Historical Throwback Mini Competition: Answers and Winner!

Yesterday I did a mini-competition where I put images from great historical movies up and wanted people to guess what they were. The first person to get them all would receive a free copy of my historical fiction novel, Citadels of Fire. To see what the images were, click HERE.

Answers:

A. Dr. Zhivago (2002) 
B. Last of the Mohicans (1992) -- Apparently a lot of people had a hard time seeing this image. Sorry about that.
C. North and South (1985) -- Technically a mini-series, but still.
D. Legends of the Fall (1994)
E. Braveheart (1995)
F. Elizabeth (1998)
G. The Crucible (1996)

Winner: My friend and fellow author Rebekah Grow (rkgtheauthor.com) was the one who got them all. Great job, Rebekah. Glad I'm not the only historical fiction nerd around. :D Your copy of Citadels of Fire will be on it's way soon!
Happy Tuesday, Everyone!

What's YOUR favorite historical film?

Tweet

Mini Contest: Historical Throwbacks

Happy Monday, Everyone! 
Time for a mini-competition. I love both histfic literature and histfic films. Who can name all these great historical films? The first one to name all of them will be sent a copy of my historical fiction novel, Citadels of Fire! Annnndddd...GO!

A. 

Source

Tweet

Historical Tidbit: "In His Hands Tightly Clasped..."

Have you heard...of the Humiston photo?

After the Battle of Gettysburg, a dead soldier was found clutching this picture of what were presumed to be his three children. 

The photo made its way into the hands of John Francis Bournes, who took it on himself to try and identify the deceased soldier using the photo. He published a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer which read, in part, “After the Battle of Gettysburg, a Union soldier was found in a secluded spot on the battlefield, where,  wounded, he had laid himself down to die. In his hands tightly clasped, was an ambrotype containing the portraits of three small children…and as he silently gazed upon them his soul passed away.  It is earnestly desired that all papers in the country will draw attention [so] the family…may come into possession of it". 

In New York, Philinda Humiston read a description of the photo and, because she hadn't heard from her husband since the battle, responded. A copy of the photo was sent to her, confirming that the deceased soldier was her husband, Amos.

This is a tragic story with a closed ending, but wouldn't it be a fantastic premise for a story? A man dies on the battlefield clutching a photo. (It doesn't necessarily have to be of children.) Who is in the photo, and why are he/she/they the last thing "he silently gazed upon...[as] his soul passed away"?

Have you heard this story before? Would you read a book with this premise?

Tweet

Thoughts for Thursday: Historical Fiction

Thoughts for Thursday is a new feature hosted by Musings on Fantasia and LKHill.  In this meme, we share thoughts or quotes that we know or have recently come across. Each week there is a specific subject or theme. These can be quotes from books, quotes by famous people, (quotes by YOU, perhaps ;D). Anything from anywhere is game, though we do ask that you keep your quote to a few sentences at most. Don't quote, for example, entire passages of a book or essay. These can be funny quips, cool sayings, hair-raising antidotes, movie lines, any kind of quote you can think of!

Just have fun, collect awesome sayings by awesome people, and try to be inspired!

This week's theme is Historical Fiction!

"One of the great lessons I learned about historical fiction...is that you don't try to disguise what the people did; my approach was to understand the characters and why they did what they did."--Nancy Horan

"Anybody can make history; only a great man can write it."--Oscar Wilde

"Whether I like it or not, most of my images of what various historical periods feel, smell, or sound like were acquired well before I set foot in any history class...Whether historians acknowledge it or not, scholarly history's illegitimate cousin, the historical novel, plays a profound role in shaping widely held conceptions of historical realities."--Lauren Willig

"Historical novels are, without question, the best way of teaching history, for they offer the human stories behind the events and leave the reader with a desire to know more."--Louis L'Amour, Education of a Wandering Man

"It is the control group which enables the scientist gauge the effect of his experiment. To judge the significance of what has occurred. In history there are no control groups. There is no one to tell us what might have been. We weep over the might have been, but there is no might have been. There never was."--Cormac McCarthy

"Knowledge of our past is our inheritance. What we do with that knowledge will shape our destinies."--L.K.Hill

So many of these apply to me or to my historical fiction novel! That last one is mine! Head over to my other blog to read some more amazing quotes about historical fiction!

What is your favorite quote about historical fiction? Do you have one to add?

Tweet

3 Things You Probably Never Considered About Historical Fiction

While at the LTUE Conference a couple of weeks ago, I participated in a panel about FTL (Faster than Lightning. It's okay. I didn't know what it was either and I was on the panel.) and Time Travel. I think this was supposed to be about how various authors use time travel and FTL motion in their writing, and we did discuss that to a certain extent. But we also talked a lot about time itself, how humans view it, and why we tell so many stories that take place in different time periods than our own.

1) Historical fiction is about collective penance for societal tragedy.

