair with Augusta and I can’t find anything to say he left the country because of accusations on that head. The accusations were made in 1870’s.
At times, when things are obviously not connected to any past reality, I feel disappointed. But, if a book is clearly labeled fiction, and some note is made that relationships have been fictionalized, I can deal.
My concern is that major changes to history will be read as actual events and a reader who is not aware will go forward believing what they read is real.
I think at times it becomes very easy to alter things to suit our own agenda and we get a skewed picture of truth and fact. Fiction based on history should at least be in the same neighborhood as reality. At least that is my opinion.
At times, when things are obviously not connected to any past reality, I feel disappointed. But, if a book is clearly labeled fiction, and some note is made that relationships have been fictionalized, I can deal.
My concern is that major changes to history will be read as actual events and a reader who is not aware will go forward believing what they read is real.
I think at times it becomes very easy to alter things to suit our own agenda and we get a skewed picture of truth and fact. Fiction based on history should at least be in the same neighborhood as reality. At least that is my opinion.
At times, when things are obviously not connected to any past reality, I feel disappointed. But, if a book is clearly labeled fiction, and some note is made that relationships have been fictionalized, I can deal.
My concern is that major changes to history will be read as actual events and a reader who is not aware will go forward believing what they read is real.
I think at times it becomes very easy to alter things to suit our own agenda and we get a skewed picture of truth and fact. Fiction based on history should at least be in the same neighborhood as reality. At least that is my opinion.
At times, when things are obviously not connected to any past reality, I feel disappointed. But, if a book is clearly labeled fiction, and some note is made that relationships have been fictionalized, I can deal.
My concern is that major changes to history will be read as actual events and a reader who is not aware will go forward believing what they read is real.
I think at times it becomes very easy to alter things to suit our own agenda and we get a skewed picture of truth and fact. Fiction based on history should at least be in the same neighborhood as reality. At least that is my opinion.
At times, when things are obviously not connected to any past reality, I feel disappointed. But, if a book is clearly labeled fiction, and some note is made that relationships have been fictionalized, I can deal.
My concern is that major changes to history will be read as actual events and a reader who is not aware will go forward believing what they read is real.
I think at times it becomes very easy to alter things to suit our own agenda and we get a skewed picture of truth and fact. Fiction based on history should at least be in the same neighborhood as reality. At least that is my opinion.
I really enjoyed the first book in this series and hope to catch up on the rest of them as soon as I get through my TBR pile!
And as for bending history–movie makers do it all the time, to the point of ridiculousness. A little fudging doesn’t bother me a bit, and is easily explained away in an author’s note to soothe the historically pure of heart.
I really enjoyed the first book in this series and hope to catch up on the rest of them as soon as I get through my TBR pile!
And as for bending history–movie makers do it all the time, to the point of ridiculousness. A little fudging doesn’t bother me a bit, and is easily explained away in an author’s note to soothe the historically pure of heart.
I really enjoyed the first book in this series and hope to catch up on the rest of them as soon as I get through my TBR pile!
And as for bending history–movie makers do it all the time, to the point of ridiculousness. A little fudging doesn’t bother me a bit, and is easily explained away in an author’s note to soothe the historically pure of heart.
I really enjoyed the first book in this series and hope to catch up on the rest of them as soon as I get through my TBR pile!
And as for bending history–movie makers do it all the time, to the point of ridiculousness. A little fudging doesn’t bother me a bit, and is easily explained away in an author’s note to soothe the historically pure of heart.
I really enjoyed the first book in this series and hope to catch up on the rest of them as soon as I get through my TBR pile!
And as for bending history–movie makers do it all the time, to the point of ridiculousness. A little fudging doesn’t bother me a bit, and is easily explained away in an author’s note to soothe the historically pure of heart.
I am more on the Quantum and Annette Naish side of this. I don’t like to see known history changed.
I accept that, especially in older books where authors were limited as to the research resources available to them in the time frame within which they had to write the book, there may be unintentional mistakes. I don’t like seeing established facts altered intentionally.
If the facts are not known, then of course the author is free to speculate. That could be put in an author’s note. If the facts become known after the book is done, well, that’s life; at least if it’s a good story, the story won’t have suffered. If it correctable, it could be fixed in a later edition, or at least noted. Ebooks make this practical.
I don’t like seeing authors get inside the thoughts of historical figures; we can’t know what they were thinking or feeling unless they wrote it down themselves, or told someone who can be trusted who then wrote it down correctly, and the truth was told. So it always feels faux to me when I read what (for example) Beau Brummel was thinking, it rings false to me and takes me out of the story. Having the Beau swan through some party and notice the heroine is okay; he went to a lot of parties. That’s pretty minor. Having him become a fictional character’s BFF is not. He didn’t do that, obviously. It introduces a false note into the hologram of the Beau that historical records have developed.
