Well-Researched Fiction

As a librarian, I appreciate a good bout of research. Research is awesome. It's basically what my job revolves around. (People think it's the books, but really it's all about the research.)

So I get really excited when I discover that someone did a ton of research in order to write a novel, which is fiction. It gives the fiction a little more real-world weight, like it's more likely to actually happen, or it's more likely that it really did happen that way or could have happened that way.

Jean M. Auel is known for the crazy amounts of research that goes into her Earth's Children series. She studies the details of everything we could possibly know or guess about early humans. Food, hunting, social systems, medicine, hygiene, sexual habits, art, story-telling, travel patterns, sleep habits, furniture and tools... absolutely every detail that goes into her books, she researched until she found an answer or could make the best possible guess.

Any good author of fiction or non-fiction does research. If I were writing a novel set today, about a topic I know plenty about, but it took place in Mexico, I would need to do research, because I've never been to Mexico. Historical fiction requires knowing about the context of the time and place you're setting the story in. Science fiction, if you want it to be realistic at all, needs to be informed by current research.

     

Which brings me to the tie-in to this week's book. Daniel Wilson, author of Robopocalypse and Robogenesis, has a PhD in Robotics from Carnegie Mellon University and a Masters in Artificial Intelligence and Robotics. In other words, he clearly decided to write what he knew. If you want a more immersive experience with these books, finish reading them and then go look into the current research on AI and robotics. You will run back home and start lining the walls with foil and ordering giant electromagnets on Amazon in hopes that you can fight the robots with them at some point. In other words, the events of these books may seem far-fetched... until you realize that they aren't.

What Makes it Historical and Not Fiction

This week, Salem, MA comes up a lot in our book (which is being released on SEPTEMBER 2!!  So you're getting an early review of this book!!!!)  And, while our book this week isn't technically historical fiction, it does kind of have that feel and talk a lot about the Salem witch trials.

So what is that fine lines between a historical book and a historical fiction book?

A really good example of historical fiction is Phillipa Gregory.  She writes nothing but historical fiction.  Probably one of her most famous is The Other Boleyn Girl.  We've also reviewed The Queen's Fool.

These books are all based on historical events, mostly the Tudor family.  Elizabeth the first (appearing in The Queen's Fool) and Mary and Anne Boleyn, along with Henry VIII, who were in The Other Boleyn Girl, were all real people.  And a lot of the characters they portrayed in these books were accurate.  The Boleyn sisters were very prominent and lovers of Henry VIII.  Anne Boleyn did eventually become his wife.  Gregory did a lot of research about the time period and their lives and incorporated all of that into her books.

However, the relationship that Mary has with Anne is entirely fabricated by Gregory (might have existed, no one really knows.)  She created the conversations, the situations, all of the non-major events (and even some of the major ones.)  The books are, largely, fictional ones and should be treated as such, despite the fact that they're based on people that actually existed.

This book is called Elizabeth: The Struggle for the Throne by David Starkey.  It's a non-fiction book (a very good one at that) all about how Elizabeth I grew up.  It tells about how she was continually disowned and then readopted by her father.  She was in his favor and then dismissed, depending on his wife and his mood.  One second she was an heir to the throne and then the next second she wasn't.

Starkey tells us all about Elizabeth's life up until she claims the throne of England on Nov. 17, 1533 (PS I didn't even have to look that up.)  He tells us a story, just like Gregory does, the difference is, his story is nothing but fact.  There are footnotes and end notes telling us exactly where his information comes from.  He tells us when he's speculating and that it might be true, and it might not be true, but that there's no real way to tell, XYZ are just the reasons he thinks they are.

At the end of the day, the biggest difference between between the two genre is the, well, fiction.  Starkey can't tell us anything but the true, while Gregory is allowed a little more embellishment.  But, they both tell a good story.

Review Me Twice: Once by Morris Gleitzman

I know people say you shouldn't judge a book by its cover, but those people aren't giving cover designers enough credit. Almost everything you need to know about this very short book is there on that cover. The Star of David and the color scheme and the barbed wire all point to "Holocaust literature!" The little kid doing a balancing act on the barbed wire (excellent visual metaphor, by the way) indicates that we're going to be dealing with child characters. What more do you need to know, really?