One woman on the panel put forth a theory that really spoke to me. She said she believed that the reason we tell stories about the past has to do with regret. We have deep regret--be it individual, or as a collective society--about terrible things that have happened in our past. It's almost like we can't believe we ever let things get that bad at one point, and have to revisit it, both to remind ourselves, and as a sort of unspoken pledge not to let it happen again.


For example, we can't believe we once let our society degrade to the point of letting a handlebar-mustached dictator kill six million people during World War II, simply because of their religion. We can't believe that we, as a race of human beings, stood by and let it get that bad. 

A Sudetan woman weeps while being
forcedto salute Hilter. 1938. (Source)

A Frenchman weeps when Nazi troops
 march into Paris inJune, 1940 after Allied
troops are driven back across France
(Source)

"Experience: that most brutal of teachers. But you learn, my God do you learn." --C.S. Lewis

Perhaps returning again and again to the times of these tragedies is wallowing, but I don't think so. I think it's to remind ourselves not to let it get that bad again. To remember our mistakes so we don't make them anymore. And to re-educate ourselves and our posterity. 

Let's face it. There are few people left in the world who lived through World War II, and each generation becomes farther dissociated from the terrible tragedy of it. We want to convey the depth of our sorrow over things we are collectively ashamed of. We do this to keep it from happening again, but perhaps there's more than that, too. 

Perhaps we are doing penance for things that, though we had no hand in, we easily could if we let them happen again. 

2) Futuristic time travel is the opposite side of the same coin.

Source

I would submit that the same applies for futuristic stories. As Dr. Phil is fond of saying, the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior. We've seen the tragedies of earth's past, and know what the human race is capable of. We tell futuristic stories because we fear our society might degrade into inhumanity again. 

After all, what is dystopian but a representation of our fear of the future, based on problems we see in the present? 

We tell these stories, much like we tell historical fiction, because we want to avoid what we know is possible. Perhaps we are even doing a sort of preventative, reverse-penance for tragedies we know will probably happen somewhere in the world at some time, but which we, as individuals, are largely powerless to stop. What's the best way to stop them? Tell these stories, educate others and ourselves, so that we might do everything that is in our power to maintain the compassion and humanity of our race.

Pondering on this idea was the first time it truly made sense to me that I'm drawn almost equally to historical fiction and dystopian.

3) Back story as historical fiction and a predictor for the future.

All great, well-fleshed out characters have back story. It's what makes them three dimensional; what makes our readers connect with them. To our characters, what has already happened in their past is their historical fiction. Apply the above principles to your character's back story to help you understand the psychology of why they do what they do. Why would they revisit their past? Why would they hide it or hide from it? Their past will predict their future behavior in some way, and it doesn't always have to be a negative one. Perhaps their behavior is predictive because they will repeat their past. Or perhaps they will do the opposite because they learned from it, as most of us, we pray, learned from the Holocaust.

If you understand your characters' motivations concerning their past, and how it connects to their future, and can convey that, even symbolically, on the page, that will make your characters more than just well-rounded. 

It will make them truly human. 

Perhaps dealing with alternate time periods in literature is difficult, because the sense of tragedy is so potent, but I also think it's vitally important. Perhaps more important than our mere human brains can comprehend. It keeps us human. It keeps us compassionate. And those are things that cannot be learned in academic books.

They can only be learned through true empathy with other human beings during the worst times of their lives, and through communion both with our ancestors and our posterity.

One of the worst periods in human history that I know of has to be during the reign of Ivan the Terrible during the middle ages in Russia. That's why, when I learned of it, I simply had to write about it. My book, Citadels of Fire, is due out May 27th. It will be the first of a trilogy dealing with this gruesome, tragic time period.

In a world where danger hides in plain sight and no one aspires to more than what they were born to, Inga must find the courage to break the oppressive chains she’s been bound with since birth. 

As a maid in the infamous Kremlin, life in 16th-century Russia is bleak and treacherous. That is, until Taras arrives. Convinced that his mother’s death when he was a boy was no mere accident, he returned from England to discover what really happened. While there, he gains favor from the Tsar later known as Ivan the Terrible, the most brutal and notorious ruler ever to sit upon the throne of Russia. Ivan allows him to take a servant, and to save Inga from a brutal boyar intent on raping her, Taras requests Inga to stay in his chambers. 

Up against the social confines of the time, the shadowy conspiracies that cloak their history, and the sexual politics of the Russian Imperial court, Inga and Taras must discover their past, plan for their future, and survive the brutality that permeates life within the four walls that tower over them all, or they may end up like so many citizens of ancient Russia: nothing but flesh and bone mortar for the stones of the Kremlin wall.

Click HERE to pre-order.

What do you think of this theory about why we are so drawn to stories in time periods other than our own?

Tweet

Historical Tidbit: Titanic Predictions

Did you know...?

That many writers predicted the disaster of the Titanic cruise liner?

It's true. No less than 4 writers in some way predicted the accident long before it happened.

