"Tackling real-life characters in fiction is fine – as long as you do it well"

[anteros_lmc]

There's an interesting article on the Guardian book blog by Meg Rostoff about writing fiction about real historical characters: Tackling real-life characters in fiction is fine – as long as you do it well. The article seems to have been sparked by objections raised by the Anne Frank Trust about a fictionalised account of her life by Sharon Dogar, Annexed. Rostoff namechecks a wide range of other fictionalised historical characters including Shakespeare's Henry VIII, Hilary Mantell's Thomas Cromwell and Alan Bennet's Queen Elizabeth II. Interestingly she also goes on to briefly discuss spin-offs of literary classics:

All of this doesn't even begin to consider the literary (as opposed to historical) parasites. The zillion spin-offs of Pride and Prejudice could easily be considered a stain on the memory of Austen's classic

However although Rostoff is clearly no fan of literary adaptations she does conclude:

although I might not like what Dogar writes, I would defend to the death her right to write it.

I'm not even going to attempt to summarise the comments but there are some interestingly contradictory opinions put forward. Fanfiction does get a mention but only briefly. Several of the commenters express very strong objections to authors attributing historical events to fictional characters:

I blogged earlier this year about the author who took real life events and 'allowed' children the honour of doing the brave deed (in WWII) in place of the courageous men and women who actually did it in actual real life. Some paying for it with their lives. I thought it stank then, and it still stinks, as far as I'm concerned.

Which of course made me wonder, is this any different to what authors like O'Brian and Forester did by taking inspiration, and in some cases actions, from real characters such as Cochrane and attributing them to fictional characters such as Hornblower and Aubrey? Do O'Brian and Forester stink? I don't think so.

Another commenter suggests that historical novelists should acknowledge what they borrowed and what they made up.

Personally I read fiction for pleasure and history for fact, although the two are by no means mutually exclusive! I also think one of the great joys of Age of Sail fandom is being able to read a body of historical and contemporary accounts, literary fiction and fanfiction all of which complement and enrich each other wonderfully.

Comments

[http://users.livejournal.com/_likimeya/]

I blogged earlier this year about the author who took real life events and 'allowed' children the honour of doing the brave deed (in WWII) in place of the courageous men and women who actually did it in actual real life. Some paying for it with their lives. I thought it stank then, and it still stinks, as far as I'm concerned.
I think the whole notion recognisable in these line, that somehow we owe persons who "payed with their lives for the greater good" something - honoring their memory etc. - is complete rubbish. It's one of those axiomata that have been around for milennia and if you so much as hint that there might not be any compelling reason for them, people get all scandalised because of your lack of proper piety. It's one of those "but one just has to" things...

[anteros-lmc.livejournal.com]

Hehe! What a perfect icon! Archie is on the look out too ;)

I thought the original article was reasonably balanced, despite the authors obvious dislike of spin-offs. Some of the comments are just mad though!

[esmerelda-t.livejournal.com]

The thing about being precious about work based on another work is Shakespeare himself was a big old plagirast, if it was good enough for him it's good enough for everyone else.

Not having read the Anne Frank work I don't want to comment directly on the merits of that itself but I think there is a difference between her and say Thomas Cromwell. Cromwell's been dead for hundreds of years while Frank is for many the human face of the holocaust. Intellectually there shouldn't be any difference, but emotionally...I wouldn't read a fictional account based on her life. To me it's bad taste. Others mileage obviously varies.

[nodbear.livejournal.com]

This is the icon I started out with on LJ partly because I knew most of my fic would involve waeving the real and the fictional - or as I prefer it the historical and the fictional - there is a profound sense in which both can be " real".
This is a fascinating post - and as esmerelda_t writes time and generations change a great deal.
If you are a family historian you tend to warn people about what they might find- a seventeenth cnetury grandfather who was tried for murder is one thing - finding it was your unmet grandfather is quite another
and in the csae of Sir Edward - nothing in his fictional life is more dashing and gallant and all the rest than in his historical one so one can sometimes just tell the story almost as it was ...

[anteros-lmc.livejournal.com]

Of course you know that I also love the interweaving of the historical and the fictional. Although Pellew is an interesting case in point given the way his portrayal in Mutiny / Retribution and subsequent fanfic deviates so fundamentally from the historical individual. In this case I maybe would be inclined to admit that some of the fictions stink! Still I think I would rather just not read them than take issue with them in public. Troubling though.

[anteros-lmc.livejournal.com]

It's a tricky one isn't it? I suspect what makes the difference is the distance of time and the acceptable distance will differ for everyone. I would certainly be more likely to read Wolf Hall than the novel about Frank but that's more to do with my interests.

The guy in my icon is Miyamoto Musashi, a 16th century zen samuri, despite the fact that he is an important historical figure in Japan one of the most authoritative accounts of his life is a novel written in the 1930s!