Getting History Wrong (On Purpose)

My wife is amazed at how authors come up with stories. Some of us are full of it. She'll tell you she doesn't have any. I can conjure up an entire world and story in an afternoon. How?

I start with what C.S. Lewis calls a "supposal." A supposal creates a hypothetical world to explore themes through a different lens.

The series I'm working on now starts with, "How do we stop the Americans from revolting?" Not that I'm certain the world would be better if we remained in England's bosom. Just because it would be fun.

The easy part alt history? I love history. To understand today, we have to understand our context. And you don't get that from Twitter, TikTok or Reddit. School does a terrible job with history. We're taught to memorize dates, which I sucked at in school. We're given facts that don't matter. As a result, the average person has the contextual awareness of Leonard in Momento.

As an adult, I came to love biographies. I have a goal to read a biography of each dead president (living presidents have too much influence on the message). Read through a few leaders of an era, you get enough "live" history to carry you.

What's great about this series? I love American history. I have Blackstone's Commentaries in my library because it's fun to read. Through the years I've read several perspectives on the revolution era.

But with "research," I start with Wikipedia. I like to say, "It's right because it's in Wikipedia, not in Wikipedia because it's right." A troll stance to take, but I argue if it's incorrect, I can change it. The best way to win an argument? Edit Wikipedia to say what you want it to. And reference that edit, rather than the correction that's bound to be made. Instant authority.

For my colonial series, I read everything I could find. Defenders of the Frontier by William Pencak. The Divided Ground by Alan Taylor. Crucible of War by Fred Anderson. The Last King of America, because I'm writing George III as a character. I came to respect and sympathize with him.

But I am no historian. I will err. More importantly, there are enough different perspectives that whatever I say, right or wrong, will be argued. I don't write to persuade you. After all, this is alternative history. It didn't really happen. I want you to read what I have King George doing and say, "Eh, close enough."

Will you pick on me for getting something wrong? Maybe. Will it destroy the story? I hope not. We don't watch The Patriot for accuracy. I love the historicity of Midway (2019). I will die on the hill that Pearl Harbor (2001) was the most historically (and militarily) accurate movie on that day of history. Screw Tora! Tora! Tora!

As soon as my characters discover exotic technology, the society changes. The historical timeline goes out the window. I want to be historically consistent until that moment. After? I'm writing alternate history.

When I want to understand a topic, I find five books on it. The saying is, "if you want to write a book, first read five books." In my case, I stop by reading the five books. The Venn overlap among them is likely accurate. The rest may be spin. That's not just for novels. That's for any topic. My library is filled with "five books about."

In law school, when researching an issue, I would ultimately read, or at least scan, every case in that legal principle's evolution. When we had a research problem on "dangerous dogs in Pennsylvania," I read the case history back to when it was dangerous horses. You'd be amazed at what you find.

I like to plot ahead, but my characters will argue with me on it. When the plot heads in an unexpected direction (which happens more than I'd like), I do spot research to maintain consistency. But I fact-check as I write, not in revision. Revision is about story consistency, not historical accuracy. David Lee Roth once said, "who am I to get in the way of a good story?" I agree.

Research didn't change my story direction. Not once.

I had my supposal. I had my key scene (character discovering technology). I worked backwards to figure out why a city slicker would be in the wilderness. That led to other characters, including the Strand brothers who are the real focus of the series.

This isn't a history book. If I choose between historical accuracy and narrative momentum, story wins. Every time.

I believe in Stephen Decatur's maxim about our country, but I no longer hold the complaints in the Declaration of Independence as accurate truth claims. I agree with the philosophy that we're all equal before God and have shared rights from him. That's anti-power and more in line with what God would want.

Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but our country, right or wrong.

The biggest mistake I see historical fiction writers make? Being too worried about getting details wrong. In 1995, Bernard Cornwall inadvertently introduced a fictitious definition that some people hold as historic gospel. That's because people assume we're trying to be as right as we can about history. We shouldn't try to be. Perhaps there should be a Mohs Hardness Scale for Historical Fiction like there is for science fiction.

You're going to get things wrong. Accept it. Focus on getting the big things right: worldview, social dynamics, how people thought about power and relationships.

Research serves the story. Not the other way around.