In Fiction, Write about them as unusual; or give people what they expect.

Everybody expects unusual characteristics in their prominent fictional characters (protagonist, antagonist, mentors, sidekicks, minions, love interest, etc).

My protagonist almost always has some unusual mental or physical ability; much of the story is coming to grips with that. Think "Good Will Hunting", Luke Skywalker, even Han Solo. So it would not suspend disbelief if, say, the love interest of your MC is a white Iranian; and the novelty of that is mentioned, perhaps as part of the attraction. And perhaps other Iranians are prejudiced against whites.

Nobody demands strict historical accuracy in historical fiction; they know the characters and personal parts of the setting are made up, and often the prominent characters are "fish out of water", thinking thoughts ahead of their time, even with morals ahead of their time, (intentionally on the author's part so readers can relate to them better).

That said, if the truth ruins your story, tie it up, gag it and stuff it in a mental closet. Fiction is not the place to push uncomfortable truths; leave that to professors in classrooms or non-fiction end-notes, if a publisher will allow them.

Fiction is for entertainment. If you think something actually factual will break suspension of disbelief for more than, say, 15% of your audience, don't include it. That is what is meant by the advice, "Kill Your Darlings." Don't include something you personally love even when you are pretty sure it will diminish or break the reading reverie. When they say readers like surprises, they mean plot surprises within the reading reverie about character pasts, motives, or actions. In Star Wars, the double surprise of Vader saying "I am your father," immediately followed by Luke intentionally letting go to (apparently) fall to his death (but to be rescued). A lot of "Holy crap!" moments, not "How ridiculous..." moments.

For the type of things you are talking about, the only context in which those become interesting and cool is one in which the reader believes they are reading (hearing, seeing) something absolutely true that will not lie to them, a non-fiction book. A professor in an anthropology class. A documentary film. A scientific paper, or report of a discovery in Science News or New Scientist.

Only in fiction does a reader suspend a certain amount of disbelief, so only in fiction must you be careful not to break it. Typically the way this "contract" works is that the author will quickly reveal (in the first 5% to 15% of the story, aka first half of Act I), in strong hints or in full, all the crazy things needed in the story. If there is magic, it must be shown there. Not every possible kind of magic, but impressive magic.

If you have Caucasians in fifth century Iran, show them. If you have Byzantine forks, show them being used, five story buildings, show them being used.

However, I'd guess there is a 90% chance you don't need to show any of these things at all: You shouldn't include a risk of suspension of disbelief unless it is crucial to the plot of your story or to character development. (In most stories what is unique or highly unusual about prominent characters is necessary, they need to stand out in the reader's mind).

It is your responsibility to leave out any widespread divergence from what readers believe is the true history, whether that divergence is factual or not. The point here is not to educate but to entertain, and asking people to believe something they feel certain is untrue is not entertaining them.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Amadeus‭

3166 reputation 2 1399 614 37

One of the joys in fiction is learning new things. For many readers of historical fiction, learning new details -- even contrary to their own expectation -- is a lot of the fun.

So you can definitely use these elements, and expect them to count in your favor. To make that work, you need to make it clear that your details are deliberate, not mistakes. Don't let them feel "Ha, what a moron"; instead, you need to couch it as "Hey, let me explain this to you."

A good way to do that is to supply not only the detail, but also some background:

• Don't just mention that some of the Persians are white-skinned -- use their own words for those people; say where they're from; note how skin color is or isn't a factor for them.
• When you bring in higher-reaching architecture, mention who built it, what it's for, who can allow themselves these impressive buildings.
• Don't just name-drop forks -- mention what table-manners and customs and utensils are in use in that place and time; offer an opinion on what is or isn't polite.

If you're making a counter-claim against your reader's expectations, than adding the detail and context I'm describing makes your counter-claim stronger. It works on several levels.

• Firstly, it signals to the reader: I have given this thought. This is not an absent-minded mistake. You avoid even the quick impression of having made an error.
• Secondly, it helps tell the reader, "Listen, here's how this makes sense here; here's where it actually comes from." They can read that and go, hey, that actually does make sense. That can help them reorient themselves -- now that they realize this setting looks different than they expected, your description helps them understand better what how does look and operate.
• And thirdly, it gives your counter-claim more substance that your readers can actually check -- they can look up the names and architecture and customs, even if it's just a quick Google to see if that's really a thing.

There are certainly other ways to weave these details in as well -- but this one seems to me the most straightforward, and an excellent place to start from.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Standback‭

680 reputation 38 269 122 1

I feel for you. I write about the Anglo-Saxon period in England and I am careful to portray my characters living and working in huts and wooden halls and guarding their villages with wooden palisades. No matter. My readers conjure up castles out of thin air.

