On Writing History Part 1: Weekly Writing Prompt

Writing History for Fact and Fiction: Part 1

Historic Downtown Austin! Some of these buildings are over 80 years old.
"No! Surely not! No one was alive then!"

Yesterday I met up with a friend of mine in Austin, Texas for a writing day.

I like one-on-one time with writing friends because we get to re-explore the passion we have for our works. We mostly used the time we had to throw ideas and obstacles at each other and see what all we came up with. My biggest problem I was facing was getting hung up on details in my Western, resolving side-plots in my Fantasy, and making sure my exposition and setting have a point in my Urban Fantasy.

My friend's major problem was not knowing how much history to include in her work as she was writing it. More specifically, she asked me for my opinion on focusing on the history at all as she was writing the first draft.

For most writers, engineering a fictional history, knowing about factual history, or altering the course of history are a huge part of world-building. At some point, all writers will have to deal with history. That's why today's post and writing prompt are all about how we deal with history as writers of fiction and non-fiction.

The Realities of History

Another dear friend of mine is currently undergoing the life-altering and mind-numbing procedure of the PhD track at Yale. She specializes in Early Modern England (what we usually refer to as much of the Eighteenth Century in a vastly oversimplified explanation). 

Last week she and I discussed the importance of the general public's acceptance that historians' work is still relevant and important because of how much we just don't know about the past. In our opinion, a swath of pop culture, mass culture, and the general public view history as a moot point, and thanks to networks like National Geographic and Discovery (no real slight intended) the 20% of what is actually known about history is often taken by the pop, mass, and general population as 100% of what is actually known, leading many to question the necessity and relevance of things like studying textiles and dyes--and their manufacture--in the Eighteenth Century. 

Because of how little is actually known about these things (and many others), it is vitally important to understand the history of certain things in order to perhaps enlighten our current understanding.  

Case Study: The History of Ancient Egypt

3,500 years ago, there were five major dynasties that characterized the historical (not religious) rule of what we call Ancient Egypt. Each of those dynasties were punctuated by Intermediate Periods in which dynastic rule by indigenous Egyptians was disrupted. This has contributed to a near-complete lack of understanding and standardized method of Egyptian mummification. Despite what many network television documentaries would lead us to believe, we still do not fully understand the Ancient Egyptian civilization. In the last ten years, we have seen major upheavals to what was accepted as common knowledge about that civilization--from the way we have been interpreting their language to their mortuary cults (to all the knights errant reading this, I actually didn't pull this one out of thin air--I researched Egyptian dynastic rulers while I was doing my "Oh My Ra!" Series on Dark Corners. I apologize for the lost pictures). 

Despite the Egyptian iconography, this mummy was in fact interred during the Greco-Roman
occupation of Egypt, as can be seen from the geometric design of the wrappings on the face.
A little history goes a long way.

There are a number of reasons and theories behind the sheer drought of knowledge we have on the Egyptian mortuary cults: 1) though written language was a thing in Ancient Egypt, it is possible that because of the industry of mortuary practices (see my blog post) it is likely that embalming techniques were passed down from master to apprentice, meaning much of it was never written out; 2) politics and economic class had a great deal to do with how embalming was being performed overall and how much the deceased family could afford to pay for your comfort in the afterlife; 3) because Intermediate Periods lasted upwards of several centuries, it's possible that many practices fell by the way side, and short lifespans meant that some masters of the mortuary practices took their skills with them to the grave.

In presenting what information we do have down pat to the general public, network documentaries often utilize the 80/20 rule: they use the 20% of our actual knowledge of the Egyptian Civilization to represent 80% of the story they are trying to tell--and all documentaries are telling a story, whether it's the story of the Battle of Gettysburg or the story of King Amenhotep. The difference between telling a fictional story for television and telling a historical story for television is one group of writers makes up the entire plot while the other set of writers condenses broad facts about a topic into interesting and engaging content that is easily digested in about an hour to answer an equally broad-spectrum question.

What we as writers want to know is how to use the 80/20 rule of history to our advantage.

