Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?How much can I talk about other people's works?How do you determine whether you know enough to write on a topic?How far does libel extend in writing?Struggling to define a character without giving him viewpoint statusHow do disclaimers work for fictional books that are loosely modeled on real events?There's an actor with my lead character's name - how big a problem is this going to be?The advantages and disadvantages of Fantasy-timeHow to write female characters with agency?How do you make characters relatable if they exist in a completely different moral context?How to present an alien culture with different morals, without it coming across as savage?

What is a common way to tell if an academic is "above average," or outstanding in their field? Is their h-index (Hirsh index) one of them?

Why is "breaking the mould" positively connoted?

Start job from another SQL server instance

Notation: What does the tilde bellow of the Expectation mean?

Why is my arithmetic with a long long int behaving this way?

Nested loops to process groups of pictures

Where to draw the line between quantum mechanics theory and its interpretation(s)?

Dangerous workplace travelling

Would you use "llamarse" for an animal's name?

Why would a military not separate its forces into different branches?

A factorization game

Is Soreness in Middle Knuckle of Fretting Hand Index Finger Normal for Beginners?

Find magical solution to magical equation

Why do people keep telling me that I am a bad photographer?

Why do these characters still seem to be the same age after the events of Endgame?

Is it normal for gliders not to have attitude indicators?

Agena docking and RCS Brakes in First Man

How is Per Object Storage Usage Calculated

Will 700 more planes a day fly because of the Heathrow expansion?

My first c++ game (snake console game)

How can I connect 2AWG cable to my 100A panel?

Typeset year in old-style numbers with biblatex

How long would it take for people to notice a mass disappearance?

Handling Null values (and equivalents) routinely in Python



Is it okay to majorly distort historical facts while writing a fiction story?


How much can I talk about other people's works?How do you determine whether you know enough to write on a topic?How far does libel extend in writing?Struggling to define a character without giving him viewpoint statusHow do disclaimers work for fictional books that are loosely modeled on real events?There's an actor with my lead character's name - how big a problem is this going to be?The advantages and disadvantages of Fantasy-timeHow to write female characters with agency?How do you make characters relatable if they exist in a completely different moral context?How to present an alien culture with different morals, without it coming across as savage?













19















Suppose A is a famous historical character with a known history of emotional attachment with a particular set of people. If I would want to write a fictional story about character A that might involve distortion of the actual incidents of her/his life, will it be okay?



How much is too much while handling a fiction plot based on a real historical character and what points should I care about?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

    – J...
    Mar 31 at 0:55












  • Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

    – T. Sar
    Apr 1 at 18:41











  • Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

    – RonJohn
    Apr 1 at 21:19











  • Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

    – Luaan
    Apr 2 at 8:56











  • I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

    – John Hunt
    Apr 2 at 9:35















19















Suppose A is a famous historical character with a known history of emotional attachment with a particular set of people. If I would want to write a fictional story about character A that might involve distortion of the actual incidents of her/his life, will it be okay?



How much is too much while handling a fiction plot based on a real historical character and what points should I care about?










share|improve this question



















  • 4





    Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

    – J...
    Mar 31 at 0:55












  • Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

    – T. Sar
    Apr 1 at 18:41











  • Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

    – RonJohn
    Apr 1 at 21:19











  • Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

    – Luaan
    Apr 2 at 8:56











  • I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

    – John Hunt
    Apr 2 at 9:35













19












19








19








Suppose A is a famous historical character with a known history of emotional attachment with a particular set of people. If I would want to write a fictional story about character A that might involve distortion of the actual incidents of her/his life, will it be okay?



How much is too much while handling a fiction plot based on a real historical character and what points should I care about?










share|improve this question
















Suppose A is a famous historical character with a known history of emotional attachment with a particular set of people. If I would want to write a fictional story about character A that might involve distortion of the actual incidents of her/his life, will it be okay?



How much is too much while handling a fiction plot based on a real historical character and what points should I care about?







fiction research historical-fiction






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Mar 30 at 17:51









Cyn

20.1k14494




20.1k14494










asked Mar 30 at 17:27









Karan DesaiKaran Desai

767619




767619







  • 4





    Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

    – J...
    Mar 31 at 0:55












  • Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

    – T. Sar
    Apr 1 at 18:41











  • Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

    – RonJohn
    Apr 1 at 21:19











  • Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

    – Luaan
    Apr 2 at 8:56











  • I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

    – John Hunt
    Apr 2 at 9:35












  • 4





    Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

    – J...
    Mar 31 at 0:55












  • Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

    – T. Sar
    Apr 1 at 18:41











  • Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

    – RonJohn
    Apr 1 at 21:19











  • Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

    – Luaan
    Apr 2 at 8:56











  • I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

    – John Hunt
    Apr 2 at 9:35







4




4





Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

– J...
Mar 31 at 0:55






Wiki : Alternate History, also Counterfactual history

– J...
Mar 31 at 0:55














Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

– T. Sar
Apr 1 at 18:41





Operation Trojan Horse from J.J. Benitez is a good example of this done with regards to Jesus Christ and overall biblical themes. The reception of it among religious people is very mixed - some really liked it, some hated it. You mileage may vary quite a lot.

– T. Sar
Apr 1 at 18:41













Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

– RonJohn
Apr 1 at 21:19





Most definitely yes. I'd definitely recommend, though, priming your readers to what you're doing by telling them in the Preface what you're doing.

– RonJohn
Apr 1 at 21:19













Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

– Luaan
Apr 2 at 8:56





Do you need to, though? Would your story be harmed if you placed it in a different world, or do you want to mostly keep the ties to real history, and only change a few things?

– Luaan
Apr 2 at 8:56













I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

– John Hunt
Apr 2 at 9:35





I don't get the answers on this page, surely you can do whatever you like when writing fiction? Isn't that the point? Maybe in America people feel differently (I'm from the UK..)

– John Hunt
Apr 2 at 9:35










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes


















38














Is it okay? Well, it's likely legal (if the person is long dead anyway, and probably even if they're alive). You can do it. You might even get it published.



For a large number of readers, the answer is that, no, it's not okay. Though what percentage of that really depends on the details. Fictionalization of historic events is extremely common and things get really bungled.



Take the excellent book Hidden Figures, about black women employed by NASA as mathematicians and engineers as the first space flights were planned then executed. The author interviewed the actual women involved (those still alive) and many others who lived through that time period.



The book is nonfiction and, as far as I know, pretty accurate. Then it was made into a movie. The movie is wonderful and worth watching but, for those of us who read the book, it involves a lot of handwaving. They took characters that worked in different decades and made them all similarly aged friends in the same year. They completely changed character arcs to aid in the drama. For example, one movie character fought for years to become a supervisor (the white woman in charge refused to allow her) then finally got her promotion in the late 60's at the end of the movie. The real person with that character's name had been a supervisor starting in the 40's.



This sort of distortion is extremely common in movies, whether based on books or on historical research. Sometimes involving huge changes like putting together events that actually were a couple hundred years apart. It's not as common in books, but it happens.



So is it "okay" for you to do this? Well, yes and no. The question is, what can you get away with and who are you pissing off? If you add in scandal or things that might be libelous were the people still alive, you could be in trouble, even if legally you're in the clear. I mean, don't write a novel about Princess Di's early life as a pole dancer.