Check out that crazy cover image!
Source

1) Morgan Robertson published a novella in 1898 entitled, Futility.  It was the story of a grand cruise liner that sank. In it, the boat was the largest and fastest of its day, and--get this!--was called the Titan. In his story, the boat has almost identical dimensions to the Titanic, and both boats, though they have huge amounts of people aboard, only carry enough lifeboats for half. In his book, Robertson's boat is known as "unsinkable." These similarities have been called "eerie." I say they're downright creepy!

2) M. McDonnell Bodkin wrote This Ship's Run in 1908. The boat in his story is called Titanic and it follows almost the same route the actual ship would four years later, though in the story it doesn't collide with anything. The similarities are so close that many people believe Bodkin might have seen early plans for the ship. (Source)

Tweet

Historical Tidbit: Idioms Caused by Viking Pirates

Do you know...?

Source

The origins of the phrase, Don't cut off your nose to spite your face?

This phrase is "used to describe a needlessly self-destructive over-reaction to a problem." (Source) This source has been around since as early as the 12th century and comes from many legends about women disfiguring their faces in order to preserve their sexual dignity.

The most well-known story is that of Saint Ebbe, the Mother Superior of the Coldingham monastery in Scotland. When the monastery got word that Viking pirates had landed on their shores and were ravishing the countryside, Ebbe gathered her nuns and told them to disfigure themselves in order to repel their would-be rapists. The residents of the monastery cut off their noses and upper lips as best they could. When the Viking raiders arrived, they were so disgusted that they didn't rape a single one of the nuns.

Tweet

Historical Tidbit: Ivan the Terrible and Elisabeth I

Did you know...

Source

That Ivan the Terrible of Russia proposed marriage to Elizabeth I of England? This may not mean much to most Americans today, but it should. 

Ivan was one of the most violent and notorious rulers in Eastern Europe, and most especially in Russia. Like Vlad the Impaler, he liked to find new and more interesting (read: disgusting) ways to kill his own people and delighted in bloodshed. He ran his relationships, his  household, and ultimately his country into the ground, dragging everything and everyone around him into his own pit of madness. 

Source

Now just imagine Elizabeth I had taken him up on that offer. What might an alliance with Russia have done to England. Elisabeth was on the throne for forty-five years and was the most progressive thinker of her era. She instituted the first law of freedom of religion in Europe and was a feminist before the word existed. Her reign brought a golden age for her country and her people, which came to (somewhat) of an end upon her death.

What does this have to do with America? 

Elizabeth, indirectly if not directly, affected the colonization of America. Many who'd been born during her reign were used to having religious freedom. When she died, James VI of Scotland became James I of England and reverted to the us-vs.-them, Catholic-vs.-Protestant mentality that existed before Elizabeth took the throne. Once you've known freedom, it's almost impossible to give it up. That was true of many English subjects and they came to America seeking the religious freedom they'd known under Elizabeth.

Source

So, if she'd married Ivan, how would history have been different? Chances were he would have found a way to taint both England and its queen. What if he had killed Elizabeth or refused to respect her policies of religious freedom? It would have changed the way in which America was colonized and who knows where we would be today?

Luckily, anyone who knows anything about Elizabeth Tudor knows that would never have happened. She was far too independent to let any man rule over her and she probably knew exactly who and what Ivan was, which means she was entirely too smart to entangle herself with him. 

Under Elizabeth, England flourished and became one of the top powers in the world. Under Ivan, Russia slid into darkness, chaos, and brutality, falling even farther behind the rest of the world than it already was.

So, how do YOU think the world would have been different if Elizabeth had married Ivan?

Citadels of Fire, Book 1 of Kremlins will be available in September 2013, courtesy of Jolly Fish Press.

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--Crusade Alliances

Source

Did you know...

That for a very brief time period during the first crusade, Muslim and Jewish resistors briefly joined forces to defend Jerusalem against Christian crusaders?

Just a random factoid, but an interesting one. Those two groups are an odd pairing, especially considering the politics and social climate of the middle ages. 

It was a short-lived alliance, though. The crusaders breached the city after a two-week siege. Most of the Muslim soldiers fought to the death. For a long time, it was believed that the Jews were gathered into a synagogue (or went there voluntarily to prepare for death) and had the synagogue burned down around them. More recently found records indicate that, while the synagogue was burnt down, it was probably empty. Jewish prisoners were forced to clear the corpses from the city.

Still, it's an interesting story. You have to wonder how such different, feuding groups came to the decision to work together. How difficult was it for them? Did they abandon one another when the city fell, or continue to fight a losing battle? This would make interesting historical fiction, don't you think?

Would you read a historical story set against the backdrop of these events?

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--Origins of the Pied Piper Legend

Yes, I am re-posting this. Sorry. I had limited time to work on my blog this past weekend and didn't have time to put together a historical tidbit. I'm sort of obsessed with this story, so I thought I'd re-post this one with just a few tweaks. Bear with me. :D

Did you know...

The Children's Crusade

Source

That the Pied Piper of Hamelin was probably based on a child crusader?

