Fact and Fiction: Writing Historical Narratives

Do you know what skills you need to craft a good historical narrative? On Thursday, June 12, 2014, I attended “Fact and Fiction: Writing Historical Narratives,” a panel at the 35th Annual Conference on New York State History. The panel consisted of chair Michael McGandy (Editor, Cornell University Press) and 3 authors: Jessica DuLong, Tom Lewis, and Christine Wade.

In this post you will learn what these authors had to say about the skills they needed, and the challenges they faced, to produce strong historical narratives, memoirs, and historical fiction.

The Memoirist

Jessica DuLong came to write history accidentally.

After being laid off from her dot-com job as a journalist, DuLong found herself in the engine room of the antique fireboat John J. Harvey during a volunteer day. Her day of service led to a job.

[simpleazon-image align="right" asin="B005FOIBXO" locale="us" height="400" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ChVc0IzwL.jpg" width="221"]DuLong worked in the engine room of the John J. Harvey as it plied the waters of the Hudson River and New York Harbor. Her work led her to wonder what Americans had lost as they shifted away from hands-on work to more intellectually-based work. These musings prompted her to write [simpleazon-link asin="B005FOIBXO" locale="us"]My River Chronicles: Rediscovering the Work that Built America[/simpleazon-link].

As a journalist, DuLong approached her writing with a desire to put the “story” back into history. She found her story in the people she described. For DuLong, “the lifeblood of your story is the people.”

Every time DuLong became stuck in her writing, she returned to the interviews she recorded and re-listened to them. This act helped her reconnect with both the people in her story and the history she wanted to narrate.

DuLong closed her remarks by telling the audience that writing is not easy because writers have a tough job, they must “convince the reader to keep reading with every sentence.”

The Historian

Tom Lewis, the author of 4 books, including [simpleazon-link asin="0300119909" locale="us"]The Hudson: A History[/simpleazon-link], laid out his 4-step approach to research and writing.

Step 1: Identify a Topic

Lewis finds choosing a topic to be the hardest part about writing.

Step 2: Disregard and Discard Preconceived Ideas

Lewis aims to write fair and impartial narratives. He has found that in order to be impartial he must disregard and discard all of his previous ideas about his chosen topic.

By creating and keeping an open mind, Lewis allows the sources he finds to direct his writing.

Step 3: Conduct Interviews

[simpleazon-image align="right" asin="0300119909" locale="us" height="430" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/5170sd6oR6L.jpg" width="302"]Lewis conducts interviews to get at the heart of his stories.

He cautioned that the person who conducts the interview must remember that people lie.

Lewis suggested that interviewers should get control of their interviewee quietly. He acknowledge that this involves a bit of manipulation.

A good interviewer will always find a way to bring out new memories. New memories are less prone to false information because the interviewee has not had the same opportunity to modify these new stories like they do with those that they tell repeatedly.

Step 4: Don’t Drown in Your Research

Lewis acknowledged that this step is easier said then done.

In the age of the internet, “we stand under a Niagara Falls of information.”

Lewis tries to take control of his topic by walking around the issue. He researches people and events related to his topic before he studies his topic directly. This way he knows which angles of his story are worth pursuing and which angles he should avoid.

Lewis concluded his remarks with 3 tips:

1. Write like a homebuilders. Words serve as the building blocks for any narrative. You want to build an inviting house that has an elegant structure and creates an inviting place where readers want to spend time.

2. "Revise, revise, revise.” Only through revision can you shape your book.

3. Trust your editor. Editors can help you craft an excellent book if you let them.

The Novelist

[simpleazon-image align="right" asin="1451674708" locale="us" height="500" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51QBYE88fGL.jpg" width="322"]Christine Wade works as an epidemiologist and she approached the research for her award-winning novel, [simpleazon-link asin="1451674708" locale="us"]Seven Locks[/simpleazon-link], as she would a scientific problem.

Wade admitted that the best part about writing historical fiction is that it is fiction. She does not have to be accountable for portraying the history with 100% accuracy.

With that said, Wade stated that works of historical fiction must have 2 components: strong characters and strong context.