But a work about William Shakespeare in a relationship (that never really happened) with a woman who disguises herself as a man so she can take female roles in his plays only ever played by men (also never happened). YAWN Been there, done that.



I am one of those readers that hates inaccuracies like that but I still loved those two movies. I'm stricter about the books but often read and enjoy them anyway. It depends how—and why—it's done.



Make your choices meaningful. Don't change things because you're too lazy to research. Change them because they work better that way for your story.






share|improve this answer




















  • 14





    I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

    – Polygnome
    Mar 31 at 9:21






  • 6





    @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

    – Kevin
    Mar 31 at 16:38






  • 1





    @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

    – DonFusili
    Apr 1 at 15:50






  • 1





    @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

    – Cyn
    Apr 1 at 16:05







  • 1





    @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

    – Cyn
    Apr 1 at 17:24


















22














Getting your facts straight is one of the rules of literature. As with the other rules of literature, it is one thing to know the rule and know when to break it, but another thing to ignore the rule when it's needed. In the case of this rule, there is no substitute for knowing what the facts actually are. Only then can you justify presenting a different version of reality in order to serve the story. This is different from acting as if the facts are either not important, or as if you have rejected the facts because it does not suit you to accept them.



If you want your story to have an element that contradicts the best-supported version of events in the historical record, you should make it very clear (in some way) that you know what the record really says, and that you made this choice in order to explore a story with different conflicts in play.



If the historical record is well-known, and there aren't already an army of cranks who are pushing an alternate version of things, it may not be necessary to explicitly state that you are presenting an alternate history; everyone will grasp it readily enough. For instance, if Confederate States of America wins the American Civil War in your novel, everyone will know you are writing an alternate history and don't have a fringe agenda.



On the other hand, if the topic is already the target of politically-driven revisionism, you definitely should make it clear that the version of events in the tale should be seen as fiction. For instance, if you want to write a novel in which the Holocaust did not happen, do not fail to stress to the reader that you believe the Holocaust abso-filtered-lutely did happen.



In another case, it may be that the facts as known to history are familiar only to historians. So if your story has Julius Caesar married to a woman named Desdemona, someone unfamiliar with Roman history may "learn" this to be the case, and you should take the time to prevent misunderstandings.



Another case that requires a warning is when historians are honestly divided on what actually happened, non-historians are pretty much ignorant of this fact, and your story presents one of the versions vying for acceptance. In that case you would also want to advise the reader that the version of events you present is not the only reasonable interpretation of the historical record.



As to where you put this caveat lector, a brief author's note at the beginning should suffice.






share|improve this answer
































    13














    Shakespeare did it. Richard III was not a homicidal maniac killing young princes. He was an able king.



    The movie Fatherland presents an alternate history where WWII never happened, Hitler is an able leader and JFK is an aging US President. It all works well because it had a purpose. History did not quite suit the needs of the story, so history changed.



    If A is the focus and you change him/her from respected figure in history to raving lunatic, you might have a problem. Depending on how far back in history your figure is, there could be descendants who feel the need to defend the family honor from defamation.



    If you change that A never met B and C, that is not a problem. Historical fiction is fiction with sometimes just the gloss of history on it.



    Do enough research on A that he/she is recognizable as A. If I were writing about Napoleon and depicted him as a slacker with zero ambition and very little intelligence, I might as well create a new character since we know he was driven, intelligent and ambitious.



    If you want to create a scenario where A is clearly A but different, ask yourself what traits are essential to A being A. If you take my example of a stupid Napoleon, intelligence must be returned to him to keep from breaking reader immersion. Napoleon might remain a talented general but never take the throne, never become Emperor.



    What makes A who he is? What changes do you wish to make? Might said changes be served by creating an observer character who comments on events?



    What are the limits? You set those, but if he has living descendants, be careful of defamation as heirs have been known to defend the reputation of the dead.






    share|improve this answer























    • I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

      – Orangesandlemons
      Mar 31 at 14:59











    • Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

      – Rasdashan
      Mar 31 at 16:12











    • You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

      – Orangesandlemons
      Mar 31 at 16:21






    • 10





      Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

      – Peter Shor
      Mar 31 at 23:38







    • 2





      Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

      – Rasdashan
      Mar 31 at 23:50


















    5














    History is a fluid thing. Even now, historians have different opinions about what exactly happened, and what motivations people had for their actions. So there is basically no way to write a historical novel that won't be considered inaccurate by someone.



    But your question is "how much is too much". There is no clear answer to this.



    Some stories take a historical character and completely change his story. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is one example. These stories tend to add obvious fictional elements, like adventures, fantasy creatures or other things that clearly aren't considered real history.



    Other stories fall into the "alternate history" genre, where you deliberately change something in order to explore a story in this changed world. In this genre, you would generally point out the things you've changed: The plot summary might read "in a world where the Opium wars never happened, a young emperor tries to...". In this type of novel, your reader will assume that everything that was needed for the change, and everything caused by the change, is fiction.



    If your novel is generally a realistic story about your character and his time, I feel like you have some responsibility towards your reader. Many people form their image of historical places and events by reading novels, so they will absorb whatever you write. Think of all the people who watched the great movie "Amadeus" and now believe that Salieri was Mozart's deadly enemy. He wasn't!

    A little bit of distortion, like making some events happen closer together, or leaving out some minor characters, is necessary for most stories. But if you are going to change major things that would make the character appear very differently from what we know about him, it might be good to add an explanation of this difference in a postscript. This will also let your more historically informed readers know that your changes are deliberate.



    As other answers have noted, if the character is relatively recent or is a revered figure somewhere, you might get some backlash about portraying him "wrong". In some cases, this might become a real problem for you. That's always worth considering.



    But generally, just write the story you want, and if you make big changes, just point them out.






    share|improve this answer






























      4














      There is a whole genre of fiction which explore what would have happened if certain historic events turned out differently: Alternative History. If you market your work as part of this genre, then anything goes.



      But this genre usually focuses on changes which have lasting consequences on a global scale, not just the lives of a few individual people.



      If you claim or just imply that your work is historically accurate, then anything that contradicts historic consensus will be perceived as a research mistake on your behalf and will likely be seen as a flaw in your work.






      share|improve this answer






























        3














        The main question is whether your readers will accept it and that depends on two factors:



        a) how well is the actual history known



        and



        b) do your represent your work as historically accurate or as fiction based on history ?



        If you make it clear to the reader that you are taking historic events or persons and waving a tale of fiction around them, diverging from actual history, then the reader will not feel cheated.



        The world of fiction is full of such stories, and many of them are well received. Stories that claim historical accuracy but don't deliver it are either well received because audiences don't know better, or critized if they do. Often both because a small fraction of the audience knows and complains, but most don't care.



        So if your historic person/event is well-known, you should make it clear that your fiction is not the real history. If your person/event is obscure, you may get away without such a disclaimer, leading the reader to believe you are representing historic facts. I personally would advise against it, but it's not like it hasn't been done.






        share|improve this answer























          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "166"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44211%2fis-it-okay-to-majorly-distort-historical-facts-while-writing-a-fiction-story%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes








          6 Answers
          6






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          38














          Is it okay? Well, it's likely legal (if the person is long dead anyway, and probably even if they're alive). You can do it. You might even get it published.



          For a large number of readers, the answer is that, no, it's not okay. Though what percentage of that really depends on the details. Fictionalization of historic events is extremely common and things get really bungled.