So anyone who follows my medieval tidbits knows I have a thing for the crusades, and also am intrigued by the Pied Piper legend. Well, I think I've finally found the most accurate historical tidbit that the legend is based on.

I've done posts before on both the Pied Piper and the Children's Crusade (click the links if you want to read them) but here's how the history (what little we have) syncs up.

In the spring of 1212, a twelve-year-old French orphan boy had a vision. His name was Stephen and he believed he saw Christ, who told him that the reason the Crusades had failed (for the Christians) was that the hearts of the crusaders were impure. Where sinful adults had failed, good-hearted children would prevail. He was promised that, should he gather an army of children for a crusade, the waters of the Mediterranean would part from them, as they did for Moses of old, so the children could walk to the Holy Lands on dry ground and conduct their crusade.

Stephen began preaching in the streets, and his impact on the many orphan children of Europe was profound. After hearing of Stephen's crusade, the news of which spread like wildfire through Europe, a German boy named Nicholas, the son of a wealthy farmer, decided to join. But more than that, he decided to recruit his own army, get to the Mediterranean by way of Italy, and meet Stephen in the Holy Lands. Nicholas' father encouraged him in this. Nicholas, like Stephen, began going from town to town, preaching Christ and the holy crusade, and even performing miracles, according to some accounts. Though, whether these were truly miraculous feats or the kind of miracles people see because they want to is difficult to decipher from our limited records. It is believed that Nicholas was the mystical Pied Piper. In the small German village of Hamelin, he offered to help with their rat infestation for a price. When they refused to pay it, he led the children out of town (to participate in the crusade) while playing music on his flute. None of the children ever returned home.

Why not?

Stephen's group at the 

Mediterranean

Source

Because all of these children met with tragedy. Stephen's group waited for their miracle at the Mediterranean for days. Finally two men who owned a fleet of ships offered to support their crusade by ferrying them across the sea. Stephen saw it as an answer to their prayers. Two of the ships were caught in a story and dashed to pieces. All passengers, including Stephen, were drowned in the arms of the mighty sea. The other ships ended up in Africa, where the deceptive ship owners sold the children into abject slavery.

Nicholas' group marched over snow-covered mountains to get to Italy. Many died of hunger, thirst, fatigue, and exposure to the elements. When they, too, failed to find their miracle at the Mediterranean, they marched south toward Rome to see the pope. They were overtaken by an army of unknown leadership in the same place the rebel slave Spartacus had made his stand hundreds of years before. There, the children were subjected to  numerous cruelties by sadistic soldiers.

Eventually the church put a stop to cruelty and the children were allowed to see the pope, who wept for the children's faith and hardship. He counselled them to return home and await the time when he would call for their help in the next adult crusade.

The children obeyed, though few made it home. Many people had been happy to send their children to the crusade, believing that, because they were children and about the work of God, they would be protected. But tens of thousands died, and none but possibly a bare handful even made it to the Holy Lands. Very few who went ever returned home. Because of the fiasco it turned into, people became bitter, calling the children they had once supported foolish and mad. They had less help on the road home than they had on their march toward the Holy Lands. Many died trying to get there. They were scorned, laughed at, and abused.

Source

Meanwhile, in a tiny, childless village in Germany, a stained-glass window was erected, telling the story of a rat infestation and a friendly, colorfully-dressed piper. It ended with all the town's children walking out of the village to the haunting notes of the piper's flute, and never returning.

This is a story I'd like to portray through historical fiction, if I can ever get back to my historical stuff, but it'd definitely be a tragic one. Still, it's a story that isn't well-known today.

What do you think? Is this an important story to know? One you would read?

Remember, knowledge of our past is our inheritance. What we do with that knowledge will shape our destinies.

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--William Wallace

Did you know...?

Source

That Braveheart is based on a true story?

Okay, most people know that. But the thing that's interesting about it is that most people didn't know that story until it was discovered.

The film's producer, Randall Wallace, was on a random vacation in Scotland, and saw a statue of a man he'd never heard of named William Wallace. Because they shared a last name, he remarked on it to the tour guide with something along the lines of, "Another Wallace. (An extremely common Scottish surname.) Who was this man?"

To which the guide replied with reverence, "He is our greatest hero." 

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--The War of the Roses

Did you know...?

That soap operas are NOT an invention of the 21st Century? Let me explain. It's too much. Let me some up. (Sorry. Random Movie Quote right there. I haven't been doing that feature on my blog the past few weeks--too busy--so they're just falling out of my head like a fit of Tourettes.)

Anyway.

Source

Back in the 1400s (you know I love medieval stuff, right?) two rival houses of Plantagenet vied for the throne. Both branches were direct descendants of king Edward III. One of the houses was Lancaster, which sported a Red rose as its sigil. The other was the house of York, under the badge of the White Rose. Hence the name history has given this soap operatic battle, The War of the Roses.

