Memories of the 28th Century

Some writers of fiction are fastidious about the information they write, while others realize that fiction means that something was made up. If you know what sort of writer you are reading, then you can learn a lot from reading fiction.

A good example of the fastidious type is the late, great Kenneth L. Roberts, who wrote such great novels as ARUNDEL, RABBLE IN ARMS, CAPTAIN CAUTION, and others. I have read that the description of the Battle of Valcour Island that he wrote in Rabble in Arms is the most complete and accurate description of the battle that exists. His description of the invasion of Quebec in 1775 is the result of reading dozens of journals, letters, etc. I believe that his description is the only written description of that campaign.

George McDonald Fraser’s first novel in the Flashman series was taken at face value by some academics; that is taken as the memoirs of a British military officer of the Nineteenth century. I haven’t read as much about the detailed research that Fraser did, but it is clear that he did a lot of research, and a discerning reader can learn a lot about the British Army in that century. I have read that some of the information that Fraser used is disputed, specifically in regard to the Sepoy Rebellion it seems that there are different sets of journals and history. From what I have read Fraser had his sources, but there are other sources also.

Even when one gets into science fiction there are some who researched and others who punted. For example, consider the differences between L. Sprague de Camp’s LEST DARKNESS FALL and the PARATIME series of H. Beam Piper. De Camp started from Roman history and added Martin Padway to Fifth century Rome, and everything changed. Piper was imaginative, but his underlying theory foreshadowed Hugh Everett’s Many Worlds Interpretation; although it goes a little further than Everett went.

The novel that I finished writing last week starts from actual facts and things twist a bit. I may have written the only description of the murder of Piere de Castelnau that will ever appear in popular literature (assuming my writing becomes popular), but I did do the research. I have read enough serious history that I have an appreciation for actual facts, but I love reading fiction that is built around a structure of actual facts. Putting some color and personalities into history is a beautiful way to get people to appreciate the past. I just remembered Kenneth Roberts' description in NORTHWEST PASSAGE of the march from Lake Champlain to the Village of St. Francis on the river of that name that was made by Roger’s Rangers during the French and Indian War. The march took more than a week (and they were pushing), and it was through an evergreen swamp. They lost men, food and equipment to that swamp, but now one has to make that march in mental images, because the trees were cut down centuries ago, and the land is all improved farmland now. It is about fifty miles, so it might be a two of three day hike now. I can picture driving or riding through that area, and it has some pretty terrain, but two hundred fifty years ago it was wilderness.

The larger matter is that people take from literature what they want to take. People who just want to be entertained can just read the surface story, and those who wish to see into the surroundings and the minds of the characters see what they will see. If you want to know what the American Revolution was from the point of view of American citizens, then you can take advantage of the research that Kenneth Roberts did. He did similarly with the War of 1828, but he had some resistance from relatives who didn’t realize that there is a huge difference between pirates and privateers. Some of his ancestors were privateers, and Kenneth Roberts read their journals and got a treasure trove of details.

Personally, I try to remember that fiction is made up, but making up a collection of data is hard work. It is much easier to take actual facts and bend them to your needs. It was pointed out to me that writing fiction truly is more difficult than writing facts. It takes a load of creative imagination to write a hundred thousand words.

One part that I didn't bother dreaming up was in regard to the assassination of John Kennedy. I expected to find some straightforward information about that, but the more I looked, the more varied data I found. It isn't just that so many people have sworn that they were there with guns, but additional physical evidence has turned up over the decades. If you want to read my description, then you will have to wait for the book to be published. And since I am suggesting reading, you should also read some of Kenneth Roberts' books.

A very imaginative novel just came to mind. As imaginative as it was, it was based in actual facts and played with there. I like to think that the novel that I just finished is rooted in facts, and I just played with the logic of some situations.


In case you are interested.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Francis_Raid