          Take the excellent book Hidden Figures, about black women employed by NASA as mathematicians and engineers as the first space flights were planned then executed. The author interviewed the actual women involved (those still alive) and many others who lived through that time period.



          The book is nonfiction and, as far as I know, pretty accurate. Then it was made into a movie. The movie is wonderful and worth watching but, for those of us who read the book, it involves a lot of handwaving. They took characters that worked in different decades and made them all similarly aged friends in the same year. They completely changed character arcs to aid in the drama. For example, one movie character fought for years to become a supervisor (the white woman in charge refused to allow her) then finally got her promotion in the late 60's at the end of the movie. The real person with that character's name had been a supervisor starting in the 40's.



          This sort of distortion is extremely common in movies, whether based on books or on historical research. Sometimes involving huge changes like putting together events that actually were a couple hundred years apart. It's not as common in books, but it happens.



          So is it "okay" for you to do this? Well, yes and no. The question is, what can you get away with and who are you pissing off? If you add in scandal or things that might be libelous were the people still alive, you could be in trouble, even if legally you're in the clear. I mean, don't write a novel about Princess Di's early life as a pole dancer.



          But a work about William Shakespeare in a relationship (that never really happened) with a woman who disguises herself as a man so she can take female roles in his plays only ever played by men (also never happened). YAWN Been there, done that.



          I am one of those readers that hates inaccuracies like that but I still loved those two movies. I'm stricter about the books but often read and enjoy them anyway. It depends how—and why—it's done.



          Make your choices meaningful. Don't change things because you're too lazy to research. Change them because they work better that way for your story.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 14





            I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

            – Polygnome
            Mar 31 at 9:21






          • 6





            @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

            – Kevin
            Mar 31 at 16:38






          • 1





            @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

            – DonFusili
            Apr 1 at 15:50






          • 1





            @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 16:05







          • 1





            @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 17:24















          38














          Is it okay? Well, it's likely legal (if the person is long dead anyway, and probably even if they're alive). You can do it. You might even get it published.



          For a large number of readers, the answer is that, no, it's not okay. Though what percentage of that really depends on the details. Fictionalization of historic events is extremely common and things get really bungled.



          Take the excellent book Hidden Figures, about black women employed by NASA as mathematicians and engineers as the first space flights were planned then executed. The author interviewed the actual women involved (those still alive) and many others who lived through that time period.



          The book is nonfiction and, as far as I know, pretty accurate. Then it was made into a movie. The movie is wonderful and worth watching but, for those of us who read the book, it involves a lot of handwaving. They took characters that worked in different decades and made them all similarly aged friends in the same year. They completely changed character arcs to aid in the drama. For example, one movie character fought for years to become a supervisor (the white woman in charge refused to allow her) then finally got her promotion in the late 60's at the end of the movie. The real person with that character's name had been a supervisor starting in the 40's.



          This sort of distortion is extremely common in movies, whether based on books or on historical research. Sometimes involving huge changes like putting together events that actually were a couple hundred years apart. It's not as common in books, but it happens.



          So is it "okay" for you to do this? Well, yes and no. The question is, what can you get away with and who are you pissing off? If you add in scandal or things that might be libelous were the people still alive, you could be in trouble, even if legally you're in the clear. I mean, don't write a novel about Princess Di's early life as a pole dancer.



          But a work about William Shakespeare in a relationship (that never really happened) with a woman who disguises herself as a man so she can take female roles in his plays only ever played by men (also never happened). YAWN Been there, done that.



          I am one of those readers that hates inaccuracies like that but I still loved those two movies. I'm stricter about the books but often read and enjoy them anyway. It depends how—and why—it's done.



          Make your choices meaningful. Don't change things because you're too lazy to research. Change them because they work better that way for your story.






          share|improve this answer




















          • 14





            I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

            – Polygnome
            Mar 31 at 9:21






          • 6





            @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

            – Kevin
            Mar 31 at 16:38






          • 1





            @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

            – DonFusili
            Apr 1 at 15:50






          • 1





            @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 16:05







          • 1





            @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 17:24













          38












          38








          38







          Is it okay? Well, it's likely legal (if the person is long dead anyway, and probably even if they're alive). You can do it. You might even get it published.



          For a large number of readers, the answer is that, no, it's not okay. Though what percentage of that really depends on the details. Fictionalization of historic events is extremely common and things get really bungled.



          Take the excellent book Hidden Figures, about black women employed by NASA as mathematicians and engineers as the first space flights were planned then executed. The author interviewed the actual women involved (those still alive) and many others who lived through that time period.



          The book is nonfiction and, as far as I know, pretty accurate. Then it was made into a movie. The movie is wonderful and worth watching but, for those of us who read the book, it involves a lot of handwaving. They took characters that worked in different decades and made them all similarly aged friends in the same year. They completely changed character arcs to aid in the drama. For example, one movie character fought for years to become a supervisor (the white woman in charge refused to allow her) then finally got her promotion in the late 60's at the end of the movie. The real person with that character's name had been a supervisor starting in the 40's.



          This sort of distortion is extremely common in movies, whether based on books or on historical research. Sometimes involving huge changes like putting together events that actually were a couple hundred years apart. It's not as common in books, but it happens.



          So is it "okay" for you to do this? Well, yes and no. The question is, what can you get away with and who are you pissing off? If you add in scandal or things that might be libelous were the people still alive, you could be in trouble, even if legally you're in the clear. I mean, don't write a novel about Princess Di's early life as a pole dancer.



          But a work about William Shakespeare in a relationship (that never really happened) with a woman who disguises herself as a man so she can take female roles in his plays only ever played by men (also never happened). YAWN Been there, done that.



          I am one of those readers that hates inaccuracies like that but I still loved those two movies. I'm stricter about the books but often read and enjoy them anyway. It depends how—and why—it's done.



          Make your choices meaningful. Don't change things because you're too lazy to research. Change them because they work better that way for your story.






          share|improve this answer















          Is it okay? Well, it's likely legal (if the person is long dead anyway, and probably even if they're alive). You can do it. You might even get it published.



          For a large number of readers, the answer is that, no, it's not okay. Though what percentage of that really depends on the details. Fictionalization of historic events is extremely common and things get really bungled.



          Take the excellent book Hidden Figures, about black women employed by NASA as mathematicians and engineers as the first space flights were planned then executed. The author interviewed the actual women involved (those still alive) and many others who lived through that time period.



          The book is nonfiction and, as far as I know, pretty accurate. Then it was made into a movie. The movie is wonderful and worth watching but, for those of us who read the book, it involves a lot of handwaving. They took characters that worked in different decades and made them all similarly aged friends in the same year. They completely changed character arcs to aid in the drama. For example, one movie character fought for years to become a supervisor (the white woman in charge refused to allow her) then finally got her promotion in the late 60's at the end of the movie. The real person with that character's name had been a supervisor starting in the 40's.



          This sort of distortion is extremely common in movies, whether based on books or on historical research. Sometimes involving huge changes like putting together events that actually were a couple hundred years apart. It's not as common in books, but it happens.



          So is it "okay" for you to do this? Well, yes and no. The question is, what can you get away with and who are you pissing off? If you add in scandal or things that might be libelous were the people still alive, you could be in trouble, even if legally you're in the clear. I mean, don't write a novel about Princess Di's early life as a pole dancer.



