The novel is terrifying me. I'm worried about the research. I'm worried about the people I'm going to annoy.
I finally got an outline -- albeit the barest sketch of an outline -- and it is taking me right where I didn't want to go. Into the heart of New Kingdom Egypt, and into Troy*.
And Troy is deep in the shadow of Homer. So worry about what the Classics scholars will think. And the historians (mostly the amateurs -- professionals have work to do). And it being the, you know, Trojan War, there's a whole other crop of military buffs to complain if it's the wrong swords or whatever.
And same goes for Egypt (substituting amateur Egyptologists for the Classics buffs.)
*There's an odd escape clause about the latter, though. If you say, "Here we are before the walls of Troy" then the door is opened to showing equipment and methods that aren't exactly late bronze age (and not even exactly Homer's time, either). And of course you can include gods and demigods and all that rot. If you say, "...Wilusa" then you've made a contract with the reader to come a lot closer to the realities of 1200 BCE.
I have found myself having taken unwilling steps into the well-established field of contemporary historical fiction. A little (belated) research, and the the relative popularity of periods and subjects and so forth in the field is surprising. According to a recent poll (self-selected for people who make historical fiction a majority of their recreational reading), the book that would hit the most bullet points would be set in the 18th century, feature a strong female lead who nonetheless is exemplar of the thoughts and ways of her time, and who is not famous but is a witness to history. And is in a long-running series and being read by a woman in America who devours over twenty books a year.
Reading into the spaces of the data, there might be a small cadre of UK-based men who like military history set in Roman times. For the purposes of the poll I mentioned, the entire span of recorded history from Assyria up to the fall of Rome is one, relatively unpopular, period. And of course meticulous research as well as honesty to actual history is strongly expected and preferred.
A bronze age adventure doesn't exactly fall between the cracks. It would work -- but work better if it references real historical people and events. (And is part of a series!)
This isn't the novel I originally set out to write. I was thinking more towards light fantasy, basically using tropes from that and using the Bronze Age as a generalized setting. And I haven't quite ruled that out. Nor are these absolutes; there is a bit of graduation between the two extremes.
Not, however, that much. Although Homer (or for that matter Shakespeare) didn't worry overly about historical accuracy, modern readers do. Modern historical fiction readers are also (same poll) quite into social networking, and that translates into an active dialog to discuss and dissect works -- that is, a fertile field for fault-finding.
A book that is clearly fantasy, referencing the historical and the mythological in clever (and well-informed) ways, passes. But in the middle lies a lacuna; works that blend too much real history and not-history will displease everyone (well, at least displease those who are actively searching out historical fiction. And probably boring those who want fantasy adventure).
If I'd set out to write a Historical novel in the first place, it would probably be about the Takarazuka Dance Troop in the period between the hyper-nationalism of Japan and their defeat in the Pacific War. Heck, I've even got the title; "The Song of the Crane."
And if I'd set out to write fantasy with some historical elements, I've already got one that stalled on the outline (the history being largely the American Folk Music Revival of the 40's through 60's, even though the story is set either contemporary or in the early 2000's).
The novel of the Bronze Age Collapse survived outlining. Otherwise, though, it fills me with trepidation.
No comments:
Post a Comment