just when you thought it was safe to go into the water ~

[lookingland]

after running amuck last night like richard the 3rd after a horse not forthcoming, i've decided that i should never post my disgust for my work until i've had a full 24 hours to be disgusted with it. not because in 24 hours i'll have some perspective and find it less disgusting, but because in 24 hours i'll have some perspective to do other than snark and snarl and writhe around on the floor like a stapled maggot (okay, i dinna do that, but it felt like it).

however much a piece of writing may suck, it's never so bad that you can't learn an important thing or two from it.

in this case i learned that ever since i made the Darkesville Independents an irregular infantry regiment, i've sorta lost a sense of where they are in the order of battle and this has created monumental confusion and a lot of pussy-footing around that drags the action into a weird passive vortex.

see, one of the problems with historical fiction is that you have to ask yourself how much you're going to care about people who are poised to eviscerate your work because you've tampered with some piece of well-documented history (like a battle). i myself am pretty sensitive to wholesale history rewriting, but if you've got an invented regiment in an actual battle, you have to shoehorn them in somewhere (and preferably somewhere that they don't muck with the integrity of the original action). basically, you have to find something thrilling they can get embroiled in without it actually having any impact whatsoever on the larger scale.

that's not as easy as it sounds.

the good news is, knowing the problem, i think i can get around it.

i think.

~ * ~
meanwhile, here's some truffles for the 50bookchallenge, both by ernest thompson seton (who was a pretty well-known naturalist at the turn of the century):

no. 22 ~ The Biography of a Silver-Fox; or, Domino Reynard of Goldur Town. this one tells the life story of a fox and his family, his hunting and dodging exploits, and his adversarial relationship with a nasty hound named Hekla. it was a fun read, though felt a wee bit repetetive (he steals chickens, people chase him, he gets away). there are a few surprises though, so it was a good read. dunno whether i think seton knew all he could have known about the nature of foxes. some of the stuff in here strikes me as "off". i like how his animals otherwise behave like animals (no talking or being human-like in any way).

no. 23 ~ The Trail of the Sandhill Stag. simple premise: man goes into the woods to hunt a stag, gets dazzled by it and spends the rest of his life pursuing it and never catching it, though he has the opportunity to. i liked the simplicity of the plot in this one. it's really just a long short story with a lot of interesting woodsy descriptions. i still prefer felix salten, but this was cool.

i came across these books browsing in the library. these editions were from 1909 and 1899 respectively, so the books themselves were wonderfully crafted and illustrated. that was most of the joy. i found them because seton wrote a book called The Preacher of Cedar Mountain and i was investigating which mountain precisely (turned out to be not the one i wanted). anyway, it's always fun to come across something new and different.

i'm currently still reading Strong's Cadet Life at West Point (insert long depressing ramble that i've twice typed up for lj and then deleted), and a history of Castle Thunder (oh wow, i'm going to enjoy writing the review of that one far too much). last night i mostly read the Krick book (for the second time, though i got tired around about the time reinforcements arrived with A.P Hill, so i went to bed). i'm pretty sure i meant to read more fiction. i have to work on that.

: o p

Comments

[utter-scoundrel.livejournal.com]

You have TOO much respect for history when it comes to writing historical fiction.


That may be one of the most laughable things I've ever written.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

hahahahahahahaha ~

: D

it just occurred to me as well that i am amongst the poised, waiting to eviscerate. (oh the irony).

[utter-scoundrel.livejournal.com]

Seriously though, speaking only for myself, whenever I read a story or book set during a period of history I'm familiar with (and I'm speaking of non-Doctor Who ones of course), I generally don't mind if an author fudges the historical facts slightly to tell a good story.

I'm trying to rack my brains of an instance where an author grossly distorted historical fact just to tell a story, but I can't recall. I know it's happened, though...

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

i think i am willing to be forgiving if the story is so good you can get past the history-bending. especially if it's just minor stuff (as opposed to entering the "alternate" history realms).

of course i have no biases at all concerning stories about time periods i know absolutely nothing about ~ hahahahaha.

so bad.

: D

Yeah.

[(Anonymous)]

What Utter Scoundrel said.

I agree with you this is NOT the same as alternative history (which I don't like).

I've seen books that have a kind of disclaimer that states clearly that thus and so is fictional and inserted into real events. As a reader that's just fine with me as long as the Big Picture of the event remains mostly in tact (and as you said it's much harder than it seems). I like the author stating this up front.

I believe you can do this. :-)

And may I just say a maggot stapled to the floor beats the heck out of a strung mealworm --I'm sure Stephen is bowing too. heh.

moo

Re: Yeah.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

so for example, i could include a note saying that george washington howland was the west point goat, class of 1848, but since no one's ever heard of him, i couldn't resist the temptation to put james huntington in his place.

part of me says: yeah, go for it. the other part of me says poor howland ~ that may well be his only distinction.

it's always especially a conundrum when you have a roster list, black and white, right in front of you ~ hahahahaha.

: D

Re: Yeah.

[(Anonymous)]

hmmm ...maybe you could do a little research on Howland and include a nice little blurb about him before you say you subbed James for him.

Seems to me if you want to write fictional accounts of real happenings you have to be willing to slide some peeps out of the way.

Oh and maybe put that roster away in a drawer. hahahaha

Maybe you should do one of your polls and find out how others feel about it ...

:-)

m.

P.S. I'm assuming there's a reason James can't be added without removing Howland

Re: Yeah.

[lookingland.livejournal.com]

hahahahaha ~

yeah, i can't move howland without saying something about it somewhere because there can only be one goat and howland was it in 1848.

(quietly puts the roster in the drawer).

: D

it's all good ~ i'm still potentially considering making the instructors pass james out of spite knowing he'd prefer to be the goat. that's amusing (and telling) in its own way perhaps.