          But a work about William Shakespeare in a relationship (that never really happened) with a woman who disguises herself as a man so she can take female roles in his plays only ever played by men (also never happened). YAWN Been there, done that.



          I am one of those readers that hates inaccuracies like that but I still loved those two movies. I'm stricter about the books but often read and enjoy them anyway. It depends how—and why—it's done.



          Make your choices meaningful. Don't change things because you're too lazy to research. Change them because they work better that way for your story.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Apr 1 at 16:05

























          answered Mar 30 at 17:49









          CynCyn

          20.1k14494




          20.1k14494







          • 14





            I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

            – Polygnome
            Mar 31 at 9:21






          • 6





            @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

            – Kevin
            Mar 31 at 16:38






          • 1





            @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

            – DonFusili
            Apr 1 at 15:50






          • 1





            @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 16:05







          • 1





            @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 17:24












          • 14





            I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

            – Polygnome
            Mar 31 at 9:21






          • 6





            @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

            – Kevin
            Mar 31 at 16:38






          • 1





            @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

            – DonFusili
            Apr 1 at 15:50






          • 1





            @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 16:05







          • 1





            @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

            – Cyn
            Apr 1 at 17:24







          14




          14





          I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

          – Polygnome
          Mar 31 at 9:21





          I would add that it is good to be explicit in other commentary about whether your book is fictional/dramatized, just "based on" a historical person or meant to be well researched and accurate. Informing the reader goes a long way to earning their goodwill.

          – Polygnome
          Mar 31 at 9:21




          6




          6





          @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

          – Kevin
          Mar 31 at 16:38





          @Polygnome: Or you can be like Dan Brown and tell everyone that it's all 100% true. He seems to have no difficulty selling books.

          – Kevin
          Mar 31 at 16:38




          1




          1





          @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

          – DonFusili
          Apr 1 at 15:50





          @Cyn I didn't make the assertion, so onus of proof isn't on me, but sure: I'll bite. The question if wider than 'William Shakespeare'. In large parts of Europe, for example, it would be illegal to change certain facts about certain heads of state in any publication. In OP's location specifically, censorship laws are in effect if they 'threaten national unity'. These laws are vague enough that they have been used in the last few years.

          – DonFusili
          Apr 1 at 15:50




          1




          1





          @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

          – Cyn
          Apr 1 at 16:05






          @DonFusili I think an answer with all the details of the legal issues would be an excellent addition to this question. But I'll toss in a "likely" above.

          – Cyn
          Apr 1 at 16:05





          1




          1





          @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

          – Cyn
          Apr 1 at 17:24





          @WayneWerner Exactly. Ideally, any author making a factual change when writing about historical figures or events would do so only after researching it and making an artistic decision. In reality, we know only some changes are for that reason and the rest are intellectual laziness or indifference.

          – Cyn
          Apr 1 at 17:24











          22














          Getting your facts straight is one of the rules of literature. As with the other rules of literature, it is one thing to know the rule and know when to break it, but another thing to ignore the rule when it's needed. In the case of this rule, there is no substitute for knowing what the facts actually are. Only then can you justify presenting a different version of reality in order to serve the story. This is different from acting as if the facts are either not important, or as if you have rejected the facts because it does not suit you to accept them.



          If you want your story to have an element that contradicts the best-supported version of events in the historical record, you should make it very clear (in some way) that you know what the record really says, and that you made this choice in order to explore a story with different conflicts in play.



          If the historical record is well-known, and there aren't already an army of cranks who are pushing an alternate version of things, it may not be necessary to explicitly state that you are presenting an alternate history; everyone will grasp it readily enough. For instance, if Confederate States of America wins the American Civil War in your novel, everyone will know you are writing an alternate history and don't have a fringe agenda.



          On the other hand, if the topic is already the target of politically-driven revisionism, you definitely should make it clear that the version of events in the tale should be seen as fiction. For instance, if you want to write a novel in which the Holocaust did not happen, do not fail to stress to the reader that you believe the Holocaust abso-filtered-lutely did happen.



          In another case, it may be that the facts as known to history are familiar only to historians. So if your story has Julius Caesar married to a woman named Desdemona, someone unfamiliar with Roman history may "learn" this to be the case, and you should take the time to prevent misunderstandings.



          Another case that requires a warning is when historians are honestly divided on what actually happened, non-historians are pretty much ignorant of this fact, and your story presents one of the versions vying for acceptance. In that case you would also want to advise the reader that the version of events you present is not the only reasonable interpretation of the historical record.



          As to where you put this caveat lector, a brief author's note at the beginning should suffice.






          share|improve this answer





























            22














            Getting your facts straight is one of the rules of literature. As with the other rules of literature, it is one thing to know the rule and know when to break it, but another thing to ignore the rule when it's needed. In the case of this rule, there is no substitute for knowing what the facts actually are. Only then can you justify presenting a different version of reality in order to serve the story. This is different from acting as if the facts are either not important, or as if you have rejected the facts because it does not suit you to accept them.



            If you want your story to have an element that contradicts the best-supported version of events in the historical record, you should make it very clear (in some way) that you know what the record really says, and that you made this choice in order to explore a story with different conflicts in play.



            If the historical record is well-known, and there aren't already an army of cranks who are pushing an alternate version of things, it may not be necessary to explicitly state that you are presenting an alternate history; everyone will grasp it readily enough. For instance, if Confederate States of America wins the American Civil War in your novel, everyone will know you are writing an alternate history and don't have a fringe agenda.



            On the other hand, if the topic is already the target of politically-driven revisionism, you definitely should make it clear that the version of events in the tale should be seen as fiction. For instance, if you want to write a novel in which the Holocaust did not happen, do not fail to stress to the reader that you believe the Holocaust abso-filtered-lutely did happen.



            In another case, it may be that the facts as known to history are familiar only to historians. So if your story has Julius Caesar married to a woman named Desdemona, someone unfamiliar with Roman history may "learn" this to be the case, and you should take the time to prevent misunderstandings.



            Another case that requires a warning is when historians are honestly divided on what actually happened, non-historians are pretty much ignorant of this fact, and your story presents one of the versions vying for acceptance. In that case you would also want to advise the reader that the version of events you present is not the only reasonable interpretation of the historical record.



            As to where you put this caveat lector, a brief author's note at the beginning should suffice.






            share|improve this answer



























              22












              22








              22







              Getting your facts straight is one of the rules of literature. As with the other rules of literature, it is one thing to know the rule and know when to break it, but another thing to ignore the rule when it's needed. In the case of this rule, there is no substitute for knowing what the facts actually are. Only then can you justify presenting a different version of reality in order to serve the story. This is different from acting as if the facts are either not important, or as if you have rejected the facts because it does not suit you to accept them.



              If you want your story to have an element that contradicts the best-supported version of events in the historical record, you should make it very clear (in some way) that you know what the record really says, and that you made this choice in order to explore a story with different conflicts in play.



              If the historical record is well-known, and there aren't already an army of cranks who are pushing an alternate version of things, it may not be necessary to explicitly state that you are presenting an alternate history; everyone will grasp it readily enough. For instance, if Confederate States of America wins the American Civil War in your novel, everyone will know you are writing an alternate history and don't have a fringe agenda.