I liked this book. I didn't love it, I'm not incredibly compelled to pick up the sequels (Then, After, and Now) but if I happen to see all of them on the shelf at the library at once (ha... once) I might check them out. (Only because they're so short - they're intended for young teens, after all - I could plow through all of them in a day, easily.)

Let's be honest for a second... I usually cry at Holocaust novels. There's a lot to cry about. A lot of really terrible things happened during that period of history, and I think most of them are worth shedding a tear over. This book did not move me to tears. But I don't have a personal connection with children; maybe if I were more maternal, I would have felt differently about the characters. I did think a lot of things were sad, or poignant, or even funny (sure, it's sad that a little boy growing up during WWII doesn't really understand what Hitler is all about, but it allows him to make comments that are a little funny, in hindsight).

So, I don't super highly recommend this one, but if you're looking for a short book from a child's point of view during WWII... you have a weirdly specific wishlist, but this would perfectly fulfill your request.

Holy unreliable narrator, Batman.  Less so for the reader because it's incredibly obvious to us what's going to as opposed to the main character who is, sadly, hopelessly clueless.  

And it is a nice coming of age story, and different than some, because it is so brutal.  Usually coming of age is in a nice little package, some heartbreak happens, but nothing that the main character can't recover from.  Felix gets thrown into a horrific situation and everyone is dying.  His parents could or couldn't be dead, the first child he meets outside of the orphanage, he recovers her from parents that have been shot in the head. He grows up and learns about the war in a quick and violent way that you just can't quite ever go back from.

But, it wasn't a GREAT book.  Of the holocaust literature I've read, it didn't exactly hit me in gut like a lot of it does and I think a big part of that was BECAUSE Felix was so clueless.  Because we saw it from his view it was very naive, very stilted, very... simple.

So, a good book, but not fabulous.


ANNNNDDD, last day to enter our If I Stay signed book giveaway contest!

Favorite Patriotic Book

In honor of tomorrow being Independence Day here in the States, we're choosing our favorite patriotic books!

There is a (very large) series of books called Dear America. They are fictional diaries of kids from different backgrounds in different circumstances throughout American history. I'm 99% certain I read every single one that had been published when I was in middle school. The series originally was all girls, and then they added boys as well.

Don't get me wrong... I love these books, but it's more about nostalgia than good writing. If you've ever read the American Girl books (my second choice for this post) you know what I'm talking about. They all have the same general story line: there's usually at least one sibling, a love interest (usually reluctantly accepted... these girls aren't particularly swoony), and they usually have to help their family in some way (working in a shop, watching the kids, looking after their parents' health, etc). They're all early teenagers, because the books' target audience of middle schoolers.

The few that particularly stand out in my memory are the girls on the Oregon Trail, on the transcontinental railroad in the Utah territory, on the Titanic, on the Mayflower, at the Alamo, and my favorite: Zipporah, a Jewish immigrant in NYC at the turn of the 20th century.

Despite what I said about them not being great writing, I would highly recommend these to any kids, particularly those who like history.

My favorite patriotic book has actually been featured on this blog before, as Alex's favorite LGBT book.

It's David Levithan, so we already know it's going to be brilliant.  While the book is really more about tolerance and how to handle changes, I kind of feel that isn't that what independence is all about anyhow? 

It does get into some of the basics of American rights: presidential elections, the will of the people, kids who are supportive of their government, campaigning, all that jazz.  But really, the bigger picture, is that this is America, and in America we should respect people's right to be who they want to be (as long as they're not harming anyone else in the process.)

By Its Cover - The Queen's Fool

Of all of Gregory's covers, I think that this is the most eye catching.  It's colorful, and glitters with gold and I think is perfect for the book.  Tudor England was all about extravagance and this portrays that. (All the gold color on that dress is actually gold foil on the book.)

We assume that the girl on the cover is Hannah the Fool (or maybe Elizabeth.  The girl is wearing Tudor green), but really, there's no way to know.  I think it's just supposed to be a generic girl to show off the gowns and gold of the time.  I think it's a pretty cover on top of everything else.

Basically, I think that it fits the book well and it's eye catching.

I didn't pay much attention to the cover before I started reading, because I had to get the large print version from my library (the other was in high demand) and that has a small version of the above art on a mostly white cover.

I do think it's quite pretty, and if I were looking for a book about Tudor England, I would probably be drawn to it.

