Is it okay to alter history for fiction?

Question

I just read the book, "The Eight," by Katherine Neville, and in it she uses historical characters to interact with her fictional characters. She has one of them actually father two children with her fictional protagonist. Others are seen in a poor light. They are all people that were involved with the French Revolution. I just don't think we should create personalities for people who lived in the 18th Century when it is impossible for us to have known them.

Answer 1

This is a good point, and one that should be handled delicately when in the position of creating fiction while using factual basis as groundwork. I agree that even in a fiction book actual people's reputation should not be tarnished. But I think there can be a fine line of twisting truths or adding supposition to enhance a story as long as it can not be construed negatively. Perhaps Neville should be more careful or someone may do the same to her someday.

Answer 2

Yes, you can create historical fiction, but the way that characters are portrayed can make or break a book. I have read some excellent historical fiction that has to do with different eras like the Middle Passage or the Holocaust. But there are some books that just made me sick. One in particular is "Hang A Thousand Trees With Ribbons" by Ann Rinaldi. I am Black, and am sort of cautious of reading stories FOR Blacks by non-Black people. It just isn't the same perspective. The book was about Phillis Wheatley. This writer made Phillis Wheatley fall in love with her owner's son! Why would you fall in love with somebody who is enslaving you?! Some people said, "Well, maybe she did," but I highly doubt it. Who would after suffering from the horrors of the Middle Passage? Of course, it isn't just writers that can distort historical fiction. The ultimate distorter is Hollyweird (aka Hollywood) that come out with movies like "Pochahontas" and "The Lion King". "The Lion King" is actually based off a real man named Sundiata Keita who was the first ruler of the Mali Empire in Africa. You have a brain on your shoulders to question what you read. Keep it up!
-Kiarra S.

Answer 3

I think for a fiction story, it's OK. I actually like that "what if it happened this way" theme...
A good friend of mine told me about a book (for the life of me, I cannot remember the name of it)..a story that examined the outcome of the South winning the Civil War, instead of the North.

I don't think Neville was trying to change history, or damage anyone's self esteem...she is simply trying to tell her story.

Lots of real people have been used in fiction works...for example, Nicholas Flamel was a real person used in a part of the Harry Potter novels. (he was a 14th century French Alchemist)

So, enjoy the author's take on things...I've never read her book, but now you have me intrigued.....

(as a side note... I totally agree with Kiarra S. about Pocahontas...I am from Virginia, and the tale that Disney told is very far from the truth. Pocahontas was MUCH younger than they depicted...she was around 12 or 13, and John Smith was nooooot that good looking, in fact, his portraits display him as a bit of a toad. She didn't really love him, she was just enamored by the fact that he was different...kind of a "puppy love", and legend says that she did, in fact, risk her life to save his by stopping her father from bludgeoning him in the head. In her father's defense, however, he was trying to protect his people from those who were bleeding the land dry of resources. Pocahontas did go to England and marry John Rolfe, and changed her name to Christine so people would think of her as less of a "savage" but a few years later she unfortunately died of tuberculosis. There is even speculation as to if any of this is true at all, for John Smith was notorious for his "tales" and fabricated the whole relationship between him and the princess. Pocahontas did help to communicate between the native people and the English, since it's told she picked up the new language easily.)

Answer 4

Ah, I've read that book. It's interesting how Charlotte sacrifices herself for Mireille, being executed in her place for the murder she committed, but in truth Charlotte committed the murder.
I personally feel that it is all right to speculate on the personalities of historical characters, providing it is done respectfully. I do wonder what some historical characters might have been like, and enjoy reading fictional accounts of their lives.

One should be careful when it comes to altering history - it would be one thing to slightly alter obscure historical events, or to deliberately speculate on what the past would be like if something else had happened (eg if Hitler had never existed), but to deliberately change something in order to mislead people, offend people or create propaganda, is wrong.

Answer 5

Well that would be considered a distortion of history unless she makes a disclaimer saying that none of it is true or to be taken seriously, and if the book is in the Fiction aile, then there really is no doubt that it is made up. Besides look at many cartoons and movies, they use historical figures in their movies or television shows but none of it is true, they are just using them as a form of entertainment.

Answer 6

As long as the material is presented as fiction there is nothing wrong with intertwining fictional characters stories with that of a real person. I find it very interesting when an author can do so in a clever manner.

Answer 7

no, we don't "know" the people who lived in the 18th century.
just like people in the 22nd century won't really be able to "know us" (we're the "historical characters" of the future).
WE don't even "know" us.
for example,
we spend a lot of time "creat[ing] personalities" for today's public figures.
but, only a handful "really" know them.

--just like only a few people in your circle
have the true take on you.
although, a lot of people "think" they know you.


fiction is fine.
author's intent and motive should be your watchword for criticism.
if something catches your fancy, study up on it.
and be conscious that your reference sources
are widely divergent

katherine neville is just trying to give us a good read & enjoyable time.
she isn't a jayson blair or eason jordan.

Answer 8

That's why it's called fiction. Specifically the category of Alternate History applies whenever changes are made to the lives of actual people or to actual events.

Answer 9

it is okay if the author declared this at the beginning of her novel in an introduction or sth. sometimes authors who do that want to highlight a specific point, for e.g: Edward Bond's play,entitled"Bingo" introduces the great dramatist Shakespeare in an unfavorable light as a selfish materialistic writer whose art does not reflect society. many people was shocked by the play but the author himself made it clear that he does not relate history,only embodying the role of the true artist in his society,who should not alienate himself from the suffering!

Answer 10

Fiction works are works whose validity should be considered with skepticism. Therefore, fictional works need not bare resembelance to historical fact. Indeed, all recorded history is questionable to those who learn of it second-hand.
Fiction works are free to examine any and all ideas.