Hello everyone! Actually, I'm not new to writing. I'm working on my third novel, and I write blogs regularly. But I am new to this forum. I'm primarily looking for beta readers interested in historical fiction. I always reciprocate, but don't read erotica. I'm not really an active forum person. I'll contribute from time to time, but I work so many hours it's hard to allow myself leisure. My little brain says, "shouldn't you be doing something productive?" And that's usually enough to send me back to "real work." But I am trying. And if you contact me I will respond quickly. Hope to interact with y'all soon.
Welcome, I like historical fictions. I hope you will write new A Song of Ice and Fire book. Good luck with your novel!
It draws me attention, since I have some ideas for an historical themed tale too, as some sort of prequel for another tales I wrote, but get kinda scared for the requirements of the setup to use. Also, there's the issue of how much history you can put into a novel until it transforms into a dreadful schoolbook-encyclopaedia, issue that terrifies me, really. I would like to see a deployment onto this to gain some of experience, and enjoy some style. Be well.
In my opinion history doesn't sell without a popular culture movement behind it. For example, your novel would do best if it coincided with a national or worldwide event that a lot of people were interested in, and in which large amounts of money was spent to educate or entertain the populous. WWI and WWII were such events that have enjoyed ground-swells of popular interest. A large number of movies were made. An historical novel can do well in an environment like that. But lacking such pop culture and media attention, your novel will be ignored and fail. Such was the case with mine. But I'm okay with that because I write for myself (and a few odd followers) not for popular attention. So, back to your question of historical content before a novel turns into a dreadful encyclopedia: It all depends on the ground-sell and media hype your era and topic enjoys. For example: WWII novels can be 50% history and survive just fine, but "first-century Pygmy village life" not so well. I've been involved in dozens of historical research projects, and found that history is largely uninteresting to the general public. They will tolerate a thin veneer of mainstream history, and then move on to the funnel cakes and Ferris wheel.
I don't think you have to put a lot of history into a historical novel, in the sense of dumping information on the reader. Somebody writing a story set in modern day Paris doesn't need to describe every part of the city, every kind of person who lives there, the political structure, the whys and wherefores of every aspect of Parisian culture, climate and social life. What you do is choose the neighbourhoods of Paris that matter to your story, and include the aspects of culture, climate and social life that affect your characters and what they do. Writing a historical novel is the same, really. It's not the same as writing a history. The historical time and place is merely the setting for your story, and you don't need to go beyond what any setting in any kind of story would contain. It does help establish your reputation as a good historical writer, however, if the bits of information and setting details you do include are well-researched and accurate. If people catch you making mistakes, it makes the story you're telling less believable. But you certainly don't have to turn the story into an encyclopedia! I've always thought that a good historical writer SENDS the reader to the encyclopedia ...because the reader has become interested in the period and wants to learn more.