I do appreciate an author’s note if she changed something — in fact, I think it ought to be mandatory. Otherwise knowledgeable readers are going to notice the error and think it an error of ignorance.
I am more on the Quantum and Annette Naish side of this. I don’t like to see known history changed.
I accept that, especially in older books where authors were limited as to the research resources available to them in the time frame within which they had to write the book, there may be unintentional mistakes. I don’t like seeing established facts altered intentionally.
If the facts are not known, then of course the author is free to speculate. That could be put in an author’s note. If the facts become known after the book is done, well, that’s life; at least if it’s a good story, the story won’t have suffered. If it correctable, it could be fixed in a later edition, or at least noted. Ebooks make this practical.
I don’t like seeing authors get inside the thoughts of historical figures; we can’t know what they were thinking or feeling unless they wrote it down themselves, or told someone who can be trusted who then wrote it down correctly, and the truth was told. So it always feels faux to me when I read what (for example) Beau Brummel was thinking, it rings false to me and takes me out of the story. Having the Beau swan through some party and notice the heroine is okay; he went to a lot of parties. That’s pretty minor. Having him become a fictional character’s BFF is not. He didn’t do that, obviously. It introduces a false note into the hologram of the Beau that historical records have developed.
I do appreciate an author’s note if she changed something — in fact, I think it ought to be mandatory. Otherwise knowledgeable readers are going to notice the error and think it an error of ignorance.
I am more on the Quantum and Annette Naish side of this. I don’t like to see known history changed.
I accept that, especially in older books where authors were limited as to the research resources available to them in the time frame within which they had to write the book, there may be unintentional mistakes. I don’t like seeing established facts altered intentionally.
If the facts are not known, then of course the author is free to speculate. That could be put in an author’s note. If the facts become known after the book is done, well, that’s life; at least if it’s a good story, the story won’t have suffered. If it correctable, it could be fixed in a later edition, or at least noted. Ebooks make this practical.
I don’t like seeing authors get inside the thoughts of historical figures; we can’t know what they were thinking or feeling unless they wrote it down themselves, or told someone who can be trusted who then wrote it down correctly, and the truth was told. So it always feels faux to me when I read what (for example) Beau Brummel was thinking, it rings false to me and takes me out of the story. Having the Beau swan through some party and notice the heroine is okay; he went to a lot of parties. That’s pretty minor. Having him become a fictional character’s BFF is not. He didn’t do that, obviously. It introduces a false note into the hologram of the Beau that historical records have developed.
I do appreciate an author’s note if she changed something — in fact, I think it ought to be mandatory. Otherwise knowledgeable readers are going to notice the error and think it an error of ignorance.
I am more on the Quantum and Annette Naish side of this. I don’t like to see known history changed.
I accept that, especially in older books where authors were limited as to the research resources available to them in the time frame within which they had to write the book, there may be unintentional mistakes. I don’t like seeing established facts altered intentionally.
If the facts are not known, then of course the author is free to speculate. That could be put in an author’s note. If the facts become known after the book is done, well, that’s life; at least if it’s a good story, the story won’t have suffered. If it correctable, it could be fixed in a later edition, or at least noted. Ebooks make this practical.
I don’t like seeing authors get inside the thoughts of historical figures; we can’t know what they were thinking or feeling unless they wrote it down themselves, or told someone who can be trusted who then wrote it down correctly, and the truth was told. So it always feels faux to me when I read what (for example) Beau Brummel was thinking, it rings false to me and takes me out of the story. Having the Beau swan through some party and notice the heroine is okay; he went to a lot of parties. That’s pretty minor. Having him become a fictional character’s BFF is not. He didn’t do that, obviously. It introduces a false note into the hologram of the Beau that historical records have developed.
I do appreciate an author’s note if she changed something — in fact, I think it ought to be mandatory. Otherwise knowledgeable readers are going to notice the error and think it an error of ignorance.
I am more on the Quantum and Annette Naish side of this. I don’t like to see known history changed.
I accept that, especially in older books where authors were limited as to the research resources available to them in the time frame within which they had to write the book, there may be unintentional mistakes. I don’t like seeing established facts altered intentionally.
If the facts are not known, then of course the author is free to speculate. That could be put in an author’s note. If the facts become known after the book is done, well, that’s life; at least if it’s a good story, the story won’t have suffered. If it correctable, it could be fixed in a later edition, or at least noted. Ebooks make this practical.