The ruling Lancastrian king, Henry VI, surrounded himself with unpopular nobles. To add to that, civil unrest was high, and the feudal system was on a decline. Many powerful lords had their own private armies, and when Henry VI began showing signs of mental illness, it was anyone's game.

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--Australia

Did you know...

That Australia was originally founded as a penal colony? 

Tweet

3 Tips on Writing Historical Fiction + Announcements

ANNOUNCEMENTS

I hope everyone had a great Easter! My only announcements for this week are that I have two signings near the end of it.

1) Thursday, 4/11 I will be signing/selling books at the Ogden Hastings store from 3 to 5 pm. 

2) Friday, 4/12 I will be signing/selling books at the Barnes and Noble in Layton, Utah from 1-3 pm.

If you're local, come on in and see me, even if you don't buy anything. I'd love to meet you!

3 Tips on Writing Historical Fiction

Tweet

Historical Tidbit: Stephen and Nicholas + Blog Tour Stops

Today's Persistence of Vision Tour Stops include:
1) Guest Post at Doodle's Book Blog and
2) Guest Post at Y.A. Storyteller



Historical Tidbit

Did you know...

The Children's Crusade
Source

That the Pied Piper of Hamelin was probably based on a child crusader?

So anyone who follows my medieval tidbits knows I have a thing for the crusades, and also am intrigued by the Pied Piper legend. Well, I think I've finally found the most accurate historical tidbit that the legend is based on.

I've done posts before on both the Pied Piper and the Children's Crusade (click the links if you want to read them) but here's how the histories (what little we have) syncs up.

In the spring of 1212, a twelve-year-old French orphan boy had a vision. His name was Stephen and  believed he saw Christ, who told him that the reason the Crusades had failed (for the Christians) was that the hearts of the crusaders were impure. Where sinful adults had failed, good-hearted children would prevail. He was promised that, should he gather an army of children for a crusade, the waters of the Mediterranean would part from them, as they did for Moses of old, so the children could walk to the Holy Lands on dry ground and conduct their crusade.

He began preaching in the streets, and his impact on the many orphan children of Europe was profound. After hearing of Stephen's crusade, the news of which spread like wildfire through Europe, a German boy named Nicholas, the son of a wealthy farmer, decided to join. But more than that, he decided to recruit his own army, get to the Mediterranean by way of Italy, and meet Stephen in the Holy Lands. Nicholas' father encouraged him in this. Nicholas, like Stephen, began going from town to town, preaching Christ and the holy crusade, and even performing miracles, according to some accounts. Though, whether these were truly miraculous feats or the kind of miracles people see because they want to is difficult to decipher from our limited records. It is believed that Nicholas was the mystical Pied Piper. In the small German village of Hamelin, he offered to help with their rat infestation for a price. When they refused to pay it, he led them out of town while playing music on his flute. None of the children ever returned home.

And why not?

Stephen's group at the Mediterranean
Source

Because all of these children met with tragedy. Stephen's group waited for their miracle at the Mediterranean for days. Finally two men who owned a fleet of ships offered to support their crusade by ferrying them across the sea. Stephen saw it as an answer to their prayers. Two of the ships were caught in a story and dashed to pieces. All passengers, including Stephen, were drowned in the arms of the mighty sea. The other ships ended up in Africa, where the deceptive ship owners sold them into abject slavery.


Nicholas' group marched over snow-covered mountains to get to Italy. Many died of hunger, thirst, fatigue, and exposure to the elements. When they, too, failed to find their miracle at the Mediterranean, they marched south toward Rome to see the pope. They were overtaken by an army of unknown leadership in the same place Spartacus had made his stand hundreds of years before. There, the children were subject to  numerous cruelties by sadistic soldiers.

Eventually the church put a stop to cruelty and the children were allowed to see the pope, who wept for the children's faith and hardship. He counselled them to return home and await the time when he would call for their help in the next adult crusade.

The children obeyed, though few made it home. Many people had been happy to send their children to the crusade, believing that, because they were children and about the work of God, they would be protected. But tens of thousands died, and none but possibly a bare handful even made it to the Holy Lands. Very few who went ever returned home. Because of the fiasco it turned into, people became bitter, calling the children they had once supported foolish and mad. They had less help on the road home. Many died trying to get there. They were scorned, laughed at, and abused.

Source

Meanwhile, in a tiny, childless village in Germany, a stained-glass window was erected, telling the story of a rat infestation and a friendly, colorfully-dressed piper. It ended with all the town's children walking out of the village to the haunting notes of the piper's flute.

This is a story I'd like to portray through historical fiction, if I can ever get back to my historical stuff, but it'd definitely be a tragic one. Still, it's a story that isn't well-known today.

What do you think? Is this an important story to know? One you would read?

Remember, knowledge of our past is our inheritance. What we do with that knowledge will shape our destinies.