The 80/20 Rule in World-Building

The 80/20 rule is perhaps the most time-saving and useful tool in any business, development, and writing work flow. In many cases, the most efficient use of time is making sure that you are using 20% of what you have (be it knowledge of history or Photoshop) to do 80% of your work. 

Building the history your world is as important as building economic structures, magic, science, and religion. However, as you wrote your outline, got your characters together, and named your cities, things like history might have been after thoughts. Writing fantasy, urban fantasy, and historical fiction, your world is based around magic, religion, science, politics, economics, etc. You might think history can be glossed over as a matter of un-importance.

However, in the known universe of mankind, religion, history, art, and science often go hand-in-hand, inseparable from each other, each being informed by the politics of the age and place, and each being acted upon by those in power or those owning wealth, each of those individuals a possible character in a larger world. Without knowing at least as much history as you need to begin writing, it will be impossible to write out events in an order that makes sense as you tell yourself the story in your first draft. Yet getting hung up on the details of that history could ruin your motivation to keep going, as your need to do research outweighs your need to put words down on paper.

Obviously there has to be some idea of how history is going to be played out, or how it has already played out, as you are writing. But how do we keep ourselves from being distracted when we should be, say, focusing on a truly epic shoot-out in Fort Stockton? How do we write the best first draft possible without stressing over whether or not your story is set in 1897 but you forgot about the railroad?

(No, no, I'm fine--really)

This is where the 80/20 rule comes into play. I'm writing a Western. I know that in 1897, people used horses as a mode of transportation in rural Texas. I know that the Colt revolver was a common weapon. I know that people rode railroad trains between far-flung towns. 

I know just enough about the Colt revolver to know that you pull back on the hammer to cock it, squeeze the trigger to fire it, and it does a lot of damage. I also know what that sounds like (I've done it). What I don't need is to constantly get hung up on who has what gun and which caliber. I can handle that in edits. What I need to focus on is who is firing at who and why.

I know just enough about the railroad in 1897 to describe a train and how it operated to write a train robbery scene. I do not need to get hung up on the description of the interior cabin, the way a steam engine works, and how to stop one; I can do that in edits. What I need to do now is focus on who is robbing the train and why that's important to my story.

You can take the 20% you've come up with, or the 20% that we have collectively in our archaeological record, and use that 20% to at least get through the first draft without derailing yourself on a historical spiral that could ultimately force you to give up entirely on the story or bore you off the subject.

The 80/20 Rule in Predetermined History

The 80/20 rule also works in world-building in edits if you find yourself wading through a lifetime of historical back story that you spent a lot of time on. Though Tolkien wrote an incredible amount of history for The Lord of the Rings, Peter Jackson didn't even come close to using all of it in the films. In many ways, Jackson's TLotR trilogy condensed a lot of Tolkien's best history and writing into digestible pieces that were relevant to the story, but didn't bore the viewer. Though not entirely true to the books, Jackson's films utilize the 80/20 rule by using 20% of Tolkien's written and documented history and timeline for Middle Earth to do 80% of the work of building the world in which Tolkien's characters fought and died. 

This works for known historical facts and factual places as well. Writers of historical fiction may gloss over contentious points of setting and history in order to advance plot simply because they know that most readers will too if presented with that much information. Writers of historical fiction may rely on a predetermined 20% of fact in their fiction to tell a compelling story without worrying about small details that would completely derail their story and bog it down. This is what makes bridging the gap between economic classes and upward mobility vastly more interesting in Pride and Prejudice than in North and South. 

With only 42 years of difference between their respective publication dates, P&P and N&S were both anti-romance stories involving dispassionate men of dubious character and the ladies of low-rank who married them. Where Jane Austen used wealth as a means to move plot and establish class to create conflict, Elizabeth Gaskill set her story in the heart of the Industrial Revolution, taking on the rise of cotton in Northern England and the prejudices people from the North and people from the South of England expressed for each other. The plot goes everywhere as Gaskill tries to balance her goals for the novel and present the cotton industry in it's true light. Both authors had different goals, but the reason Austen endures and Gaskill does not is that Gaskill had many slow spots that went off on tangents and distracted readers of the Twentieth Century. Austen's narrative was tight and to the point--as much as Regency fiction could be said to be.

