Sorry for the long absence! I was physically gone, of course, except for yesterday--only mentally gone yesterday--and will be physically gone again tomorrow. Then (praise somebody) I will be back on regular routine on Monday. I looove trips, but after a while I crave that routine. I want to just sit at my desk, do work, write, and not have to think about planning outfits or outings or pit stops.
That said, this weekend should be fun! (I am nothing if not contradictory. Aren't we all, really?)
TMT is out to...counting on fingers like all good English majors...5 readers (okay, one has already finished and one is cool Mr. Archaeologist, who is only reading 5 chapters). Other than that I went back over my agent list, and narrowed the first round down to my top candidates. So depending on what the readers say, after changes are made I just (just) need to revise my synopsis and cover letter and send that puppy out. Depending on what the readers say (that's a sly lil' phrase, isn't it?).
Work is freakin' busy this morning. My dad would say that I'm running around like a chicken with its head cut off. Of course I would not say that, but I can quote it. :P
Starting Monday we should be back to our regular blog schedule. Until then, talk amongst yourselves. Topic: In historical fiction, there is a continuum between accuracy and story. Do you stick to straight historical facts, embellish here and there for story, or make most of it up? Where do you fall? Discuss.
Medieval Word of the Day: feastly: Festive, fond of feasting, jolly.
8 comments:
I would say that I fall somewhere in the middle. I like it to be basically sticking to the facts, but if there are any (very) small historical elements that don't work with the plot, I'll ignore, or embellish a bit. But, like I said, it has to be small. No pretending that, say, the Holocaust didn't happen or something like that.
Glad you're back- have a good time this weekend!
Make it up. There's too much you have to get right in order to avoid being anachronistic. Why torture yourself further?
My personal strategy is to spend 3 years researching (until I am completely intimidated), and then sit in front of a blank computer screen chewing my nails for two more years. Then I make public threats to throw the whole dang thing out, until friends wade in and talk me off the roof. At which point I gleefully squash anything that resembles actual history, and start inventing stuff with contented abandon, secure in my role as Supreme Inventor of a New Universe.
Cindy D
Julie:
I'm a little more open than you to change--though most all is accurate, at some points facts either don't fit or we just don't know, so I'm willing to use imagination on those. They're not huge like the Holocaust, though. {s}
Vic:
LOL. You are so no longer a historical fiction writer. {eg}
Cindy:
Oh, dear! Well, at least it's moving along now for you. Change those "years" to "months" and you'll probably be good. (good luck with the new strategy!)
Great website, Susan! I love the word of the day feature. And congratulations on finishing your revisions!
I find there is just so much one can't know, even after years of research, that a writer has to resort to making things up if the story is to progress. I extrapolate from what I know was true and try to keep the embellishments realistic.
Julianne
Julianne:
Yes, that's pretty much my attitude exactly. If I tried to be accurate on every point I'd end up being a medieval scholar, and giving up the book altogether. And what would I do on the next book?
Common sense in all things, including research. {s}
And glad to see you over here!
Post a Comment