While novelists can play with historical accuracy, they still need to research the period of their setting to make their work feel real.

Wade situated Seven Locks at the foot of the Catskill Mountains just before the American Revolution. In order to give her setting and characters a period feel, Wade read a lot of 18th-century works such as Washington Irving’s [simpleazon-link asin="0143105612" locale="us"]A History of New York[/simpleazon-link], Laurence Sterne’s [simpleazon-link asin="0141439777" locale="us"]The Life and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman[/simpleazon-link], and the works of Samuel Johnson.

Wade also had to develop an authentic voice for her characters, an element that would help her characters to serve the history and story she wanted to tell.

Wade found her voice by relying on her linguistic abilities. Wade does not speak Dutch, but she speaks a different northern European language (she did not say which one) and she used her knowledge of this language to shift the syntax in her character’s speech just as she would move the syntax if she attempted to speak her other language.

Wade concluded her remarks with a bit of advice she acquired from Samuel Johnson: the task of the author is to teach what is not known, or to shed new light upon what is known by offering a new perspective.

Audience Q & A Highlights

Should you begin writing or find an editor first?

DuLong: DuLong wrote a book proposal, which she used to find an agent.

She wrote a 70-page proposal for her first book. The proposal required her to think about the structure and narrative of her book. She met with agents at writing conferences and submitted her proposal to the agents she spoke with.

Presently, she is writing a second book about 9/11. She had no intention of writing the book, but an editor reached out  after they read an article DuLong had posted on Huffington Post.

Lewis: Lewis started with an idea and his friend helped him find an agent.

Lewis wrote his first book about the history of radio. A friend encouraged him to get the project into the hands of an agent. When Lewis seemed slow to do so, his friend put in a call to her agent and the agent asked Tom for a proposal. Tom wrote a 6-page proposal and sent it to the agent who shopped the book around.

Wade: Wade finished her book and then looked for a publisher.

Wade did not plan to write a novel. However, an idea came to her while she was between jobs and she wrote the book on a whim because she thought it would be fun. She did not even tell her family that she was writing a book until she had finished it.

Wade got a new job before she finished her book and had to develop an early-morning writing ritual that allowed her to finish it. Her ritual consisted of an hour of writing each morning before work and thinking about her book as she rode the train to work. When she arrived at her office, she would write down all of the ideas she had thought of and she would use those notes during her writing time.

Wade sent her book to agents and received a lot of rejections. Eventually she found an agent willing to read her book, but the agent said it would take her 3 months to get to it. In the meantime, Wade found out that she won an award for her novel. The agent got back to her after 3 months and helped her publish her book.

Question for Tom Lewis: How do you psychologically prepare yourself to shed information that you cannot put into your story? How do you know when documents won’t help you tell the story you want to tell?

Lewis: Lewis stated that he views the writing process as he does a Rubik’s Cube; he wants all of the faces of the cube to line up. Lewis tries to see the shape of his book and then attempts to fit all of his evidence and ideas into that shape. If an interesting document doesn’t work on his Rubik’s Cube, Lewis leaves it out be because ultimately you cannot fit every piece of evidence into your story.

Conclusion

DuLong, Lewis, and Wade approached the panel from 3 different historical genres. However, each offered similar advice that related to the fact that “story” makes history fun and enjoyable to write and to share with readers.

What Do You Think?

Which tip or piece of advice did you find most helpful?

Part 3: Megan Marshall on Writing Style

[simpleazon-image align="left" asin="054424561X" locale="us" height="500" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rcw6C-VlL.jpg" width="332"]Are you happy with your writing style? Do you ever wish you could change or improve your technique?

On June 10, 2014, Pulitzer Prize-winning biographer Megan Marshall discussed her writing style and how she honed it.

In this post you will learn how Marshall found her writing style.

(This is the 3rd post in my 3-part series on how Megan Marshall  approaches her narratives, handles the task of writing the biography of a person others have explored, and how she found her writing style.)

Writing Style

How did you come to your writing style?

Marshall attributes her writing style to 3 sources:

1. Marshall read a lot of biographies before she ever wrote one.

Reading the work of others helped Marshall find her writing style.