              On the other hand, if the topic is already the target of politically-driven revisionism, you definitely should make it clear that the version of events in the tale should be seen as fiction. For instance, if you want to write a novel in which the Holocaust did not happen, do not fail to stress to the reader that you believe the Holocaust abso-filtered-lutely did happen.



              In another case, it may be that the facts as known to history are familiar only to historians. So if your story has Julius Caesar married to a woman named Desdemona, someone unfamiliar with Roman history may "learn" this to be the case, and you should take the time to prevent misunderstandings.



              Another case that requires a warning is when historians are honestly divided on what actually happened, non-historians are pretty much ignorant of this fact, and your story presents one of the versions vying for acceptance. In that case you would also want to advise the reader that the version of events you present is not the only reasonable interpretation of the historical record.



              As to where you put this caveat lector, a brief author's note at the beginning should suffice.






              share|improve this answer















              Getting your facts straight is one of the rules of literature. As with the other rules of literature, it is one thing to know the rule and know when to break it, but another thing to ignore the rule when it's needed. In the case of this rule, there is no substitute for knowing what the facts actually are. Only then can you justify presenting a different version of reality in order to serve the story. This is different from acting as if the facts are either not important, or as if you have rejected the facts because it does not suit you to accept them.



              If you want your story to have an element that contradicts the best-supported version of events in the historical record, you should make it very clear (in some way) that you know what the record really says, and that you made this choice in order to explore a story with different conflicts in play.



              If the historical record is well-known, and there aren't already an army of cranks who are pushing an alternate version of things, it may not be necessary to explicitly state that you are presenting an alternate history; everyone will grasp it readily enough. For instance, if Confederate States of America wins the American Civil War in your novel, everyone will know you are writing an alternate history and don't have a fringe agenda.



              On the other hand, if the topic is already the target of politically-driven revisionism, you definitely should make it clear that the version of events in the tale should be seen as fiction. For instance, if you want to write a novel in which the Holocaust did not happen, do not fail to stress to the reader that you believe the Holocaust abso-filtered-lutely did happen.



              In another case, it may be that the facts as known to history are familiar only to historians. So if your story has Julius Caesar married to a woman named Desdemona, someone unfamiliar with Roman history may "learn" this to be the case, and you should take the time to prevent misunderstandings.



              Another case that requires a warning is when historians are honestly divided on what actually happened, non-historians are pretty much ignorant of this fact, and your story presents one of the versions vying for acceptance. In that case you would also want to advise the reader that the version of events you present is not the only reasonable interpretation of the historical record.



              As to where you put this caveat lector, a brief author's note at the beginning should suffice.







              share|improve this answer














              share|improve this answer



              share|improve this answer








              edited Apr 4 at 4:13

























              answered Mar 30 at 22:58









              EvilSnackEvilSnack

              1,12926




              1,12926





















                  13














                  Shakespeare did it. Richard III was not a homicidal maniac killing young princes. He was an able king.



                  The movie Fatherland presents an alternate history where WWII never happened, Hitler is an able leader and JFK is an aging US President. It all works well because it had a purpose. History did not quite suit the needs of the story, so history changed.



                  If A is the focus and you change him/her from respected figure in history to raving lunatic, you might have a problem. Depending on how far back in history your figure is, there could be descendants who feel the need to defend the family honor from defamation.



                  If you change that A never met B and C, that is not a problem. Historical fiction is fiction with sometimes just the gloss of history on it.



                  Do enough research on A that he/she is recognizable as A. If I were writing about Napoleon and depicted him as a slacker with zero ambition and very little intelligence, I might as well create a new character since we know he was driven, intelligent and ambitious.



                  If you want to create a scenario where A is clearly A but different, ask yourself what traits are essential to A being A. If you take my example of a stupid Napoleon, intelligence must be returned to him to keep from breaking reader immersion. Napoleon might remain a talented general but never take the throne, never become Emperor.



                  What makes A who he is? What changes do you wish to make? Might said changes be served by creating an observer character who comments on events?



                  What are the limits? You set those, but if he has living descendants, be careful of defamation as heirs have been known to defend the reputation of the dead.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 14:59











                  • Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 16:12











                  • You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 16:21






                  • 10





                    Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Mar 31 at 23:38







                  • 2





                    Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 23:50















                  13














                  Shakespeare did it. Richard III was not a homicidal maniac killing young princes. He was an able king.



                  The movie Fatherland presents an alternate history where WWII never happened, Hitler is an able leader and JFK is an aging US President. It all works well because it had a purpose. History did not quite suit the needs of the story, so history changed.



                  If A is the focus and you change him/her from respected figure in history to raving lunatic, you might have a problem. Depending on how far back in history your figure is, there could be descendants who feel the need to defend the family honor from defamation.



                  If you change that A never met B and C, that is not a problem. Historical fiction is fiction with sometimes just the gloss of history on it.



                  Do enough research on A that he/she is recognizable as A. If I were writing about Napoleon and depicted him as a slacker with zero ambition and very little intelligence, I might as well create a new character since we know he was driven, intelligent and ambitious.



                  If you want to create a scenario where A is clearly A but different, ask yourself what traits are essential to A being A. If you take my example of a stupid Napoleon, intelligence must be returned to him to keep from breaking reader immersion. Napoleon might remain a talented general but never take the throne, never become Emperor.



                  What makes A who he is? What changes do you wish to make? Might said changes be served by creating an observer character who comments on events?



                  What are the limits? You set those, but if he has living descendants, be careful of defamation as heirs have been known to defend the reputation of the dead.






                  share|improve this answer























                  • I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 14:59











                  • Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 16:12











                  • You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 16:21






                  • 10





                    Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Mar 31 at 23:38







                  • 2





                    Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 23:50













                  13












                  13








                  13







                  Shakespeare did it. Richard III was not a homicidal maniac killing young princes. He was an able king.



                  The movie Fatherland presents an alternate history where WWII never happened, Hitler is an able leader and JFK is an aging US President. It all works well because it had a purpose. History did not quite suit the needs of the story, so history changed.



                  If A is the focus and you change him/her from respected figure in history to raving lunatic, you might have a problem. Depending on how far back in history your figure is, there could be descendants who feel the need to defend the family honor from defamation.



                  If you change that A never met B and C, that is not a problem. Historical fiction is fiction with sometimes just the gloss of history on it.



                  Do enough research on A that he/she is recognizable as A. If I were writing about Napoleon and depicted him as a slacker with zero ambition and very little intelligence, I might as well create a new character since we know he was driven, intelligent and ambitious.



                  If you want to create a scenario where A is clearly A but different, ask yourself what traits are essential to A being A. If you take my example of a stupid Napoleon, intelligence must be returned to him to keep from breaking reader immersion. Napoleon might remain a talented general but never take the throne, never become Emperor.



                  What makes A who he is? What changes do you wish to make? Might said changes be served by creating an observer character who comments on events?



                  What are the limits? You set those, but if he has living descendants, be careful of defamation as heirs have been known to defend the reputation of the dead.






                  share|improve this answer













                  Shakespeare did it. Richard III was not a homicidal maniac killing young princes. He was an able king.



                  The movie Fatherland presents an alternate history where WWII never happened, Hitler is an able leader and JFK is an aging US President. It all works well because it had a purpose. History did not quite suit the needs of the story, so history changed.



