When Historical Fiction Isn't

Recently, I was made to confront the complications of writing historical fiction. This genre has long been disputed by many groups...If you think about it, the name itself embodies a self-contradiction. Something cannot be both history and fiction--can it? In this difficulty, writers tend to survey their subject and select a point somewhere between fact and fiction. Some, like G.A. Henty focus on pure history, bothering only enough with fiction to set up a simple, formulaic story framework to keep readers engaged. On the other end of the spectrum, books like Elizabeth Pope's "The Perilous Gard" or Twain's "Prince and the Pauper" delve so deep into fiction that they maintain only one or two historical figures to give the story a sense of place. Is any of this right or wrong? It depends. Why am I even talking about this? Let's back up a bit.

One of my greatest historical fascinations is with the twelve apostles of Jesus Christ: Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Nathanael (or Bartholemew), Matthew, Thomas, Thaddeus, Judas, Simon the Zealot, and James the Lesser. The fact that I typed that list from memory should serve as some proof of my fairly serious studying of these guys... In fact, over the past few years I have been laboring away at writing a book about them--not in the style of the Christian non-fiction "better living" book entitled "Twelve Ordinary Men"--but in a style that must by necessity be called historical fiction. In other words, it is a fictional account of the life of Jesus from the perspective of the twelve apostles. What do I mean by fictional? Do I mean the whole thing is pure fabrication? No. Here's where the self-contradiction comes in.

I have studied the gospel accounts to the extent that I am working on compiling a list of every recorded word spoken by any of the apostles. I have researched things like food and boats.
History.

I do not know why Thomas doubted Jesus. I do not know why Judas betrayed him. I don't know what foods Peter didn't like. I don't know anything about some of the lesser apostles. But I've put it in there.
Fiction.

All of this came to the forefront the other day in my PowerPoint class, of all places. A long time ago I had created a PowerPoint presentation based off of my story, including pictures and quotes representing each apostle. The creative-type people who watched this were all excited and moved. Others greeted it with neutrality. My PowerPoint teacher (being the highly scientific computer-science major that he was) responded uncertainly. How much of this had I made up? (Most of it) How much church lore had I studied? (None) How accurate was this? (I had no idea)

Historical fiction for kids (and most adult-oriented stuff as well), is focused on portraying a historical event or time through the eyes of fictional characters. A much smaller percentage takes a different approach: portraying a historical event or time through the eyes of a historical character. This defines my story, and this technique drives practical people up the wall. They read "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara and groan this isn't accurate! You can't know what General Robert E. Lee was thinking as he ordered Pickett's charge! True. But in this moment, historical fiction passes beyond "history" or "fiction" and into a sort of delicate psychology. If you have ever written this way, you will know what I mean. Unlike most historical fiction, books like "The Killer Angels", books like "The Once and Future King", books even like my apostle story, are formulated as a few fenceposts of solid, indisputable fact, strung together with strange, delicate, but educated guesswork. People who are deeply intuitive seem to do well with this.

It's something that you can't research. It's empathy. Sensitivity. Connection. Psychology. Common sense. It's a complete demolition of stereotypes. It involves giving a historical figure back his humanity. If you can figure it out, then it stops being work. The character speaks through you.

"The Killer Angels" and "The Once and Future King" are examples of this technique in its perfected form. The facts they portray are solid and true, their characters are unforgettable in their tragic, humorous depth. If I could achieve that in my own work, I would count myself blessed. It's not about offering facts about historical figures; it's about getting at the reader's heart and making him stop, and struggle with the solemn humanity of those in the past.

Later, if anyone is interested, I might post some examples, both from the above-mentioned works and my own writing.

Completely off-topic:
First vocabulary word of the New Year!
Abrogate ~ To abolish, do away with, or annul, especially by authority