2. Marshall admits that the subjects of her biographies have influenced her writing style.

Marshall picked up elements of her subjects’ speech as she transcribed their letters into her research notebook and onto her research notecards.

3. Marshall's friend and mentor Justin Kaplan also influenced her writing style.

Biographer Justin Kaplan won the Pulitzer Prize in Biography for [simpleazon-link asin="0671748076" locale="us"]Mr. Clemens and Mark Twain[/simpleazon-link]. Marshall credits Kaplan for showing her how to know when to start a biography.

Kaplan taught Marshall that biographers should begin their tales at the most transformative or definitive moment in their subjects' lives.

Kaplan began his biography of Mark Twain with the moment that Samuel Clemens decided he would become Mark Twain. He commenced his biography of Walt Whitman with Whitman on his deathbed.

Kaplan's influence led Marshall to open [simpleazon-link asin="054424561X" locale="us"]Margaret Fuller[/simpleazon-link] with the first letter Fuller ever wrote.

Fuller wrote the letter as a child and Marshall believes that her childhood was the most transformative event of Fuller’s life. Fuller's upbringing determined who she became and why she acted as she did.

Marshall concluded her remarks by sharing the advice her first editor for [simpleazon-link asin="0618711694" locale="us"]The Peabody Sisters[/simpleazon-link] gave her: Don’t let a page go by without having your main character on it—people will lose sight of your character if you don’t write about them.

Conclusion

Although, Megan Marshall presented her advice with a focus on how to write biography, historians will likely find much value in her writing tips.

For example, it may be useful for historians to consider what is the most transformative event in our narratives when we look for places to begin. We may also find that our narratives read better when we place the main character(s) of our histories on every page.

What Do You Think?

How do you decide where to begin your historical narratives?

How have the subjects of your narratives impacted your writing style?

Book Revisions: What Went Wrong with Chapter 1?

I am revising my dissertation into a book called America's First Gateway. I began my work in earnest at the end of February 2014. Now it is July 2014 and my first chapter is still not quite done.

What’s taking so long?

In this post you will learn about the problems I have encountered with Chapter 1 and what I have done to fix those problems.

What Went Wrong with Chapter 1

Problem #1: Ambitious Outline

Chapter 1 is a brand new chapter. It needs to tell the story of how Beverwyck and its community developed into a geographic and cultural gateway to North America.

Unfortunately, I began my work in late February/early March with an outline that had me attempting to research and tell the WHOLE story of Beverwyck in one chapter, which can’t be done.

On some level I knew this couldn’t be done as it took me until early June to start writing the chapter. Even then, I only started because my writing buddy Liana Silva-Ford told me that I had to start writing.

I wrote at least 500 words a day throughout June and produced a 43-page, unfinished draft. It took me 43 pages to realize that my plans were too ambitious.

Problem #2: Project Fatigue

My dissertation did not cover the history of New Netherland in any meaningful way. It focused on the legacy of the Dutch in Albany, New York between 1750 and 1830. Likewise, the majority of my book will also focus on the period between 1750-1830.

With that said, my book needs to strengthen my claims about why a majority of Albany's Dutch-descended community embraced the American Revolution and participated in the formation of New York State and the United States. To accomplish this, I must show how and why Albany appeared to be “Dutch” as late as 1750.

I love my topic, but I have been working on it for over 10 years!

My project fatigue caused me to lose focus. Without consciously realizing it, my brain latched on to Chapter 1 as an opportunity to study something new: New Netherland.

Problem #3: Information Overload

My ambitious outline combined with my excitement to learn about something new led me to read too much about New Netherland.

For three months, my brain feasted on books about the Haudenosaunee, Mahican, and Munsee peoples. It enjoyed multiple, general tomes about the colony and it indulged in reading books and articles about Dutch foodways, religion, women, slaves, poor relief, wampum, and the use of kettles in the fur trade.

I would have continued my intellectual feast into June, but Liana intervened and told me to start writing.

The realization that I had gathered way too much information did not occur to me until I reached page 43 of my draft. At that point I admitted that I had a problem. I stepped away from my computer and took an afternoon to reassess what I needed to accomplish in Chapter 1.