I don’t like seeing authors get inside the thoughts of historical figures; we can’t know what they were thinking or feeling unless they wrote it down themselves, or told someone who can be trusted who then wrote it down correctly, and the truth was told. So it always feels faux to me when I read what (for example) Beau Brummel was thinking, it rings false to me and takes me out of the story. Having the Beau swan through some party and notice the heroine is okay; he went to a lot of parties. That’s pretty minor. Having him become a fictional character’s BFF is not. He didn’t do that, obviously. It introduces a false note into the hologram of the Beau that historical records have developed.
I do appreciate an author’s note if she changed something — in fact, I think it ought to be mandatory. Otherwise knowledgeable readers are going to notice the error and think it an error of ignorance.
So true, Sonya! As I said above, just having real historical people interact with fictional characters means tweaking history slightly. I do try very hard to never have real historical people do something I feel is out of character from my research – say I’d never invent a fictional secret love affair for someone who was known to be a famously faithful spouse.
So true, Sonya! As I said above, just having real historical people interact with fictional characters means tweaking history slightly. I do try very hard to never have real historical people do something I feel is out of character from my research – say I’d never invent a fictional secret love affair for someone who was known to be a famously faithful spouse.
So true, Sonya! As I said above, just having real historical people interact with fictional characters means tweaking history slightly. I do try very hard to never have real historical people do something I feel is out of character from my research – say I’d never invent a fictional secret love affair for someone who was known to be a famously faithful spouse.
So true, Sonya! As I said above, just having real historical people interact with fictional characters means tweaking history slightly. I do try very hard to never have real historical people do something I feel is out of character from my research – say I’d never invent a fictional secret love affair for someone who was known to be a famously faithful spouse.
So true, Sonya! As I said above, just having real historical people interact with fictional characters means tweaking history slightly. I do try very hard to never have real historical people do something I feel is out of character from my research – say I’d never invent a fictional secret love affair for someone who was known to be a famously faithful spouse.
Changing the date of the battle of Waterloo would indeed be crossing (very far over) a line! So true to that “tweaking history” an also mean tweaking conventions of the day and there too there are some thing I’m personally okay with (especially if they’re things that weren’t done but could have been) and some that cross a line (saying changing the legal system). Very good point that there’s no definitive proof Byron and Augusta had an affair. From my research there do appear to have been rumors at the time he left Britain and his marriage to Annabella fell apart, which then abated after his tragic early death, and resurface in 1869/70.
Changing the date of the battle of Waterloo would indeed be crossing (very far over) a line! So true to that “tweaking history” an also mean tweaking conventions of the day and there too there are some thing I’m personally okay with (especially if they’re things that weren’t done but could have been) and some that cross a line (saying changing the legal system). Very good point that there’s no definitive proof Byron and Augusta had an affair. From my research there do appear to have been rumors at the time he left Britain and his marriage to Annabella fell apart, which then abated after his tragic early death, and resurface in 1869/70.
Changing the date of the battle of Waterloo would indeed be crossing (very far over) a line! So true to that “tweaking history” an also mean tweaking conventions of the day and there too there are some thing I’m personally okay with (especially if they’re things that weren’t done but could have been) and some that cross a line (saying changing the legal system). Very good point that there’s no definitive proof Byron and Augusta had an affair. From my research there do appear to have been rumors at the time he left Britain and his marriage to Annabella fell apart, which then abated after his tragic early death, and resurface in 1869/70.
Changing the date of the battle of Waterloo would indeed be crossing (very far over) a line! So true to that “tweaking history” an also mean tweaking conventions of the day and there too there are some thing I’m personally okay with (especially if they’re things that weren’t done but could have been) and some that cross a line (saying changing the legal system). Very good point that there’s no definitive proof Byron and Augusta had an affair. From my research there do appear to have been rumors at the time he left Britain and his marriage to Annabella fell apart, which then abated after his tragic early death, and resurface in 1869/70.
Changing the date of the battle of Waterloo would indeed be crossing (very far over) a line! So true to that “tweaking history” an also mean tweaking conventions of the day and there too there are some thing I’m personally okay with (especially if they’re things that weren’t done but could have been) and some that cross a line (saying changing the legal system). Very good point that there’s no definitive proof Byron and Augusta had an affair. From my research there do appear to have been rumors at the time he left Britain and his marriage to Annabella fell apart, which then abated after his tragic early death, and resurface in 1869/70.
Good points, Annette! I know a writer of historical fiction, I’m always aware that readers may be forming a picture of the past based on what I write (hence the agonizing about any changes and historical notes). And one of the joys of writing historical fiction is trying to paint an accurate picture of the past.