                  If A is the focus and you change him/her from respected figure in history to raving lunatic, you might have a problem. Depending on how far back in history your figure is, there could be descendants who feel the need to defend the family honor from defamation.



                  If you change that A never met B and C, that is not a problem. Historical fiction is fiction with sometimes just the gloss of history on it.



                  Do enough research on A that he/she is recognizable as A. If I were writing about Napoleon and depicted him as a slacker with zero ambition and very little intelligence, I might as well create a new character since we know he was driven, intelligent and ambitious.



                  If you want to create a scenario where A is clearly A but different, ask yourself what traits are essential to A being A. If you take my example of a stupid Napoleon, intelligence must be returned to him to keep from breaking reader immersion. Napoleon might remain a talented general but never take the throne, never become Emperor.



                  What makes A who he is? What changes do you wish to make? Might said changes be served by creating an observer character who comments on events?



                  What are the limits? You set those, but if he has living descendants, be careful of defamation as heirs have been known to defend the reputation of the dead.







                  share|improve this answer












                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer










                  answered Mar 30 at 18:30









                  RasdashanRasdashan

                  10.5k11366




                  10.5k11366












                  • I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 14:59











                  • Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 16:12











                  • You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 16:21






                  • 10





                    Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Mar 31 at 23:38







                  • 2





                    Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 23:50

















                  • I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 14:59











                  • Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 16:12











                  • You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                    – Orangesandlemons
                    Mar 31 at 16:21






                  • 10





                    Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                    – Peter Shor
                    Mar 31 at 23:38







                  • 2





                    Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                    – Rasdashan
                    Mar 31 at 23:50
















                  I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  Mar 31 at 14:59





                  I mean he almost definitely did murder the nephews he deposed.

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  Mar 31 at 14:59













                  Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                  – Rasdashan
                  Mar 31 at 16:12





                  Then why did their mother give him the care of yet another son?

                  – Rasdashan
                  Mar 31 at 16:12













                  You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  Mar 31 at 16:21





                  You mean the other son he declared illegitimate and then murdered? The premise of clearing Richard is based in saying that he only did a coup detete (of course he had earlier murdered the other people meant to be protecting the legitimate king) and the fact the princes were not seen in public was just a happy coincidence for the people who murdered them.

                  – Orangesandlemons
                  Mar 31 at 16:21




                  10




                  10





                  Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                  – Peter Shor
                  Mar 31 at 23:38






                  Whether or not Richard III murdered his nephews (many historians believe that @Orangesandlemons is wrong, and that he was framed for their murder by Henry VII), it was widely believed that he did murder them when Shakespeare wrote the play. So Shakespeare wasn't changing history.

                  – Peter Shor
                  Mar 31 at 23:38





                  2




                  2





                  Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                  – Rasdashan
                  Mar 31 at 23:50





                  Maybe I should have used MacBeth instead

                  – Rasdashan
                  Mar 31 at 23:50











                  5














                  History is a fluid thing. Even now, historians have different opinions about what exactly happened, and what motivations people had for their actions. So there is basically no way to write a historical novel that won't be considered inaccurate by someone.



                  But your question is "how much is too much". There is no clear answer to this.



                  Some stories take a historical character and completely change his story. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is one example. These stories tend to add obvious fictional elements, like adventures, fantasy creatures or other things that clearly aren't considered real history.



                  Other stories fall into the "alternate history" genre, where you deliberately change something in order to explore a story in this changed world. In this genre, you would generally point out the things you've changed: The plot summary might read "in a world where the Opium wars never happened, a young emperor tries to...". In this type of novel, your reader will assume that everything that was needed for the change, and everything caused by the change, is fiction.



                  If your novel is generally a realistic story about your character and his time, I feel like you have some responsibility towards your reader. Many people form their image of historical places and events by reading novels, so they will absorb whatever you write. Think of all the people who watched the great movie "Amadeus" and now believe that Salieri was Mozart's deadly enemy. He wasn't!

                  A little bit of distortion, like making some events happen closer together, or leaving out some minor characters, is necessary for most stories. But if you are going to change major things that would make the character appear very differently from what we know about him, it might be good to add an explanation of this difference in a postscript. This will also let your more historically informed readers know that your changes are deliberate.



                  As other answers have noted, if the character is relatively recent or is a revered figure somewhere, you might get some backlash about portraying him "wrong". In some cases, this might become a real problem for you. That's always worth considering.



                  But generally, just write the story you want, and if you make big changes, just point them out.






                  share|improve this answer



























                    5














                    History is a fluid thing. Even now, historians have different opinions about what exactly happened, and what motivations people had for their actions. So there is basically no way to write a historical novel that won't be considered inaccurate by someone.



                    But your question is "how much is too much". There is no clear answer to this.



                    Some stories take a historical character and completely change his story. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is one example. These stories tend to add obvious fictional elements, like adventures, fantasy creatures or other things that clearly aren't considered real history.



                    Other stories fall into the "alternate history" genre, where you deliberately change something in order to explore a story in this changed world. In this genre, you would generally point out the things you've changed: The plot summary might read "in a world where the Opium wars never happened, a young emperor tries to...". In this type of novel, your reader will assume that everything that was needed for the change, and everything caused by the change, is fiction.



                    If your novel is generally a realistic story about your character and his time, I feel like you have some responsibility towards your reader. Many people form their image of historical places and events by reading novels, so they will absorb whatever you write. Think of all the people who watched the great movie "Amadeus" and now believe that Salieri was Mozart's deadly enemy. He wasn't!

                    A little bit of distortion, like making some events happen closer together, or leaving out some minor characters, is necessary for most stories. But if you are going to change major things that would make the character appear very differently from what we know about him, it might be good to add an explanation of this difference in a postscript. This will also let your more historically informed readers know that your changes are deliberate.



                    As other answers have noted, if the character is relatively recent or is a revered figure somewhere, you might get some backlash about portraying him "wrong". In some cases, this might become a real problem for you. That's always worth considering.



                    But generally, just write the story you want, and if you make big changes, just point them out.






                    share|improve this answer

























                      5












                      5








                      5







                      History is a fluid thing. Even now, historians have different opinions about what exactly happened, and what motivations people had for their actions. So there is basically no way to write a historical novel that won't be considered inaccurate by someone.



                      But your question is "how much is too much". There is no clear answer to this.



                      Some stories take a historical character and completely change his story. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is one example. These stories tend to add obvious fictional elements, like adventures, fantasy creatures or other things that clearly aren't considered real history.



                      Other stories fall into the "alternate history" genre, where you deliberately change something in order to explore a story in this changed world. In this genre, you would generally point out the things you've changed: The plot summary might read "in a world where the Opium wars never happened, a young emperor tries to...". In this type of novel, your reader will assume that everything that was needed for the change, and everything caused by the change, is fiction.



                      If your novel is generally a realistic story about your character and his time, I feel like you have some responsibility towards your reader. Many people form their image of historical places and events by reading novels, so they will absorb whatever you write. Think of all the people who watched the great movie "Amadeus" and now believe that Salieri was Mozart's deadly enemy. He wasn't!

                      A little bit of distortion, like making some events happen closer together, or leaving out some minor characters, is necessary for most stories. But if you are going to change major things that would make the character appear very differently from what we know about him, it might be good to add an explanation of this difference in a postscript. This will also let your more historically informed readers know that your changes are deliberate.