Tweet

Historical Tidbit--Henry VIII + Announcements

Announcements:

• Persistence of Vision Blog Tour!!! The blog tour will kick off on January 13! (Check out my other blog, Musings on Fantasia, for details.) There's a badge and code in the sidebar for anyone who wants to grab it.  Note: During the tour I will probably be posting slightly less on this blog, as I will have a lot more work to do.

• For those of you who are local to Utah, I'll be at the A Passionate Affair Valentine Gift Show on February 9th, signing/selling books (Persistence of Vision)...and probably fudge too. If you're close by, please stop by! I'd love to meet you in person!

• I also have a signing in the Ogden, Utah Hastings Store on February 22. More details to come.

Historical Tidbit

King Henry VIII
source: channel4.com

Did you know...that England's infamous King Henry VIII was never meant to be king?

Henry is most known for chopping off the heads of his wives and mistresses in pursuit of a male heir, but as a king (it terms of policies, running the realm in a hands-on way and gaining the love of the people) he was actually a largely effective ruler.

Interestingly enough, he was never meant to be king. He was actually the second son. His older brother Arthur, was first in line for the throne. That, however, is exactly why Henry ended up ruling.

Arthur Tudor
tudorplace.com.ar

You see, in a world on the cusp of the Renaissance, little was known (that was accurate) about the physical body. The heir to the throne was watched and protected religiously. The heir was not allowed to play outside, because he might fall down and hurt himself. He was not allowed to travel because it might be dangerous. He was not allowed to live his own life or pursue his own passions because he had to prepare to be king. This was the life of Henry's elder brother, Arthur. Because of it he was a frail and sickly child that grew into a frail and sickly man.

Meanwhile, Henry, who no one had any need to protect because he would never sit the throne, was a hearty, robust, athletic youth. He loved to wrestle and play sports. He was happy, energetic and adventurous, and his exploits with the ladies were, as you might imagine, quite infamous. 

So, Arthur died young and Henry assumed the throne, where he would become beloved of the people, throw the country into schism, turmoil, and war, create his own church, which thing led indirectly to the colonization of America, and father many on-again-off-again legitimate children, mostly daughters. One flame-haired daughter would follow him to the throne and sit on it for nearly half a century, leading England through it's golden age. 

Is it any wonder that the Elizabethan period is great fodder for historical fiction? And just think...it wasn't ever supposed to happen that way.

What do you think? The "best-laid plans o' mice and men? Or is there some Providence in this?

Tweet

An Inequality You Probably Don't Know Much About

Source: docstoc.com

What do you know about the culture and/or history of India? If you're like most westerners, probably not much. :D But India has a rich culture with a distinct class or "caste" system. There are five major categories:

1)  Brahmin: the rich, priestly caste
2) Kshatriya: the military and elite ruling caste
3) Vaishya: trading and agricultural castes
4)  Shudra: the serving class--servant's to the first three
5) Untouchables--the people were entirely shunned by society and were not actually considered to be their own caste because they were not worth noticing or mentioning.

When I was in the 6th grade, I had an amazing teacher who I knew only as Miss Nelson. (Really not kidding.)

One day she came around the class while we were doing individual work. She held a hat with many folded-up pieces of cardstock in it above our heads. She told us to pick one without looking. Mine had a purple dot colored on it. There were five different colors, and what color we picked determined what group we would be in. Miss Nelson had decided to teach us about India's caste system.

I was lucky enough to blindly pick the color that represented Brahmin, or the highest, richest caste. The teacher instructed us on how to place our desks into lines by caste. The Brahmin's, of course, were in front. Members from other "castes" were assigned to us as our protectors or servants. The servants had to follow us wherever we went around the room, because they had to wait on  us hand and foot. The warriors had to do the same, in order to "protect" us.

That meant I was annoyed because people had to follow me around all day, while they were annoyed because every time I got up from my seat, they had to as well. I remember the teacher handing the upper two castes of children water bottles, saying we might be thirsty. Then she gave us Brahmins a candy bar as well. One of the children in the class objected.

"That's not fair!"

"No, it isn't," Miss Nelson said, "but this is the way it was."

I remember a profound silence settling over the class. What a great way to drive a point about inequality home in a classroom of twelve-year-olds. On our first recess, we were allowed only to talk to and play with those of our caste. (By 2nd recess, she gave us a break. :D)

It was a supremely enlightening experience and, of course, soon after I started formulating a story. I actually started writing it, but I never felt like I could get all the research I needed. I was too young to have an adequate grasp on it all. Besides, my premise was VERY Romeo and Juliet. What can I say? Teenaged-girl.

Now, looking back, I can see how profoundly that experience effected me. I would still like to do a story set against this backdrop, but probably won't very soon. It's something to think about for the future, though. And hey! You learned something new, didn't you? :D

What do you think? What kinds of conflict would you put into a story based upon the caste system in India?

Tweet

Historical Fiction: Not What I Expected-Part 3

For the final post in this series, I want to talk about the subject of Tricia Goyer's post. She talks about research and the amount that goes into historical fiction. She says most historical fiction authors research way too much and that too many historical details can weigh down your narrative.

