![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Historical research (or lack thereof)
Nov. 15th, 2023 09:41 pmNot sure if anyone has had similar experiences, but: I am writing a historical fantasy story about a real-world location. The fantasy elements aren't supposed to be obvious the first time through, it's not like "Elizabethan London with dragons," it's more like "is this building actually cursed or haunted, or is that just a myth...ohhhh this is why the narrator is unreliable."
To some extent, I have already fudged with the timeline slightly. For instance, it's true that historical figure X lived in city Y during century Z. It's also true that incident A happened in city Y during century Z. The timing does not quite work for X to have been around at the same time as A, but in terms of narrative unity and plotting, I think it's better if they're all part of the same event; "alternate history where X doesn't move away from Y" feels like a minor tweak compared to the fantastical elements that are being incorporated, along the lines of "never let the truth get in the way of a good [ish] story."
To what extent should I be worried about this/the specific architecture of Y as it did (or did not) exist in timeframe Z? Sometimes when there's too much over-description, it's a case of "oh, look, the writer wants to show you their learnings," but when there's not, people who happen to be experts on Y get angry. In one of his commentaries for "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda writes "yeah I talk about 'New York is the greatest city in the world' because that's kind of a wink at the Broadway audience who love New York now. At the time, it probably wasn't even the greatest city in the thirteen colonies." How do you know when you're in that sort of position?
In case it matters: Z was sufficiently long ago that everyone involved is very dead now; the characters aren't experiencing racial/sexuality/identitarian oppression (beyond some background Catholic/Protestant fighting that doesn't affect the protagonists firsthand).
To some extent, I have already fudged with the timeline slightly. For instance, it's true that historical figure X lived in city Y during century Z. It's also true that incident A happened in city Y during century Z. The timing does not quite work for X to have been around at the same time as A, but in terms of narrative unity and plotting, I think it's better if they're all part of the same event; "alternate history where X doesn't move away from Y" feels like a minor tweak compared to the fantastical elements that are being incorporated, along the lines of "never let the truth get in the way of a good [ish] story."
To what extent should I be worried about this/the specific architecture of Y as it did (or did not) exist in timeframe Z? Sometimes when there's too much over-description, it's a case of "oh, look, the writer wants to show you their learnings," but when there's not, people who happen to be experts on Y get angry. In one of his commentaries for "Hamilton," Lin-Manuel Miranda writes "yeah I talk about 'New York is the greatest city in the world' because that's kind of a wink at the Broadway audience who love New York now. At the time, it probably wasn't even the greatest city in the thirteen colonies." How do you know when you're in that sort of position?
In case it matters: Z was sufficiently long ago that everyone involved is very dead now; the characters aren't experiencing racial/sexuality/identitarian oppression (beyond some background Catholic/Protestant fighting that doesn't affect the protagonists firsthand).