Case Study: Vlad Dracula

Vlad the III or "Drakyula", which literally means "Son of the Dragon" after his father's epithet. Vlad II adopted "Drakul" during his war with Mehmed the II when he started the Order of the Dragon. That is why Bram Stoker chose Vlad's epithet, "Dracula", as the name of the character that would go on to be the most legendary vampire in the world.

When Vlad III (called Vlad the Impaler in our history books) took the throne of Wallachia in 1448, he was surrounded by enemies, aides, and allies. His closest ally was the weak-willed and weakly-connected lord of the Holy Roman Empire, Matthias Corvinus. His chief enemy was Mehmed III, ruler of the Ottoman Empire and the son of the ruler who had killed his father and older brother, and who now imprisoned his younger half-brother, Radu. And when Fred Saberhagen wrote A Sharpness on the Neck, he recalled everything he had read about Vlad and Radu's strained relationship as he described the two legendary vampires duking it out in a blood-fueled battle for vampiric supremacy during the French Revolution. 

Yet as he wrote the story, he also had to take into account how difficult it would be for a vampire, even in 1704, to traverse the social and political turmoil of revolutionary France. At the forefront of this undertaking is a character whose past life informs his decisions also informs his feelings towards his brother.   

When Bram Stoker wrote Dracula's monologue to Jonathan Harker at the beginning of Dracula, he laid the groundwork for Saberhagen's character--though even then, Stoker could only use the history available to him at the time, and this was limited both by distance and the fact that the Eastern Bloc had only been ceded to Europe from the Ottoman Empire a century-and-a-half before. That monologue is perhaps part of Stoker's best work, and it is the first and last time we hear the story of Vlad III from the vampire's own lips, as even Dracula admitted the rest is ancient history. 

Despite having a wealth of knowledge at his disposal, Saberhagen's real genius lay in making sure his characters came first, that history merely informed his story, making the reader desperate to learn more about this incredible character (even if he was sort of dubious in real life). The reader wants to keep reading! Despite having little information, Stoker managed to create one of fiction and history's most enduring and beloved characters.

That's the important thing: using history to build a rich world while not drowning your reader in it--or accomplishing 80% of your world-building with only the most relevant and useful 20% of the information at your disposal. 

Weekly Writing Prompt

Okay, seriously, is anyone else overwhelmingly comforted by this room?

This week we're talking about using a small amount of information to make as much of an impact as possible during drafting so that we can focus on getting words down on paper. Since this week's discussion is on history, I challenge everyone to a writing prompt on a piece of history or information that you have beginner or cursory knowledge of and use it to write a 2,000 word scene. It can be any historical event, (or fictional historical event), or involve any historical (or fictional historical) person, and your job is simply to write a scene. 

This is also one of the many ways Fan Fiction is a viable tool for exploring other built worlds and having to make sure all the essentials of that world are included to prove authenticity. However, this must also be balanced with plot and character to keep new readers interested without bogging the piece down in details of the world. Remember, 2,000 words is the challenge, and every word counts!

Do not bother doing more research on your topic. Simply write what you know. In this case, writing what you know is absolutely acceptable because in many cases too much detail will be glossed over or cut, and copious research will result in no or few words being written during the most crucial phase: first drafting. 

Try not to pick something off the top of your head that you might know about. Choose a history, subject, or person, or fictional historical past of a world that you are reasonably familiar with, enough to write to the subject without worrying about further research, or making sure every single detail is absolutely perfect.

We would love to see what everyone came up with this week! Since this is just an exercise, we very much encourage you to share your piece with all of us! We think it would be fun to see how far each of us got on just a smattering of knowledge. 