                      As other answers have noted, if the character is relatively recent or is a revered figure somewhere, you might get some backlash about portraying him "wrong". In some cases, this might become a real problem for you. That's always worth considering.



                      But generally, just write the story you want, and if you make big changes, just point them out.






                      share|improve this answer













                      History is a fluid thing. Even now, historians have different opinions about what exactly happened, and what motivations people had for their actions. So there is basically no way to write a historical novel that won't be considered inaccurate by someone.



                      But your question is "how much is too much". There is no clear answer to this.



                      Some stories take a historical character and completely change his story. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" is one example. These stories tend to add obvious fictional elements, like adventures, fantasy creatures or other things that clearly aren't considered real history.



                      Other stories fall into the "alternate history" genre, where you deliberately change something in order to explore a story in this changed world. In this genre, you would generally point out the things you've changed: The plot summary might read "in a world where the Opium wars never happened, a young emperor tries to...". In this type of novel, your reader will assume that everything that was needed for the change, and everything caused by the change, is fiction.



                      If your novel is generally a realistic story about your character and his time, I feel like you have some responsibility towards your reader. Many people form their image of historical places and events by reading novels, so they will absorb whatever you write. Think of all the people who watched the great movie "Amadeus" and now believe that Salieri was Mozart's deadly enemy. He wasn't!

                      A little bit of distortion, like making some events happen closer together, or leaving out some minor characters, is necessary for most stories. But if you are going to change major things that would make the character appear very differently from what we know about him, it might be good to add an explanation of this difference in a postscript. This will also let your more historically informed readers know that your changes are deliberate.



                      As other answers have noted, if the character is relatively recent or is a revered figure somewhere, you might get some backlash about portraying him "wrong". In some cases, this might become a real problem for you. That's always worth considering.



                      But generally, just write the story you want, and if you make big changes, just point them out.







                      share|improve this answer












                      share|improve this answer



                      share|improve this answer










                      answered Apr 1 at 6:40









                      KWeissKWeiss

                      1793




                      1793





















                          4














                          There is a whole genre of fiction which explore what would have happened if certain historic events turned out differently: Alternative History. If you market your work as part of this genre, then anything goes.



                          But this genre usually focuses on changes which have lasting consequences on a global scale, not just the lives of a few individual people.



                          If you claim or just imply that your work is historically accurate, then anything that contradicts historic consensus will be perceived as a research mistake on your behalf and will likely be seen as a flaw in your work.






                          share|improve this answer



























                            4














                            There is a whole genre of fiction which explore what would have happened if certain historic events turned out differently: Alternative History. If you market your work as part of this genre, then anything goes.



                            But this genre usually focuses on changes which have lasting consequences on a global scale, not just the lives of a few individual people.



                            If you claim or just imply that your work is historically accurate, then anything that contradicts historic consensus will be perceived as a research mistake on your behalf and will likely be seen as a flaw in your work.






                            share|improve this answer

























                              4












                              4








                              4







                              There is a whole genre of fiction which explore what would have happened if certain historic events turned out differently: Alternative History. If you market your work as part of this genre, then anything goes.



                              But this genre usually focuses on changes which have lasting consequences on a global scale, not just the lives of a few individual people.



                              If you claim or just imply that your work is historically accurate, then anything that contradicts historic consensus will be perceived as a research mistake on your behalf and will likely be seen as a flaw in your work.






                              share|improve this answer













                              There is a whole genre of fiction which explore what would have happened if certain historic events turned out differently: Alternative History. If you market your work as part of this genre, then anything goes.



                              But this genre usually focuses on changes which have lasting consequences on a global scale, not just the lives of a few individual people.



                              If you claim or just imply that your work is historically accurate, then anything that contradicts historic consensus will be perceived as a research mistake on your behalf and will likely be seen as a flaw in your work.







                              share|improve this answer












                              share|improve this answer



                              share|improve this answer










                              answered Apr 1 at 12:16









                              PhilippPhilipp

                              3,603822




                              3,603822





















                                  3














                                  The main question is whether your readers will accept it and that depends on two factors:



                                  a) how well is the actual history known



                                  and



                                  b) do your represent your work as historically accurate or as fiction based on history ?



                                  If you make it clear to the reader that you are taking historic events or persons and waving a tale of fiction around them, diverging from actual history, then the reader will not feel cheated.



                                  The world of fiction is full of such stories, and many of them are well received. Stories that claim historical accuracy but don't deliver it are either well received because audiences don't know better, or critized if they do. Often both because a small fraction of the audience knows and complains, but most don't care.



                                  So if your historic person/event is well-known, you should make it clear that your fiction is not the real history. If your person/event is obscure, you may get away without such a disclaimer, leading the reader to believe you are representing historic facts. I personally would advise against it, but it's not like it hasn't been done.






                                  share|improve this answer



























                                    3














                                    The main question is whether your readers will accept it and that depends on two factors:



                                    a) how well is the actual history known



                                    and



                                    b) do your represent your work as historically accurate or as fiction based on history ?



                                    If you make it clear to the reader that you are taking historic events or persons and waving a tale of fiction around them, diverging from actual history, then the reader will not feel cheated.



                                    The world of fiction is full of such stories, and many of them are well received. Stories that claim historical accuracy but don't deliver it are either well received because audiences don't know better, or critized if they do. Often both because a small fraction of the audience knows and complains, but most don't care.



                                    So if your historic person/event is well-known, you should make it clear that your fiction is not the real history. If your person/event is obscure, you may get away without such a disclaimer, leading the reader to believe you are representing historic facts. I personally would advise against it, but it's not like it hasn't been done.






                                    share|improve this answer

























                                      3












                                      3








                                      3







                                      The main question is whether your readers will accept it and that depends on two factors:



                                      a) how well is the actual history known



                                      and



                                      b) do your represent your work as historically accurate or as fiction based on history ?



                                      If you make it clear to the reader that you are taking historic events or persons and waving a tale of fiction around them, diverging from actual history, then the reader will not feel cheated.



                                      The world of fiction is full of such stories, and many of them are well received. Stories that claim historical accuracy but don't deliver it are either well received because audiences don't know better, or critized if they do. Often both because a small fraction of the audience knows and complains, but most don't care.



                                      So if your historic person/event is well-known, you should make it clear that your fiction is not the real history. If your person/event is obscure, you may get away without such a disclaimer, leading the reader to believe you are representing historic facts. I personally would advise against it, but it's not like it hasn't been done.






                                      share|improve this answer













                                      The main question is whether your readers will accept it and that depends on two factors:



                                      a) how well is the actual history known



                                      and



                                      b) do your represent your work as historically accurate or as fiction based on history ?



                                      If you make it clear to the reader that you are taking historic events or persons and waving a tale of fiction around them, diverging from actual history, then the reader will not feel cheated.



                                      The world of fiction is full of such stories, and many of them are well received. Stories that claim historical accuracy but don't deliver it are either well received because audiences don't know better, or critized if they do. Often both because a small fraction of the audience knows and complains, but most don't care.



                                      So if your historic person/event is well-known, you should make it clear that your fiction is not the real history. If your person/event is obscure, you may get away without such a disclaimer, leading the reader to believe you are representing historic facts. I personally would advise against it, but it's not like it hasn't been done.