How I Have Attempted to Fix What Went Wrong

Fix #1: Self-Evaluation

I stepped away from my draft as soon as I realized that I was trying to tell the whole story of Beverwyck in one chapter.

I spent 2-3 hours thinking through why my chapter was too long, why I hadn’t finished my draft, and how I had become so lost.

I evaluated my situation with free writing as I think better when I write.

Once I realized where I had gone wrong, and what I had done right, I created a more focused outline.

Fix #2: Focused Outline

I used the invaluable advice that Liana gave me to create a more focused outline: Write down the 1-3 points you must get across in your paper and write to those points.

Chapter 1 needs to show my readers:

1. How Beverwyck developed into and functioned as a physical and cultural gateway. 2. How Beverwyck formed as an adaptable community and what an adaptable community looks like. 3. How Beverwyck formed as an autonomous, self-governing community and what that autonomy and self-governance looked like.

Underneath these points, I listed ideas and examples that will help me make and demonstrate them.

Fix #3: Continue Using Techniques that Worked

Although a lot went wrong with my approach to Chapter 1, I found 2 tactics that really worked for me.

1. Writing at least 500 words a day

Sometimes writing 500 words seemed like an arduous task, other days I blew passed this goal. For the most part, 500 words allowed me to write a minimum of 1.5-2pages per day, meaningful and tangible progress, while still allowing me time to pursue my other projects.

2. Ignoring my internal editor

I tend to edit as I write; this is not a good tactic. Sometimes I lose a brilliant thought because I edit it before I type it into my document.

I worked hard to ignore my internal editor as I wrote my first draft of Chapter 1. Although it proved difficult to ignore her, my efforts ultimately helped me get my thoughts on the page, good thoughts that I will be able to edit for clarity later.

Conclusion

A lot went wrong with my initial approach to Chapter 1. I lost a lot of time, but I have gained several valuable lessons that I will carry forward.

I also hope that by writing about what I did wrong, I will help you avoid similar mistakes with your own work.

Share Your Story

What is the most valuable lesson you have learned from your approaches to research and writing?

Part 2: Megan Marshall on Writing Biography

On Tuesday June 10, 2014, I had the opportunity to hear Megan Marshall speak at an intimate gathering for writers. Marshall won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Biography for [simpleazon-link asin="054424561X" locale="us"]Margaret Fuller: A New American Life[/simpleazon-link]. During her talk, Marshall shared a number of insights and tips about writing.

In this 3 part series, you will discover how Megan Marshall approaches her narratives, handles the task of writing the biography of a person others have explored, and how she found her writing style.

In this post you will learn how Marshall handles the task of writing the biography of a person others have already explored.

Megan Marshall's Approach to Biography

How do you handle the task of writing a biography of a person that others have already explored?

Marshall answered that biographers often find other biographers who are working on the same subject at the same time.

For example, Marshall had wanted to write a biography about Margaret Fuller in the 1970s. She shelved the project when she realized that Charles Capper had just published a 2-volume biography on Fuller.  Marshall worked on [simpleazon-link asin="0618711694" locale="us"]The Peabody Sisters[/simpleazon-link] instead. She revived her project in the early 2000s when she realized that people had forgotten about Fuller.

[simpleazon-image align="right" asin="054424561X" locale="us" height="500" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rcw6C-VlL.jpg" width="332"]Marshall started her project by reading Capper's 2-volume biography, which she found too inaccessible for non-academics. This experience prompted Marshall to plan a single volume biography that would appeal to general readers.

As Marshall worked on her book, she discovered that John Matteson was also writing a biography on Fuller. Matteson published his biography a year before Marshall’s came out.

Marshall said it doesn’t matter that multiple biographers are working on the same subject, you will write the book you are destined to write. In her case, Matteson wrote about Fuller’s relationship with her father, not Fuller’s full story.

Marshall says biographers must be confident that they can get at the lives of their subjects in a way that other biographers cannot.

She also acknowledged the advantage that comes from other’s work.

In the case of Margaret Fuller, Marshall spent more time thinking about the nature of biography than in locating sources because she was able to mine the footnotes/endnotes in the other biographies.

