Novelists who write political/military-themed books set in bygone times face an obvious dilemna - there were real people back then. There appears to be two solutions novelists take.
The first is to fictionalize historical figures. James Clavell chose this method in Shogun - Japan’s dictator Tokugawa became Toranaga. The benefit of this approach is that the novelist can be much freer in their characterization of the person. The drawback is that it tends to destroy the historical realism of the novel - suspension of disbelief is impaired. It really becomes a problem is a series of books - in Clavell’s successor book Gai-jin, the Toranaga family was still “ruling” Japan some 200-odd years later.
The second is to make real persons characters in the story. I recall some W.E.B. Griffith book I read in which Bill Donovan, head of the OSS during WWII, played a major role. This promotes realism, but leads to the problem of people thinking “[historical figure X] didn’t do that”, or worse, “[historical figure X] would never have done that.”
So, (1) which method do you think is better, and (2) is there a magical “third way” around the problems posed by the above approaches?
Either method is acceptable, with one disclaimer. When an author uses real historical figures in a work of fiction, he has an obligation to make it clear whether he’s putting words in people’s mouths or quoting him.
It’s fine by me that William F. Buckley used Dean Acheson, Allen Dulles and Dwight Eisenhower as characters in his fictional spy novels- just so long as he never left the impression that those men REALLY said or did the things he portrays them as saying.
Unfortunately, fiction is powerful stuff. Even though Peter Shaffer never claimed that “Amadeus” was a true story, it’s a safe bet that many people believe, based on his play (and the movie it inspired) that Antonio Salieri murdered Mozart.
But is there an obligation on the author’s part to have the historical figure act consistently with what is known about that historical figure. (I don’t mean legal or moral obligation; I mean in the interests of suspension of disbelief, etc.). I mean, some writer could decide to portray J. Edgar Hoover as a crossd… oops, bad example. How 'bout portraying Ike as the secret head of SPECTRE, or simply as corrupt?
For his book The Proteus Operation, James P. Hogan did something interesting – he got permission from the characters in his book who were real people to use them as characters and to put words in their mouths.
Hogan is a science fiction writer whose early stuff is well worth reading. This is a time travel novel that’s set during the second world war. He got permission from Isaac Asimov I know, but I can’t recall what other permissions he got.
The Alienist (and the sequel Heart of Darkness) by Caleb Carr uses many turn of the century (19th to 20th) figures as characters in his NYC serial killer mysteries. Teddy Roosevelt plays a huge part in the Alienist as the Chief of police who aids the protaganists.
Harry Turtledove is famous for sci-fi alternate histories featuring real world people as characters. Einstein is on the cover of one of his books.
I think when I read the Alienist something about Teddy Roosevelt’s presence bugged me, while when I read Name of the Rose I was more pleased that I could recognize William of Ockham in William of Baskerville, without Eco having to club me over the head. It got the sense of the time and mindset in motion without triggering a need to find the anachronisms or inconsistencies. In Cryptonomicon, Neil Stephenson uses Turing, but I didn’t know enough about him to know how verisimilar the plot points around his character were, but generally it seemed less gratuitous and directed than Carr’s use of TR.
You’re forgetting the bigger problem, that someone might, for example, write an essay on a college history exam about the Fronde based entirely upon the works of Dumas. Just an example, mind you, I don’t know anyone :rolleyes: who would be dumb enough to do that. Ahem. So moving right along …
My favorite compromise taken by authors of historical fiction is to create a fictional character that is based on an anonymous person from history (the third soldier from the right, Historical Figure X’s maid, a stonecutter working on Notre Dame, etc) and having the interaction with Historical Figure X be more in line with actual historical facts.
To continue with the example of The Alienist, I think Carr did an ok job for the most part of using Teddy Roosevelt as a supporting character, because we know what Teddy was doing in NY at that time, and enough about his personality to believe that the character would in fact be a sportsman, very involved with his children, carrying a big stick, etc. Personally I think Carr went a little too far with giving TR have an active role in some parts of the investigation of the fictional crime, because TR was functioning very well as a background character. There was no need to put him on the front lines of the mystery, so to speak.