Source:
mydeartrash.blogspot.com

I must say I disagree on the subject of too much research. I don't think a person can EVER do enough! Even if it doesn't end up going into the novel, you're still learning stuff. In my opinion, any amount of time and effort that goes into learning (especially about history!) is time well spent. And you never know when you'll be able to work in some little, salient detail that will make your manuscript downright magical.

Granted, when it comes to historical research, the amount of work tends to far outweigh the payoff, but still...

Tricia is right, though, that too many details CAN be the death of your manuscript. Like her, I see too many amateur authors trying to put chunks of their 10th grade history book into their novels. It's not unlike greenie authors who try to dump unending paragraphs of back story on their readers all at once. It must be worked in slowly, and with finesse. The same is true of historical details.

In a way, you should write the book as though the audience already knows the historical details. If your MC is part of the imperial court, they probably don't stop to explain the court's goings-on to themselves every day. Of course you must make sure your reader understands, but this is best done through your character's actions and dialogue, with as little exposition as possible. Otherwise, it feels like your character is stopping to give the audience a Shakespeare-esque monologue on something that's just another part of their everyday lives.

In that way, crafting a historical setting isn't much different than crafting any other kind.

What do you think? Do you think a historical setting would be harder to work with than a contemporary one? Do you think one can ever do too much research?

Below is an EXCERPT from my forthcoming novel, Citadels of Fire:

*Excerpt removed at publisher's request. Look out for Citadels of Fire, forthcoming September 2013*

What do you think of this excerpt?

Tweet

Historical Fiction: Not What I Expected-Part 2

So yesterday I wrote Part 1 about the world of historical fiction. I mentioned an article put out by 

Top Hat Books that inspired me to think a little more deeply about it. I especially like in this article where he talks about literary historical fiction verses serialized historical fiction. He talks about three categories of historical fiction: historical military fiction, historical sagas, and historical literary fiction. He categorizes them like this:

Saving Private Ryan

Historical Military Fiction:

1) Strong male readership
2) Tend toward serialization
3) Put a handful of iconic or colorful characters against the backdrop of the history, politics, and ramifications of a battle.

Historical Sagas:

1) Strong female readership
2) Not always serialized but when they are, concentrate on family over several generations

Lonesome Dove

3) "There is a stereotype of bleak northern town, large family, smattering of abuse, strong community, rags to riches..."  source

Historical Literary Fiction:

1) No particular preference on readership.
2) Generally stand-alone novels.
3) Tend to illuminate one particular aspect of history and, though the historical details are important, the stories tend to have very universal themes.

I don't disagree with these categorizations at all. In fact I think they're quite accurate. So what makes a great historical fiction? I would argue that you need to encompass all these things in order to really pull it off. (No pressure, right?)

Seriously, though. In my humble opinion, a great historical fiction should ALWAYS be literary fiction. Of course the setting is half the story, but without great, dynamic characters, both story and setting would just fall flat. 

For example, I recently read a book called The Alchemist's Daughter. I wasn't particularly impressed with it. Oh, it was fine overall, but I felt like so much more could have been done with it. It was fascinating that the MC was the daughter of a true alchemist who taught her his art. Yet, other than that she knew how to do it and helped her father, I didn't feel like the art form was really explored. This was a tale of a young, naive girl who is seduced by a young man who then marries her. It's about her sexual awakening and how she's too naive to realize that he's cheating on her. Don't get me wrong, by the end she does manage to grow. A little. But I just didn't feel fulfilled enough in the historical aspect.

In historical fiction, characters should change over time and that change should be a direct result of the historical circumstances!

Which brings me to my next point: because the whole reason for reading history is to a) learn about the past and b) apply it to ourselves, it is this writer's humble opinion that all historical fiction ought to be at least somewhat trans-generational. Even if it's just a small aspect of the story, showing how past generations played a part in your characters' lives or how future generations will be affected, history must be seen as a flowing ribbon. What effects one part of it will have a ripple effect on the rest!

Don't go overboard with a three-millennia timeline or anything, but make sure your readers understand the whole point of telling a historical tale. In the same vein, make sure YOU (the writer) understand the purpose of telling a historical tale! If you don't make the historical details and setting serve a purpose, you may as well plunk the same characters with the same problems down in present day. MAKE THE HISTORY RELEVANT!

Furthermore, in my oh-so-objective opinion, every historical fiction novel should have a battle of some kind in it!

We all fight battles every day of our lives. Granted, they generally aren't the sword-and-shield type, but we do have them. Yet, in sixteenth century Russia for example, the battles consisted of fire-threatened wooden cities, hand-to-hand combat against Eastern pony-riders, and the intrigues of the imperial court. These things, whether directly or indirectly, shaped the people living in these times and places! Include them in your book!

I've said it before and I'll say it again: it...(I'll use a nice word here) BUGS me to no end when authors shy away from the gritty stuff. You may have to descend into the more depraved parts of humanity, but your story will be better for it! Don't be afraid of this stuff!