                                      share|improve this answer












                                      share|improve this answer



                                      share|improve this answer










                                      answered Apr 1 at 7:28









                                      TomTom

                                      3,327813




                                      3,327813



























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded
















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Writing Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid


                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function ()
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fwriting.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f44211%2fis-it-okay-to-majorly-distort-historical-facts-while-writing-a-fiction-story%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Færeyskur hestur Heimild | Tengill | Tilvísanir | LeiðsagnarvalRossið - síða um færeyska hrossið á færeyskuGott ár hjá færeyska hestinum

                                          He _____ here since 1970 . Answer needed [closed]What does “since he was so high” mean?Meaning of “catch birds for”?How do I ensure “since” takes the meaning I want?“Who cares here” meaningWhat does “right round toward” mean?the time tense (had now been detected)What does the phrase “ring around the roses” mean here?Correct usage of “visited upon”Meaning of “foiled rail sabotage bid”It was the third time I had gone to Rome or It is the third time I had been to Rome

                                          Slayer Innehåll Historia | Stil, komposition och lyrik | Bandets betydelse och framgångar | Sidoprojekt och samarbeten | Kontroverser | Medlemmar | Utmärkelser och nomineringar | Turnéer och festivaler | Diskografi | Referenser | Externa länkar | Navigeringsmenywww.slayer.net”Metal Massacre vol. 1””Metal Massacre vol. 3””Metal Massacre Volume III””Show No Mercy””Haunting the Chapel””Live Undead””Hell Awaits””Reign in Blood””Reign in Blood””Gold & Platinum – Reign in Blood””Golden Gods Awards Winners”originalet”Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Looks Back On 37-Year Career In New Video Series: Part Two””South of Heaven””Gold & Platinum – South of Heaven””Seasons in the Abyss””Gold & Platinum - Seasons in the Abyss””Divine Intervention””Divine Intervention - Release group by Slayer””Gold & Platinum - Divine Intervention””Live Intrusion””Undisputed Attitude””Abolish Government/Superficial Love””Release “Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer” by Various Artists””Diabolus in Musica””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””God Hates Us All””Systematic - Relationships””War at the Warfield””Gold & Platinum - War at the Warfield””Soundtrack to the Apocalypse””Gold & Platinum - Still Reigning””Metallica, Slayer, Iron Mauden Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Eternal Pyre””Eternal Pyre - Slayer release group””Eternal Pyre””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Bullet-For My Valentine booed at Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Unholy Aliance””The End Of Slayer?””Slayer: We Could Thrash Out Two More Albums If We're Fast Enough...””'The Unholy Alliance: Chapter III' UK Dates Added”originalet”Megadeth And Slayer To Co-Headline 'Canadian Carnage' Trek”originalet”World Painted Blood””Release “World Painted Blood” by Slayer””Metallica Heading To Cinemas””Slayer, Megadeth To Join Forces For 'European Carnage' Tour - Dec. 18, 2010”originalet”Slayer's Hanneman Contracts Acute Infection; Band To Bring In Guest Guitarist””Cannibal Corpse's Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer's Guest Guitarist”originalet”Slayer’s Jeff Hanneman Dead at 49””Dave Lombardo Says He Made Only $67,000 In 2011 While Touring With Slayer””Slayer: We Do Not Agree With Dave Lombardo's Substance Or Timeline Of Events””Slayer Welcomes Drummer Paul Bostaph Back To The Fold””Slayer Hope to Unveil Never-Before-Heard Jeff Hanneman Material on Next Album””Slayer Debut New Song 'Implode' During Surprise Golden Gods Appearance””Release group Repentless by Slayer””Repentless - Slayer - Credits””Slayer””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer - to release comic book "Repentless #1"””Slayer To Release 'Repentless' 6.66" Vinyl Box Set””BREAKING NEWS: Slayer Announce Farewell Tour””Slayer Recruit Lamb of God, Anthrax, Behemoth + Testament for Final Tour””Slayer lägger ner efter 37 år””Slayer Announces Second North American Leg Of 'Final' Tour””Final World Tour””Slayer Announces Final European Tour With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Tour Europe With Lamb of God, Anthrax And Obituary””Slayer To Play 'Last French Show Ever' At Next Year's Hellfst””Slayer's Final World Tour Will Extend Into 2019””Death Angel's Rob Cavestany On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour: 'Some Of Us Could See This Coming'””Testament Has No Plans To Retire Anytime Soon, Says Chuck Billy””Anthrax's Scott Ian On Slayer's 'Farewell' Tour Plans: 'I Was Surprised And I Wasn't Surprised'””Slayer””Slayer's Morbid Schlock””Review/Rock; For Slayer, the Mania Is the Message””Slayer - Biography””Slayer - Reign In Blood”originalet”Dave Lombardo””An exclusive oral history of Slayer”originalet”Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman”originalet”Thinking Out Loud: Slayer's Kerry King on hair metal, Satan and being polite””Slayer Lyrics””Slayer - Biography””Most influential artists for extreme metal music””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dies aged 49””Slatanic Slaughter: A Tribute to Slayer””Gateway to Hell: A Tribute to Slayer””Covered In Blood””Slayer: The Origins of Thrash in San Francisco, CA.””Why They Rule - #6 Slayer”originalet”Guitar World's 100 Greatest Heavy Metal Guitarists Of All Time”originalet”The fans have spoken: Slayer comes out on top in readers' polls”originalet”Tribute to Jeff Hanneman (1964-2013)””Lamb Of God Frontman: We Sound Like A Slayer Rip-Off””BEHEMOTH Frontman Pays Tribute To SLAYER's JEFF HANNEMAN””Slayer, Hatebreed Doing Double Duty On This Year's Ozzfest””System of a Down””Lacuna Coil’s Andrea Ferro Talks Influences, Skateboarding, Band Origins + More””Slayer - Reign in Blood””Into The Lungs of Hell””Slayer rules - en utställning om fans””Slayer and Their Fans Slashed Through a No-Holds-Barred Night at Gas Monkey””Home””Slayer””Gold & Platinum - The Big 4 Live from Sofia, Bulgaria””Exclusive! Interview With Slayer Guitarist Kerry King””2008-02-23: Wiltern, Los Angeles, CA, USA””Slayer's Kerry King To Perform With Megadeth Tonight! - Oct. 21, 2010”originalet”Dave Lombardo - Biography”Slayer Case DismissedArkiveradUltimate Classic Rock: Slayer guitarist Jeff Hanneman dead at 49.”Slayer: "We could never do any thing like Some Kind Of Monster..."””Cannibal Corpse'S Pat O'Brien Will Step In As Slayer'S Guest Guitarist | The Official Slayer Site”originalet”Slayer Wins 'Best Metal' Grammy Award””Slayer Guitarist Jeff Hanneman Dies””Kerrang! Awards 2006 Blog: Kerrang! Hall Of Fame””Kerrang! Awards 2013: Kerrang! Legend”originalet”Metallica, Slayer, Iron Maien Among Winners At Metal Hammer Awards””Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Bullet For My Valentine Booed At Metal Hammer Golden Gods Awards””Metal Storm Awards 2006””Metal Storm Awards 2015””Slayer's Concert History””Slayer - Relationships””Slayer - Releases”Slayers officiella webbplatsSlayer på MusicBrainzOfficiell webbplatsSlayerSlayerr1373445760000 0001 1540 47353068615-5086262726cb13906545x(data)6033143kn20030215029