Good points, Annette! I know a writer of historical fiction, I’m always aware that readers may be forming a picture of the past based on what I write (hence the agonizing about any changes and historical notes). And one of the joys of writing historical fiction is trying to paint an accurate picture of the past.
Good points, Annette! I know a writer of historical fiction, I’m always aware that readers may be forming a picture of the past based on what I write (hence the agonizing about any changes and historical notes). And one of the joys of writing historical fiction is trying to paint an accurate picture of the past.
Good points, Annette! I know a writer of historical fiction, I’m always aware that readers may be forming a picture of the past based on what I write (hence the agonizing about any changes and historical notes). And one of the joys of writing historical fiction is trying to paint an accurate picture of the past.
Good points, Annette! I know a writer of historical fiction, I’m always aware that readers may be forming a picture of the past based on what I write (hence the agonizing about any changes and historical notes). And one of the joys of writing historical fiction is trying to paint an accurate picture of the past.
As an author I find it nerve-wracking to get inside the head of an historical figure, Janice. I don’t write from Byron’s, Shelley’s, or Mary’s POVs, but I have written from the POV of real historical figures in the past. Some stories seem to require it. And I’ve certainly loved historical fiction written from the POV of real people – Hilary Mantel comes to mind. Even biographers will speculate on what their subject might have been thinking. But one has to remember one is only getting that author’s take on the person, however well grounded in research.
As an author I find it nerve-wracking to get inside the head of an historical figure, Janice. I don’t write from Byron’s, Shelley’s, or Mary’s POVs, but I have written from the POV of real historical figures in the past. Some stories seem to require it. And I’ve certainly loved historical fiction written from the POV of real people – Hilary Mantel comes to mind. Even biographers will speculate on what their subject might have been thinking. But one has to remember one is only getting that author’s take on the person, however well grounded in research.
As an author I find it nerve-wracking to get inside the head of an historical figure, Janice. I don’t write from Byron’s, Shelley’s, or Mary’s POVs, but I have written from the POV of real historical figures in the past. Some stories seem to require it. And I’ve certainly loved historical fiction written from the POV of real people – Hilary Mantel comes to mind. Even biographers will speculate on what their subject might have been thinking. But one has to remember one is only getting that author’s take on the person, however well grounded in research.
As an author I find it nerve-wracking to get inside the head of an historical figure, Janice. I don’t write from Byron’s, Shelley’s, or Mary’s POVs, but I have written from the POV of real historical figures in the past. Some stories seem to require it. And I’ve certainly loved historical fiction written from the POV of real people – Hilary Mantel comes to mind. Even biographers will speculate on what their subject might have been thinking. But one has to remember one is only getting that author’s take on the person, however well grounded in research.
As an author I find it nerve-wracking to get inside the head of an historical figure, Janice. I don’t write from Byron’s, Shelley’s, or Mary’s POVs, but I have written from the POV of real historical figures in the past. Some stories seem to require it. And I’ve certainly loved historical fiction written from the POV of real people – Hilary Mantel comes to mind. Even biographers will speculate on what their subject might have been thinking. But one has to remember one is only getting that author’s take on the person, however well grounded in research.
Alina, I’m thrilled y0ou enjoyed the start of the series! Keep me posted when you catch up – I know all about an overwhelming TBR!
So true about movies – they often compress things more than books because they are trying to get events down to two or three hours. In general I don’t mind as long as they’re true to the spirit of the actual events. Of course it’s a situation where mileage is likely to vary.
Alina, I’m thrilled y0ou enjoyed the start of the series! Keep me posted when you catch up – I know all about an overwhelming TBR!
So true about movies – they often compress things more than books because they are trying to get events down to two or three hours. In general I don’t mind as long as they’re true to the spirit of the actual events. Of course it’s a situation where mileage is likely to vary.
Alina, I’m thrilled y0ou enjoyed the start of the series! Keep me posted when you catch up – I know all about an overwhelming TBR!
So true about movies – they often compress things more than books because they are trying to get events down to two or three hours. In general I don’t mind as long as they’re true to the spirit of the actual events. Of course it’s a situation where mileage is likely to vary.
Alina, I’m thrilled y0ou enjoyed the start of the series! Keep me posted when you catch up – I know all about an overwhelming TBR!
So true about movies – they often compress things more than books because they are trying to get events down to two or three hours. In general I don’t mind as long as they’re true to the spirit of the actual events. Of course it’s a situation where mileage is likely to vary.
Alina, I’m thrilled y0ou enjoyed the start of the series! Keep me posted when you catch up – I know all about an overwhelming TBR!
So true about movies – they often compress things more than books because they are trying to get events down to two or three hours. In general I don’t mind as long as they’re true to the spirit of the actual events. Of course it’s a situation where mileage is likely to vary.