In a recent discussion on Goodreads, we lauded the few authors who go out of their way to make certain their historical details are accurate, but slammed the ones who didn’t bother. In today’s mass-media world, research is too easy and you shouldn’t slip up on whether your female character in the mid eighteenth century wore drawers or nothing at all. It turns out, that depends on the country she lived in. French women wore drawers, but in England, apparently, the women did not wear any underpants. Others in the discussion lamented over all the knowledgeable virgins in novels set in medieval times. Girls from good families would have been cloistered from the seamier side of life and would have gone to the marriage bed with very little information. They would not behave like randy vixens as soon as they hopped in between the sheets.
I once reviewed a novel
set on an eighteenth century sailing ship where everyone was cooking in their
cabins as if they had hot plates. On wooden ships, fire was a huge threat.
Cooking was done in the galley, not in separate cabins. This was an easily researched
fact.
One person in my
discussion was annoyed over a novel set near The Second Boer War (1899-1902) in
which someone used a latex condom. Latex wasn’t invented until 1920. She said,
“Please. It's a simple peek into Wikipedia for
something that simple.”
My current pet peeve is
a popular author whose recent novel is about Marie Louise of Austria, and then France.
The author shows her as a strong, independent woman,
mistreated by, and never in love with, her husband Napoleon. She’s portrayed as
having had a lover before she even meets her future husband. All this is
untrue, but the author bragged about her extensive research of the period. If you’re playing with the facts, put this in
an Author’s Note. People I spoke with had taken this “faction” as fact after
reading the book. I’ve spent years at the Library of Congress researching this
era, reading memoires from servants, valets, and members of Napoleon’s staff. The
author’s depiction is far from the truth. Sadly, many will believe otherwise.
I reiterate, it’s so
much easier today to do research; these gaffes shouldn’t be tolerated—or admit
to your readers that you’re writing fantasy or alternate fiction or have
changed the facts to suit your purpose.
I’ve played with writing “Alternate” fiction, which does change history. I based it on “what could have happened” not a complete fantasy.
My novel Elysium depicts what might have happened
if Napoleon had the means to escape his final exile. Set
on the remote island of St. Helena, the story follows a servant girl who joins
Napoleon in a dangerous plan to flee the island.
To see my meticulous
research into the eighteenth century, read The False Light: when a ruined countess flees to England from France during the French
Revolution, she discovers betrayal, cruel family secrets and a passion that may
destroy her.
And the sequel, Without Refuge, completes the story in sultry New Orleans and a France still torn
apart by war. Will my heroine find the man she loved and lost without sacrificing
her life?
Diane Scott Lewis
Diane Parkinson (Diane Scott Lewis) writes
book reviews for the Historical Novels
Review and worked at The Wild Rose Press from 2007 to 2010 as a historical
editor. She has three published historical novels: Elysium and The False Light.
Her sequel to The False Light, Without Refuge, was released in March
2012.
Visit Diane's website to read excerpts and find out more about her historical novels: http://www.dianescottlewis.org
Check out her books at Amazon.com
