Disclaimer: No, I'm not asking for permission, this is just a genuine question I have. When you write historical fiction and do research, how do you manage what you want to write about versus what is factually true? Like let's say I wanted to write a story about a young deaf woman in Civil War America taking it upon herself to solve a mystery involving her friend's disappearance. In our world, naturally, the idea of a deaf woman in 1860s America taking the law in her own hands to solve a crime would've been unheard of back then. Even if said woman came from a higher station (i.e., her father ran a rather successful consulting business) Do I...just ignore that part of history and let her do her thing regardless of how inaccurate it could be, or do I make a mention of how odd it is to the locals who chalk it up as a 'one time thing' or that 'she must've done a few favors for the right people'? I mean, c'mon, if we were alive back then, we'd probably have thought it an oddity indeed. I mean, I know it's fiction and it's not true, but at the same time...it's also set in history. How do you find that middle ground?
No, feel free. There have been exceptional women throughout history. Deal with the historical accuracy of the problems and obstacles she will have to face and overcome in her era and you are spot on.
Understood. :O Yes, keep in mind the struggles she'll have to face as a deaf woman (coupled with the while civil war thing) and I should be good. Once again Helen Keller arrives to lay the smack-down. "Bitch, if I could get a college degree in the 1900s while being blind and deaf, I don't want to feel your fingers whining about shit!" Not that she'd actually talk like that, but still.
In the 1860s? Not as unheard of as you might think. There wasn't much law then... not in the way we think of it now. You might have a sheriff or local constable and a deputy or three, but people took in into their own hands all the time. I wouldn't worry about it.
Research law enforcement in the 1860s. You'll see a huge difference between New York City and, say, the Western frontier. Check out the Pinkertons and other regulators and private security firms... there weren't many people of means relying on what we would think of as "cops" for justice. And if your story is centered around a missing person, research what passed for detectives back then. There probably weren't many.
I think your story will actually be richer for the fact that she would have been a bit of an oddity. Couple that with what Homes and Lew said, and you've really got something! Remember...There were always women throughout history who got shit done despite the odds and were a bit of an oddity by doing so. It's just that the history books tended to be written by men who tended to be rather traditional and small-c conservative, so they were often overlooked or dismissed. A good example would be Madam C.J. Walker, a woman very few people have ever heard of. If she and Helen Keller could accomplish all they did in real life, there's no reason why your character can't accomplish what you want her to do in fiction as well.
That might actually be an advantage for her. Being deaf and female people may dismiss her instead of seeing her as a threat. Imagine the discussions you could be present for if people thought you couldn't understand them. Also, during that time women in the West were somewhat more respected and powerful than back East. Partly due to scarcity and partly due to where men liked spending their money. I think it was either Wyoming or Montana that said it would only join the Union if their women were allowed to keep the vote, years before the 19th amendment passed.
Wow!! You have presented us with a bit of a Mares Nest. When you say deaf I presume you mean totally deaf but being totally deaf would mean she would also have severe speaking difficulties’ too. The only thing I can offer is that she takes with her a friend i.e. she supplies the brains while her friend does the talking. Yes I can see that your idea has a strong storyline married to travel across America which would mean in the 1860s travel by train which was booming then. It will need research but that is really easy to do now. Best of luck, John.
Presumably if she's solving crimes and doing detective work, she could write, so she'd probably have carried a school slate and slate pencil to converse with people. She'd also likely be a good lip reader. But for people who couldn't read a slate, your scenario works. It also works if she pretends to not understand but catches people lying by lipreading.
Oh, golly. Check out the histories of the female spies on both sides in the War Between the States. Clever, subtle, resourceful, effective . . . What you want to avoid is not a woman (even a deaf woman) undertaking such a role, but her undertaking it in a way that would not have been available to her at the time, e.g., being the CEO of a detective agency with a lot of men under her authority. For a character like this, her perceived "weakness" would be her strength, and the reader can revel in what is really going on, when she comes in for the kill. The only way it would be "taking the law into her own hands" would be if she organized a mob and strung the culprit up herself. But getting all the evidence and solving the crime? As others have said, no reason why not. Given the retired status of most deaf people in that era, it would be good to give her a backstory to explain how she came to be educated to take an active role in the world (Gallaudet wasn't founded until 1856 and didn't confer college degrees until 1864 or '65, though nothing's preventing you from making her a early student at the school). Remember that back then a lot of education was conducted privately, by tutors hired in by the families, so implying that she was disadvantaged if she didn't go to college would be irrelevant--- most young people didn't. And unfortunately for us, the kind of work kids did then in 8th grade would give a lot of today's high school seniors yip. The only thing that strikes me as questionable in your original post, @Link the Writer , is having her father as a consultant. That's really a modern concept. Doctor, lawyer, professor, railroadman, merchant, broker--- that would fit the period.
Another aspect that to my knowledge hasn’t been discussed is that America in the 1860s was a very unhealthy country to travel in. New York was in the grip of gang violence as were most cities. In general the rest of America, in which there was little in the way law enforcement, presented a significant danger to a woman travelling alone. So I would suggest she travels with both a male and female friends’. In the 1860s, America had been taking 10s of thousand of world wide emigrants yearly and many hadn’t mastered the English language, plus quite few were literate. Of course this is fiction and you can write you want, but personally when I write anything set in the past I like to be as authentic as I can.
History writes the best stories. Whatever crazy thing you can come up with, chances are, it has happened. Whether it's the story of Maria Sklodowska-Curie, 2-times Nobel prize winner, the first and so far only woman to do so and only 1 of 4 people to win 2 Nobel prizes, the story of Yasuke, a black african who became a Samurai, the story of Gordon, who escaped a plantation, gained freedom and joined the Union Army, some of these stories are truly incredible. I'd say go for it.
Depends on what you want to achieve. The first question should probably be: how accurate do I want this story to be? Assassin's Creed has always been my go-to example that leans heavily toward fiction. It's unmistakably fiction, although it's impressive recreation of setting and use of real historical figures (and other sprinklings of accepted history) makes it incredibly immersive. An unorthodox example that leans heavily *the other direction* might be Anna Karenina, and other such works by Tolstoy. Even works by Dostoevsky. They give you tremendous insight into Russian and European society at that time. The answer to your question - in my opinion - is mainly to do with what your goal is, and who your intended audience is. Even just a vague notion of audience will suffice (am I striving for people who are history-buffs and have only a little tolerance for inaccuracy / creative license?). Perhaps consider Photoshop. Are you trying to alter or create a photo so as to trick people into thinking it's real, or not?
as long as eveeyone knows it is fiction you can change as much as you want. eventually you will have an alternative history but even those claiming to write biographies change some things. Personally i am working on a historical story set in 500 bc Scandinavia. there is no evidence of writing then but in my story a phoenician slave came there and introduced it. very unlikely indeed but this is fiction. about your story: she can have a servant or a slave helping her out
I had to work through that same dilemma with Deceitful Survival where a young girl is thrust into the world without the support of a male counterpart. I was factual in most of it but I struggled in first person to have a critical story point happen within her point of view as she was telling the story. I fudged a bit on locations but kept the who, what, and when.