Marshall's Margaret Fuller contains new insights and research, but because she did not have to spend as much time on research, Marshall focused her energies on writing a biography that reads like a novel. Margaret Fuller contains characters, tension, episodes, landscapes, cityscapes, and descriptions that you would encounter in a novel, but Marshall did not make up any of her descriptions, characters, or episodes. All of the conversations Marshall presents occurred in Fuller’s letters.

Conclusion

Marshall imparted advice that extends beyond the biography genre.

All historians will encounter other scholars who are working on the same or similar topics.

Rather then guard our facts and sources, we should assist each other in our shared work because in the end we are all destined to write the books and articles we will write. We might even write better books and articles if we share.

Like biographers, historians must also be confident that we can get our subjects in a way that other historians cannot.

What Do You Think?

What do you think of Marshall's tacit call for more collaboration among scholars?

For more on how Megan Marshall approaches biographies, see Kathleen C. Stone's "The Biographer's Art: A Conversation with Megan Marshall."

Part 1: Megan Marshall on Writing History with Arguments

[simpleazon-image align="right" asin="054424561X" locale="us" height="500" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Rcw6C-VlL.jpg" width="332"]On Tuesday June 10, 2014, I had the opportunity to hear Megan Marshall speak at an intimate gathering for writers. Marshall won the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Biography for [simpleazon-link asin="054424561X" locale="us"]Margaret Fuller: A New American Life[/simpleazon-link]. Marshall discussed Fuller’s interesting life and read from her book. She also took time to answer questions. Marshall shared a number of insights and tips about writing.

In this 3 part series, you will discover how Megan Marshall approaches her narratives, handles the task of writing the biography of a person others have explored, and how she found her writing style.

In this post you will learn how Megan Marshall approaches her narratives.

Megan Marshall's Approach to Narratives

I posed the following question because I wanted Marshall to expound upon the remarks she sent to the “Writing American History Outside of the Academy” panel at the 2014 American Historical Association annual meeting. Marshall stated that she believes that historians’ reliance on argument limits their ability to write engaging histories.

How do you approach your narratives? If they don't have an argument, how do you find or express the point of your story?

Marshall began questioning historians’ reliance on arguments when her daughter came home from junior high school with a thesis project. The assignment required her daughter to write a 20-page research paper on any historical topic she wanted, but her paper had to have an argument.

The assignment made Marshall wonder whether her work in-progress, [simpleazon-link asin="0618711694" locale="us"]The Peabody Sisters: Three Women Who Ignited American Romanticism[/simpleazon-link], had an argument. Marshall believed that her daughter could make many arguments about Brook Farm or she could tell the story about the utopian community. Her daughter’s teacher believed that stories are not histories unless they have an argument. Marshall disagreed.

[simpleazon-image align="left" asin="0618711694" locale="us" height="450" src="http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51WF8YK6JYL.jpg" width="300"]Marshall believes that arguments hinder an historian’s ability to tell a story because they limit the historian’s ability to deviate from the point they need to make.

Marshall argued that people connect better with narrative histories filled with characters than they do with argument-driven histories.

For example, several people have approached Marshall after book talks and lectures to thank her for helping them understand Transcendentalism, an understanding they acquired through The Peabody Sisters. Marshall admitted that she cannot provide a good explanation of what the movement was, but that people have come to understand it through her book because her characters illustrate the movement at work.

Marshall offered that perhaps the problem with the historical field and why so many lay readers find academic histories inaccessible is because historians feel they have to make an argument rather then just tell a story. Marshall believes that all stories must have a point, but they do not need to have an argument.

Historians need to make the case for why they are writing about the history they have selected, but that reason does not have to be steeped in historiography or a theoretical framework. Historians could tell a story just because it is interesting and yields insight into what the past was like or how we came to be who we are today.

Conclusion

Marshall’s explanation of her views helped me to better understand and articulate why most readers will pick up a well-written, but poorly researched journalistic history book rather than a well-written, well-researched academic history book.

Most readers want to learn about history through a story. Arguments restrict historians from delving into lives and details that create the stories readers want to read.

What Do You Think?

Do you think arguments hinder historians' ability to tell good stories?