So what do you think? Is this too tall an order for historical fiction?

Random Movie Quotes (RMQ)

Don't know what this is? Click here.

So yesterday's RMQ was:

"I don't know why I tell you now, but I see her strength in you. (*whispers) One day, you will be a queen. And you must open your eyes."

This amazing line was said by Mel Gibson (as William Wallace) in Braveheart. Dee of Dee's Book Blog guessed it! Great job! Three points to you for guessing each part! :D

Now for today's RMQ:

"Either what we hold to be right and good and true is right and good and true for all mankind under God, or we are just another robber tribe!"

Immortal words! One point for character, one for actor, one for film. Any guesses?

Tweet

The World of Historical Fiction: Not What I Expected-Part 1

Source: Ithacalibrary.com

This weekend I came across two great articles/posts that discuss today's historical fiction. One by Tricia Goyer discussed how much research goes into historical fiction. The other from Top Hat Books discusses historical literary fiction vs. historical series and how prevalent they are today. Both are excellent articles.

As my book, Citadels of Fire, the first in the Kremlins trilogy is a historical fiction, I try to keep up on these things. :D

Even when my publisher, the fabulous Jolly Fish Press, accepted Citadels of Fire, they told me that it wasn't particularly common to have historical stories serialized, and could I possibly make it into a stand-alone? I explained a bit nervously that the next two books in the trilogy, while needing some work, were more-or-less written. My wonderful editor-in-chief, Chris Loke, immediately assured me that they'd make it work. *sags in relief*

While it's true that most historical fiction novels are stand-alones, I actually grew up with historical sagas. I'm a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and my faith puts a lot of emphasis on geneology, church history, and the bible. (Let's face it: the bible is just one great big historical epic, right?)

Because of this, a lot of our books, especially our fiction, consist of historical epics. Much of it is not mainstream, though. It deals with our church's history, or important people in history who were members of our faith. See The Work and the Glory, The Promised Land, Children of the Promise, and Tennis Shoes Among the Nephites, to name a few.

Yet, I think this is why I tend to write epics--

(If you don't know this about me yet, take note: I'm very wordy. I did manage to write one stand-alone novel, a crime drama, but that's all. Everything else I've written has had multiple volumes. It's just how I think. A few months past I set out to write a short story of 5,000 words or less. The first draft was over 8,000 words long! I finally weedled it down to 4,997 words, but it was painful!)

--instead of stand-alones. My entire life I've been taught about the on-going-ness (no it's not a word but move along, okay?) of history, so that's how I write.

A woman at work asked me how I could write a series. She didn't understand how I could think ahead and plan to do that. I told her that, in truth, it's hard work. It's very common for authors to write as they go and it can be obvious in some cases by the final volume that something changed half-way through the series that the author hadn't planned for. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it happens. Yet, I tend to think in even more epic terms than others. I like to see how things fit together (or fall apart) over years, decades, even centuries, rather than just hours or days. What does that make me? A writer of historical epics? Possibly, A little strange? Probably. Long-winded? Definitely!

Either way, my first historical publication will be a trilogy about the life of a maid in the Kremlin palace during the middle ages in Russia, while the one-and-only Ivan the Terrible sat upon the throne. It will span most of the character's lifetimes, though the bulk of the story happens when they are in their primes.

I loved writing this story! It's epic and tragic and historical and everything I love about historical fiction. It's got elements of mystery and romance and battle and tragedy. What else can you ask for?

One of the articles mentioned above talks about research, while the other discusses literary historical fiction. I may turn this into a series over the next two days so I can put down my own thoughts on these two issues. If you have the time, click on the article links in my first paragraph and glance through them so you'll have a frame of reference for my posts! :D

So how about you? Do you prefer your historical fiction in sagas or stand-alone novels?

Random Movie Quotes (RMQ)

Don't know what this is? Click here.

So Friday's RMQ was: "I have seen the face of war before,sir, but I've never seen war made upon women and children...and almost as cruel as your indifference..."

No one guessed this one. Michelle from Sweet Book Reviews gave a good guess of War Horse. It's a good guess because both films are period pieces set against the backdrop of an American war. Unfortunately, War Horse centers around the wrong war.

This came from the immortal film, The Last of the Mohicans. If you're a fan of ridiculously romantic historical sagas, you HAVE to see this film. I've heard people describe this as the movie of their lives! (Really not exaggerating.)

Anyway, the character is Cora Monroe, played by Madelaine Stowe (you might have seen her more recently in Revenge--a completely different character!) talking to Hawkeye about something she doesn't fully understand. Fabulous scene!

Now for today's RMQ: 

"I don't know why I tell you now, but I see her strength in you. (*whispers*) One day, you will be a queen. And you must open your eyes..."

Any guesses? One point for the film, one for the actor, one for character. I'll give you a hint: this was a very well-known movie. Even won an academy award. Good luck! :D

Tweet