Hi there,
This is my first post, so be gentle. I am half way through my masterpiece ( a novel set to the backdrop of the great war) it is going fairly well but trying to get historical accuracies right, like regiments where they should be and dates in order. I know when books and films come out they are criticised if they are innaccurate (Film Arthur, YUCH!). Just wanted to have some opinions on how much artistic license should be allowed to maintain the novels flow.

You could do what you want, it has never stopped writers before. Just make sure you mention it in your notes at the end.

Look at Dan Brown. He wrote a book full of porkies from cover to cover and it's gone on to be a best-seller.

You could always invent regiments. The Milton Keynes Pals or something (errr, on second thoughts perhaps not; but I'm sure you get the idea).

Best of luck with the project by the way.

quote:

Originally posted by Fil2:
Look at Dan Brown. He wrote a book full of porkies from cover to cover and it's gone on to be a best-seller.

You could always invent regiments. The Milton Keynes Pals or something (errr, on second thoughts perhaps not; but I'm sure you get the idea).

Best of luck with the project by the way.

So long as it has set in WW1 or similar then go ahead and write it! Tom Clancy made some big boobs in book Red October but they still made it into a flim

I just try to have a feeling for the era before writing. Then as long as you have the essence of the time period and feelings, then exact details aren't always most important.

Good Luck!

Historical accuracy is a touchy matter amongst writers and readers of the genre. Personally, I like my novels to be as accurate as possible and I cringe when I come across inaccuracies in the work of others. That said, if the story is good enough then most readers will forgive any amount of innaccuracy (that they are aware of). I wouldn't worry too much about the minutiae. Concentrate on telling the story.

quote:

Originally posted by simon scarrow:
Historical accuracy is a touchy matter amongst writers and readers of the genre. Personally, I like my novels to be as accurate as possible and I cringe when I come across inaccuracies in the work of others. That said, if the story is good enough then most readers will forgive any amount of innaccuracy (that they are aware of). I wouldn't worry too much about the minutiae. Concentrate on telling the story.

If you are THE Simon Scarrow (Under the Eagle etc) can I just say how very much I enjoy your writing. Of course none of us can truly know how accurate writing about Roman times (any times) is, but your novels seem beautifully researched and plausible. Great stuff.

I, and many others, have written AARs in connection with the Crusader Kings game.
Anyone wanting to see how other amateurs do it head on over to paradoxplaza.com and look for the AAR thread. There's some fine stories out there.I particularly recommend the work of Rex Angliae (aka Bretwalda!!)

Yes, I like my historical novels to be accurate, but, as simon scarrow said, small inaccuracies can be overlooked.
Just do your best!

Not sure how historically accurate they are but I've liked what I've read by James Michener & Edward Rutherford.

Good luck with your book.

I think Lindsey Davis is simply the best when it comes to writing comedy based on ancient Rome. I'm really hooked.

I think that you should write what you want. However, you do clearly need to state what is fact and fiction.

I think it depends on you personally too, about whether or not you want things to be exact (or as exact as research allows), as well as how much your average reader knows. I personally am quite finickity about historical fact and ensuring it's correct in what I write, but that might just be me because the era I write about is of great interest to me and I hate to read glaring inaccuracies.
I read some historical fiction where the author claimed his character had written a certain (very important) letter. Having done a lot of research on the era concerned I knew instantly who had actually written the letter and it was not the author's character! I read the book over two years ago and it STILL riles me that he had the audacity to do that.

I guess the long and short of it is, imo, it depends! (as people have mentioned, Dan Brown... )

A good story, with interesting characters, well told will make your book a good read. A high level of accurate detail will make it more interesting. Many readers like to learn something new. There is so much written about the great war, I think you will run the risk of turning your readers off if you get the detail wrong. They are a knowledgable lot.

If you base your story on a particular battalion, read the battalion diary and, if you can, the divisional history.

A great book for a huge amount of detail is Death's Men by Denis Winter. This book is packed with stuff you wouldn't normally even think about, down to the amount of hay required for the horses, in millions of tons. It's very good for getting a sense of scale.

I am quarter of the way through writing a book about my ancestors in seventeenth century New England, and I am finding the amount of research I have to get through quite daunting.It is contained in passenger lists ( some projected or invented) in church records and a few published writing. Sorting out the real from the invented is often difficult I am not actually trying to write history (like the Oxford book of English History for example) - they were an ordinary family who played a part in the founding of America, and I must get as much as possible historically correct. I can't even attempt to write popular history like Alison Weir, but will have to rely on my imagination and feel for the times to fill in the gaps. It is a challenge, and the more research I do the easier it will become."Hay for the horses" is a very good principle!

I have always wondered about this - how hard it must be to work out how far you need to go with historical accuracy?

Does it 'bog' done the writing process anymore than a contemporary novel?

When is enough?

And where do you find all the relevant info, particularly with at the debates surrounding historical events.

I've taken advice from many sources and forums such as this, and I'm trying to be as faithful to the facts as possible. But at the end of the day it's a work of fiction.
It may sound unfair to what actually happened but the readers enjoyment should not be reduced due to the author trading off niggly facts for enjoyment and rythym.

Why not, go for it.
In fact why not claim it to be fact first, it seems to have worked well for Dan Brown !!

Yes, I'd like to earn his kind of money! He took many of his "facts" from "the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail" which was published in the early eighties.
It's important to have choices in this game and the more research, the more choices i.e. you can leave out some and still have historical credibility.

I always found the best hisotrical fictions to have a great deal of fact in them, while the author puts its own spin on it. For example, the Boudica series, all the right place names are correct, as are most of the historical figures, but the wuthor has put her own very different personalities too them. all the places are described how she wants them to be seen, and they all have pruposes that she has thought up herself.

I think its great that you are writing you own novel, but one muct always be careful in making a story like that either too fanciful or too real and true to life.