There isn't much going on, overtly, in the picture, but that would be the case with most scenes in the book, too, as with things that happened at court. Everything is covert and subtle and perfectly bland to the untrained eye. Look at the woman's posture... she could be concerned for her safety, anticipating the arrival of someone she either does or does not want to see, waiting for someone to catch up to her... the possibilities are endless. This is a Mona Lisa situation... is she smiling or isn't she? It's up to you, the audience.

Review Me Twice - The Queen's Fool by Philippa Gregory

I came upon Gregory's books in high school.  This very book, in fact.  I wanted to read it so badly that a friend and I went halfsies on a copy and then traded off reading it.

So, my opinion of this book might be a little tainted because, well, I love Tudor England.  And it has to be a REALLY terrible book for me to not like it, even a little.

And Gregory does a better job than most. By using Hannah as our protagonist, we get to see things from an outside view.  She was a person who loved both Mary and Elizabeth equally, because they were both great women in their own right, which sometimes gets lost when reading about history.  (A lot of times, Mary gets painted as the nasty, old queen who hated everyone.)

I also like that you didn't get JUST Tudor England history in this book.  You got a lot of Spanish history too, mainly because Hannah had spent her life running from the inquisition.

I admit, there are probably parts where it's a little corny, but I can forgive that.  The writing is well done, Gregory has really done her research and it's just an enjoyable read.

My Bottom Line 5 out of 5

For all that Cassy (and others) praised this book, I couldn't help but shake the feeling that it was going to be long-winded and dry and all about the appalling intrigue found at court. Well, there is a lot about the English court, but the other parts weren't true. It's a fun and easy read, and there is enough going on to keep you interested, but not so much that you get confused.

Sometimes I'm not entirely sure about the character of Hannah. She waffles on things (I don't ever want a husband, but I love this guy, but I'm not ready to be a wife, but this guy isn't so bad, but...) but I think that's a fair reflection of a teenage girl's mind, so I can believe it was by design, not bad writing.

I really enjoyed this book, even though I thought it would fall more along the lines of "okay."

Historical Fiction / Alternate History

Historical fiction is a great combination of history and fiction. The author uses history as inspiration, and fills in the gaps and details with fiction (aka made-up stuff).

Historical fiction must follow three basic rules, and authors of historical fiction are expected to do thorough research in order to follow them:

Plausibility. While you're reading the story, you should believe that it could have actually happened that way. Historical fiction is not the place for King James to traverse the Atlantic on the back of a Kraken to feed the starving colonists because he psychically connected with one of them during a dream.

Authentic setting & characters. This ties closely to plausibility. If you're inventing characters and dropping them into history, they need to fit in, to a certain degree. You don't put Cleopatra in a discotheque, or Disco Stu in 14th century Parliament, if you're writing historical fiction.

Accurate timeline. Historical fiction authors aren't The Doctor. They have to follow events as they happened in history (with a little wiggle room for artistic license). Historical fiction doesn't allow the Titanic to sink in the 1930s or for the Conestoga wagon to be invented fifty years early.

So, what if you want to break the rules (like this bad-ass bird)? Then you can write alternate history. That's historical fiction that breaks the above rules. You want Hitler to have a pet dilophosaurus that ultimately turns on him and eats his face? Alternate history. Your pierced, tattooed, punk-rock chick pops up in antebellum Georgia to kick slaveowner butt? Alternate history. John Lennon becomes president of the USA (somehow)? Alternate history.

 

The existence of time travel as a plot device makes alternate history easier for some authors. If you have a time machine, you can go back and change something that we know to have happened, thus allowing you to change whatever stemmed from that now-changed event. Sometimes, alternate history uses the "many-worlds" theory to explain its existence. Sure, in your world, Atlantis disappeared, but in this world, it never disappeared. But it isn't necessary to embrace the many-worlds theory or the existence of time travel or any other devices. Lots of alternate history authors just make their audience suck it up and deal with the fact that this history is different from the one you know.

To recap: Historical fiction is more history, while alternate history is more fiction.

      

Historical Fiction: could be true, like The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood, The Three Musketeers by Alexandre Dumas, and I, Claudius by Robert Graves.

      

Alternate History: all the artistic license you want, like the Leviathan series by Scott Westerfeld (where "Darwinist" beasties and "Clanker" mecha assist the two sides of WWI), The Man in the High Castle by Philip K. Dick (where Germany and Japan won WWII), or Making History by Stephen Fry (where a time machine exists and Hitler was never born).