Features

As always, mention that you are interested in having your piece featured in the comments section below or on this week's Writing Prompt Facebook post. An admin will respond to you within one day, and we'll send you a message via DM or email so you can submit your piece for feature. 

Next 

Next week we'll look at part 2 of writing history: delivery of historical information in your writing.

Writers Away!

Weekly Prompt: The Ninth Day of the Month

The egg is what color again?!

Good Wednesday morning! Today's weekly prompt--and we apologize for the delay--falls upon that auspicious of monthly events that emphasizes the near-deadly importance of having a routine, which is why I've decided to start out our weekly prompts on The Ninth day of the Month!

On Gormenghast

As Secretary Barquentine stood on a raised portion of floor in the banquet hall of the castle of Groan, a few menial servants prepared a lavish breakfast for the Earl of Groan, including an array of colored eggs. As it was the Ninth Day of the Month, Barquentine rudely chastised a servant for serving a red egg, screaming "The Ninth, didn't I say it was the Ninth! The egg should be blue--not red!"

In the allegorical novels of Gormenghast, author Mervyn Peake suggested the strict adherence to decadent and outdated rituals was a large part of what lead to the near disaster of the family of Groan. Protected, comfortable, and slowly rotting away in their castle, the family Groan found itself vulnerable and apathetic to a rising threat: the ambitious kitchen boy, Steerpike. If the Groan family represented stagnation, then Steerpike occupied the extreme opposite side of the spectrum, that of change. Though we see the machinations of both aspects represented in militant protection in Lady Groan and complete upheaval in Steerpike, we're also presented with a foil for both, a force that represents both change and respect for the old ways. Titus Groan is Peake's balancing force. Both the son of an Earl and gifted with the strength of youth and Nature, Titus represents all the good that can come of change.

Steerpike and Titus' desire for the destruction of the mores of Gormenghast came equally from a hatred rooted in a system that oppressed them. Steerpike desired more power for a boy born for the kitchens, where Titus wanted more freedom for a boy born of the Stones who dreamed of the Woods. However, Steerpike loved nothing a no one except himself. Titus, on the other hand, loved his family and the place he came from, discovering perhaps too late that though he may not have been meant for the Stones, he could not deny his birthright. Peake challenges stagnation and decadence, but reminds his readers that chaos is no worthy substitute for law.

On Balance

Peake's main focus in Gormenghast was warning contemporary civilization that identity and self-preservation are hard to achieve in a homogeneous society with a strict structure. As players in a very grand stageplay called Mass Culture, it is difficult to walk that fine line between individuation and homogenization. We're homogenized in the way we interact with our co-workers, how we interact with service people, and how we interact as consumers. We actively exist within a culture that punishes individuation. Artists of all kinds struggle on a daily basis to balance our natural tendency towards extreme individuation with the need to survive in a mass society.

There is no finer example of the struggle between balancing entropy and chaos than being a writer. As writers, we too often feel forced to adhere to some form of acceptable structure. There is a vast world of difference between how our art works and how it is interpreted by the wider society: "Sure must be nice to be a writer, never having  to worry about working." "How does your husband/wife feel about you spending all your time playing make believe?" "That's nice, but what are you going to do for money?" Writers are often society's whipping post, but then you would never believe how many people are writers. In 2008, Texas poet laureate and Chair of the Humanities at UTSA, Wendy Barker, once complained that her dentist was an aspiring writer, and asked her to help him with his novel while he had his hands in her mouth. 

As writers, we are always searching for balance. We're constantly searching for ways to balance our life in the wider world with the ones we create for ourselves. We are like dirt farmers, scratching at red clay, trying to coax not only words out of our stubborn brains, but also time. Unlike the stereotypical tea-drinking part-time home maker sitting her writing nook under diffuse light, many of us are totally employed, working full-time even. We're parents. We're juggling a thousand different tasks, and somehow, through all of it, no one seems interested in granting us a meager hour to an hour and a half at night or during the day in which to practice our art.