Of course, this is how fiction works -- how all of languages works, really. We can paint a very large and detailed picture with a few words by pulling images out of the reader's head. If the images are not there already, it is very hard to force them in. And if the reader has associations with a word, a time, a setting, an implement, or a title, it is very hard to break that association.

In my case I suspect that any scene or implement that suggest medieval times to my readers, a sword, a horse, etc, brings a whole cascade of medieval associations flooding in, with castles mixed in there willy nilly. The reader ends up convinced that they have already seen a castle in the story when there never was one.

I think to a certain extent you can combat this with description. But to the extent that this succeeds, the reader will be aware of the dissonance between their stock of images and the image you are presenting. The question then is, which is more authoritative to them, the images in their head, or the words in your text.

If you can make your writing authoritative enough -- if they believe the portrait you are painting -- perhaps they will adjust the images they have in their heads. If not, they are more likely to believe the the images in their head are correct and you are the one committing anachronism.

But I don't think you are ever going to win at this game entirely. A certain portion of your readers will still see huts in Rome. A certain portion of mine will still see castles in an 8th century Northumbrian village.

They key thing, I believe, is to make your writing as authoritative as possible, but not to go so far in trying to convince the inconvincible that you ruin the story for the readers who are ready for what you are writing.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 4.0

Mark Baker‭

4381 reputation 12 1104 745 58

It might depend on the genre and style you are writing in, but from your description it seems you are mostly interested in more realistic historical fiction. If that's the case, there is nothing wrong with trying to be historically accurate. Knowingly putting in anachronistic elements just because you assume the readers expect it might get counterproductive, especially as interest seems to be gaining for more historically accurate fiction.

If you write light-hearted comical fantasy, then you can get away with lots of anachronisms, but many historical misconceptions get more and more known, so over time such unrealistic elements might move from the norm into parodies.

So, what methods can you use to present historically accurate but generally misunderstood elements?

1 Addressing the reader

This will only work if done in very strict moderation, and is best suited for social norms and behaviors. Alexandre Dumas used it with great finesse, when one of his characters did something which was considered normal for that historical period, but the reader would find shocking if done today (or in the author's era), the narrator mentioned in a few words that times and social norms were different back then. To make it even more subtle, you can describe the actions of a character, and then you can present the other characters around acting normal, not finding it strange at all.

2 The Watson

Have a character who is either clueless, or from a different culture, so you can explain things from within the setting. Of course, it has to be done in moderation, but it can work very well if it's not overdone. Make this clueless character have the same misconceptions about the setting as you would expect the average reader to have, so the misconceptions can be debunked by that character actually encountering "the real thing". Of course, you shouldn't make that character a strawman or too unsympathetic, because you might insult the readers by making them think you hold them stupid.

Using one of your examples about Roman apartment blocks. Have someone from a foreign culture visit Rome, while talking to his Roman friend, and as they walk around they encounter some insulae. The foreigner is surprised, and tells his friend that he thought Romans lived in one or two storied mansions with an atrium in the middle, with a fountain surrounded by pillars, just like he has seen it on paintings and heard it in stories. The local then mentions, that only the rich live in houses like that, the poor live in crammed five-floor apartment blocks.

3 Details.

If you mention a realistic (but not well known) fact only in passing, the reader might think you just slipped up.

If you instead make it an integral part of the story, describe it in more detail, make it fit into the setting, and show how it works, then the reader can get a feeling that it must be normal.

If you give enough importance and enough detail to it, you won't need the narrator or another character explaining it, it will look self-evident.

For example, there is the widespread myth that medieval swords were extremely heavy and completely dull bludgeoning tools, and you could cleave through plate armor by using the sword's weight to crush the armor. What to do in this case? Show, don't tell. If swords are drawn, it is an action scene. Don't stop the action for the narrator to start giving an academic lecture about HEMA, just show how the characters use the sword and the armor. Show how the fighter handles his well balanced blade with swift motions, how quickly he parries attacks aimed at his most vulnerable spots, show how someone slips up by hitting the armor with the edge of the sword which just bounces off without even inconveniencing his opponent while throwing himself off balance, and then finally show the elaborate techniques master swordsmen used to make a stab at the hard to reach vulnerable spots of an armor.

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

vsz‭

25 reputation 0 3 5 0

You're in luck. People tend to believe self-consistent and emotionally satisfying stories over facts! So you have nothing to worry about. Apart from writing a good story, which of course is the hard part... Ask any scientist about how hard it is to spread scientific findings in the presence of an alternative but objectively wrong narrative (e.g. vaccines, homeopathy etc).

On a personal note, after reading historical fiction I often notice how almost all my pre-story notions have been supplanted by the images of the book! To the extent that I really hope that the author has done their research properly...

posted over 6 years ago

CC BY-SA 3.0

user2705196‭

5 reputation 0 1 1 0