Question of the Month
copyright 2000 by Alicia Rasley
Ask me anything.... about writing, that is. It's all I know.
More new questions! Two questions about the use of real people in fiction. Check 'em out.Want some old questions? Click here for an archive.
uestion:
I'm just starting out and have already been given a huge number of things to think about by reading your "question of the month" pages. THANKS:) I have a fantastic idea for a historical romance (actually I have several, and they're starting to clutter my head) but am concerned over how historically accurate I need to be - If I want my story to take place in 17th century Scotland, do I need to be precise about the clan names in relation to the areas the family controlled?
Also, I want my heroine to interact with an actual person - how accurate do I need to be with respects to that? I'd like the heroine to have something to do with research and a book he ended up writing, but I don't want to upset his descendants - should I try to track them down and ask permission to "use" him? What's the etiquette on that?
Catherine
nswer:
Catherine--
Readers vary in how much historical accuracy they demand, but it's best to err on the side of accuracy-- because those who are sticklers for historical accuracy are LOUD about it. (I speak from sad experience here.... ;)
So all other things being equal, always go for historical accuracy. If you can, make sure the Gordons you mention in your story are in the right part of Scotland. (As a Todd, btw, I'm from the Gordon clan, or so I found out... me and Lord Byron. The Todd tartan is not to my taste, however -- mustard yellow!-- so I'm thinking of becoming a MacDonald. Fashion is all. :) Those who don't care won't notice one way or another, and those who DO care will not send you angry letters.
This will impose a healthy discipline on an author, as it saves us from a lot of temptation to move families and even countries around at our convenience. We're writing historical novels presumably because we are interested in history, and I'll bet I'm not the only one who learned a lot more history from novels than I learned in history class. That means we really have a duty to readers who expect that we're presenting history as truthfully as possible.
Of course, the reader isn't an idiot. She knows that the hero probably wasn't actually King James's illegitimate son, that King James probably didn't even have an illegitimate son; she knows that the heroine didn't actually save King James's life. But she probably wants to feel safe that there really was a King James, and that when I have him in Scotland, he wasn't in reality down in London, and that if he didn't actually thank the heroine (she being entirely fictional) with the gift of his illegitimate son's hand in marriage, that he was the sort of man who would indeed show his gratitude. And she expects that I haven't relocated the 18th Century Battle of Culloden to an earlier century just to suit my own purposes, and that I haven't moved Edinburgh to an island off the Hebrides.
It's a delicate balancing act. The tradition is to keep as true to the real historical events as you can, and insert your characters in a plausible way, and have their interactions with history and historical characters be as authentic as fiction can be.
Now as far as contacting the descendants-- no, there's no need to do that. (Well, if this were Elvis or JFK or someone who died recently, I might answer differently. But a 17th-Century person is so long dead, his descendants have no real rights to him. :) Generally I counsel people not to attribute fictional evil to real people (for example, I would probably not write a book with Elvis as a murderer, though I see there's a new series with him as a detective!). But even the danger of that diminishes with time. Making George Washington a murderer might offend a lot of people, but you won't get sued by his estate. :)
See the next question for more exploration of this-- it's a very complicated question. I'd say-- put yourself in your reader's place. What would feel right to her? Probably, "Yes to heroine being a nurse in that historical battle, no to heroine being the general that won a great victory when it was actually someone else who led that side to a crushing defeat. Yes to attributing further evil to that baron known to history as 'The Butcher of Berwick', no to attributing evil to St. Margaret the Meek and Holy."
If I use historic events, may I use the actual people and situations along with my fictious characters. i.e., If I use a famous (or historical) individual (either dead or alive) within the story, may I use their actual name without permission? May I use the actual proper names for events and the places they occurred?
Ellen
Yes-- famous people are different, as libel laws pretty much exclude them (you have to prove "actual malice" or "reckless disregard for truth" or something). And generally long-dead people are excluded from that. (Be careful, however, messing with people like Elvis whose heirs are still benefitting from their reputations and names.)
I read a book where President Johnson was a major character and was in the habit of seducing his young (male) assistants-- it was clearly fiction, and as far as I know, the writer didn't get into any legal trouble. Some other author had a book where Richard Nixon "shot the moon" in Times Square. (It doesn't pay to be president! :)
Generally you don't need permission to use authentically famous people or their names or the events or places.
Now you do have to think it through, however. An example is something like setting a scene at a famous restaurant, say Morton's in Chicago, and the hero gets food poisoning there. Morton's would NOT be happy with you!
But having your hero encounter old Mayor Daley at the Chicago demonstrations in 1968 and get sick watching the police hit demonstrators would be okay.
It's a fine line. I'm always careful when I use historical people to make sure they could have been there (that is, Lord Byron was actually in London the week I have him meet my heroine in London), and that they do nothing that would be totally against who they are (Lord Byron wouldn't chase the heroine down the street, as he was lame, and he wouldn't speak in ungrammatical sentences, for example).
And dead ones, naturally, are easier to deal with than live ones.
Good luck! Alicia
But what about those live ones, you ask?
I'm attempting to write a book using "real" people and "real" events, changing the names and embellishing the story.My question is how far may I go without getting into trouble. May I use their life situations as a basic background, but change the names and embellish the situations?
Well, be prepared to lose friends.
No, really, I think most writers occasionally use situations they've experienced or heard of, or based characters on people they know. First thing I'd do if I were you is stop saying "real people and events" and start thinking in terms of "a true-to-life novel based on real events". If you're changing things and embellishing, it's no longer "real"-- it's fiction. And if you talk about "real", everyone's going to be trying to figure out who this is and who that is... don't clue them in if you don't have to!
That not only gives you license to make things more interesting and dramatic than in real life, but also protects you somewhat against lawsuits. For example, if I have a character that everyone around me knows is really my former boss Jim, well, that's a bit of a problem, and Jim could probably make some trouble for me. But it's even worse if it's recognizably Jim, and everyone knows it, AND I say this character embezzled from his own mother's retirement fund (which is an embellishment). Then the people reading it will think Jim actually did the embezzlement.
Better that you have a character sufficiently different from Jim that no one will really recognize him, and call it fiction. And if Jim says, "Oh, come on, I know you based it on me, because he's got a scar on the back of his hand, just the way I do," you can say, "You have a scar on the back of your hand? Wow! What a coincidence! But this character isn't you. I mean, this guy has a great big nose and he's always sniffling and sneezing, and you don't do that. Plus he embezzled from his own mother-- and you'd never do that, would you? So it isn't you. The scar is just a coincidence."
I'm just suggesting that you change things enough that you have some deniability.
Alicia
Click here for other questions and answers.
Or email me at rasley@juno.com.