The wider world feels entitled to our time not just because we are workers and parents, but because we are writers, the invisible artists. We do not have canvas and paints strewn about our elaborate work rooms. We are not covered in grease and clay from hours in our shop. There is not sawdust in our hair. At 33 years old, it still amazes me how upsetting it is when I demand a quiet corner of the house for an hour of uninterrupted writing time, how selfish I sound when I take myself off to Starbucks to make an ounce of progress, how unimaginably unthinkable it is to demand that my spouse please take his very loud phone back out into the living room so I can think. We're not asking for secret laboratories and inviolate thinking spaces. I just need this desk, in the bedroom, in a corner, and a couple hours of quiet.

This is where routine comes in. 

Unlike other artists, where their space might be respected because their materials hold physical value, we have to chip our time and space out of the bare rock. Because our art does not hold physical value until assigned a physical value by a third party (publisher, agent, etc), we have a harder time than most artists justifying and validating the worth of our time as artists. Your job as a writer is to keep demanding that space and time. You sound selfish--art is selfish, but demand it anyway. Demand to be given the right to make your art, to tell yourself amazing stories, and to push boundaries. 

My routine since I've been out of work has been to sit down at my computer in my room for at least an hour or until I hit 1,000 words of progress. Sometimes I do 1,000 words in an hour. Sometimes I do well just to get through the hour. I know that if I do not do this, I will feel guilty for neglecting my piece until later in the day. This makes me antsy and unfocused. My brain, my artists child, having been denied the time I have to practice my ultimate freedom, becomes restless and unproductive. Having a routine that caters equally to the time you spend on your art as you do on work and children strengthens confidence and makes those walls you have put up around your individual self a little stronger every day. 

Your routine might vary. Some routines will spend a few minutes every day planning and plotting. This is fantastic because you have given yourself the ability to get the most out of the time you spend actually writing when you sit down to it. Some routines will have you writing late into the night, or very early in the morning. The point is deciding what works best for you and then becoming non-negotiable. I'm not advocating abandoning your family or your work. Establishing a good working routine will take time. You will have time adjusting to it. Your family and friends will have a hard time adjusting to it. However, in my experience, this is a short learning curve. You will soon discover that your friends and loved ones will share your dedication to your art and to yourself. 

As writers, we're not asking society to tear down the walls of the establishment so that we can become Hemmingway in front of a keyboard with whiskey plumbing the depths of our souls. We are not Steerpike. Yet neither are we content to just sit back and let the world deprive us of our individual ability to be distinct among our peers. We are not Lady Groan. We are demanding to be ourselves in a world that may not understand, but that also doesn't need to understand. We are Titus Groan. We're in tune with ourselves, our true Nature, and we're demanding to be allowed that time and space to act according to that Nature.

Weekly Prompt

What a nice little nook! Wish I wrote here!

Establishing a routine is about change, so let's change it up a little! Change is disruptive! It's full of its own problems, miscommunications, misconceptions, and adjustments! Imagine how one of your favorite characters would feel if they suddenly found themselves transplanted out of their known universe and into another!

This week, this Wednesday the 9th through next Wednesday, write a story in which a character suddenly finds himself or herself in another universe! This can be anything! A favorite character from a book or television series, or one of your own characters, must traverse--or hide!--in a world that is not their own! Personalities will collide! And in many cases, the effects will be hilarious!

As always, the point is to produce a piece that probably won't be seen or judged by anyone. This is purely for amusement. This week, practice focusing on the story and less about how others will think of the story. As we search for balance and abundance, try to imagine what it would be like to write if you were not worried about what anyone else would think of it! For the moment, focus on the fun of watching Dr. Strange walk into Moe's Tavern and sit next to Homer Simpson! What would they talk about? How does the place look? Does Dr. Strange look like a character in the show, or do the characters look realistic and human?

We're happy to share your reasonably polished work without judgement, critique, or editing here on Write Away as long as it is 2,000 words or less! If you're interested, drop us a comment on this posts' link on Facebook and we'll send you the email of an admin!

Not a member of our Facebook group? Join us here!

Writers, away!