Is it worth creating a historical fiction VN?

[ThisIsNoName]

So, yeah. Is it worth creating a VN with a historical setting, especially if you aren't completely familiar with the time period or place? It seems like whenever anyone brings up creating a historical VN, they're always passionate about the setting and already know a great deal about it.

Part of why I'm asking is that a while ago at work I thought of a story about 2 spies from opposite sides who fall in love, and the setting that immediately came to my mind was East Berlin in the Cold War. The main problem I'm having is that while I know a bit about the time period, I don't know many details. While research can help a lot, it's often the bigger stuff that's the hardest to research. As someone mentioned in another thread (I can't remember which), there will always be something you'll miss.

So, I guess the three main questions I have are:
1. Do you think setting should always be the priority in historical fiction?
2. Are historical errors enough to bring you out of a story, or is it more dependent on consistencies within the story itself?
3. If the story isn't accurate to history, is it worth calling the setting an "alternate universe", or does that seem like cheating?

[Egressus]

1. The first question really depends on you. Do you want it to be accurate?
Often, people expect accuracies in historical vns. But it's not a must-- if you want to tell a story, you can bend the rules a bit. But it might turn off those who know that it's inaccurate.

2. Consistency is important; slight inaccuracy can be tolerated if it's not a well-known fact. I'd say just stay consistent.

3. If the difference is not so big, I'd say you don't have to call it an AU. If, say, in your story Prussia didn't get dissolved, it's an alternate history. If your character happens to eat something that they don't have in East Germany (I think they were lacking in bananas?), well... I'm not sure what to say. The bananas did a lot of things.

If you have a livejournal account, there is a community that can help you out: http://little-details.livejournal.com/
You won't believe how detailed those people can get. Just make sure you have basic knowledge of what you want to know.

[Sapphi]

1. Do you think setting should always be the priority in historical fiction?

I want to say yes. If I'm reading historical fiction, it's usually because I'm interested in that time period. I am disappointed when authors use interesting time periods and then gloss over everything that makes them interesting. I'm like... what was the point of setting it there in the first place? This could have been set anywhere!

2. Are historical errors enough to bring you out of a story, or is it more dependent on consistencies within the story itself?

I guess it depends on how familiar I am with the history, personally. If I haven't studied it, I might not notice the errors... but if I have studied it, I will immediately say, "Gah, that's not right! Why didn't they do their research? Even I knew that!"

3. If the story isn't accurate to history, is it worth calling the setting an "alternate universe", or does that seem like cheating?

I don't think setting a story in an alternate universe is cheating. It poses its own set of difficulties. You don't have to research as much, but you do have to make a lot of decisions as to the world you're building. With a historical setting, a lot of the backstory and culture is already decided for you. With an AU, you have to come up with that stuff yourself.

All that aside... I would say that if you have a lot of interest in that setting, you will probably have fun researching it and learning new things. I know that for my WIP, there were some topics I wanted to write about that were outside my field of knowledge, and I am currently having a blast doing the research! I'm learning so much!

[Egressus]

But if I have studied it, I will immediately say, "Gah, that's not right! Why didn't they do their research? Even I knew that!"

This could be a common reaction if you're not careful.
Why don't you release a demo for people to comment? Then maybe pick up some people who seems to know about the Cold War and ask them to proofread/be your beta.

And I agree with the decisions part. Everything should seamlessly come together. Consistency.

[Reikun]

I think you can get away with a few historical inaccuracies if your audience/readers aren't very familiar with the time period, but for something that is widely studied such as the Cold War, you'll probably have to do a lot of research to ensure accuracy. While you don't need to be extremely accurate (hence, historical fiction), having the most well known facts and settings straight is probably a must unless you really want to go for an "alternate universe." I find the setting to be a big priority in historical fiction, but as with other genre, the main priority is always the actual plot! Your historical fiction setting should be convincing without being overwhelmingly detailed, just like a setting in a fantasy or sci-fi VN.

The only way historical errors would kill immersion/bring me out of a story is if it was presented in a very alarming/off putting way. For example, if I was reading a Cold War era piece and suddenly Hitler was alive I would stop reading immediately.

I've seen people mention "alternate history," which seems to allow a bit more leeway/inaccuracy in terms of historical facts.

Haha. After all that rambling, all I was really trying to say is that the only difference with writing a historical fiction VN is that you have some limits in plot/setting due to historical facts. You still have to convey a world and characters convincingly enough for people to be interested about it.

[Lumen_Astrum]

1. Do you think setting should always be the priority in historical fiction?

Yes. Setting actually makes it more like historical fiction. But since accuracy are important to it, they're pretty hard to actually make.

2. Are historical errors enough to bring you out of a story, or is it more dependent on consistencies within the story itself?

Duh, that's why it's called fiction. Some parts can be modified so that the plot can be more interesting, but things that need to be kept should be. For example, you're making a VN about World War II. You won't want every ending the same right, as in every ending is about the Japanese being bombed or something like that. So even though there can be historical mistakes, they should be in... sync with the original history itself. I hope that didn't sound so confusing. XD

3. If the story isn't accurate to history, is it worth calling the setting an "alternate universe", or does that seem like cheating?

It can pass as a historical fiction AU, but that's only my opinion.

[EroBotan]

I suggest to use alternate history, that way people won't flip if they notice inaccuracy or you change some stuff ^^

And like sapphi says, you don't have to be burdened by heavy research. You can focus on writings instead of learning history

[Sharm]

My understanding of historical stuff is that researching is the most fun part of the process. That's when I knew for certain it wasn't for me. There were some writing excuses podcasts that might be useful. http://www.writingexcuses.com/2012/02/1 ... l-fantasy/ and http://www.writingexcuses.com/2012/02/1 ... character/

[gekiganwing]

You probably don't want your historical fiction story to read like a textbook or an encyclopedia. But unless you intend to throw caution to the wind and do something like include steampunk mecha in a 1920s setting, then your story will benefit from some research. Try to find some primary sources, so that you get a good idea of how people talked and acted.

There were some writing excuses podcasts that might be useful.

Before you posted your comment, I thought of a different episode of the exact same audio program! Whoa. Anyway, the discussion on alternate history has a few interesting points to make.

[ThisIsNoName]

Ahhh! quit posting amazing resources! I'm having trouble getting through them all!

But seriously, I had no idea that these kinds of groups existed.

I'm still not sure if I want to do straight historical fiction, alternate history, or historical fantasy. Originally, it was going to be a sort of gritty noir-like spy thriller, but as I kept planning the story, it kept getting into Rule of Cool territory

I'm sort of thinking of doing 2 different versions: one that's very serious and as accurate I can get without harming the story, and a historical fantasy that takes the same basic story and runs wild with it

[Sapphi]

I'm still not sure if I want to do straight historical fiction, alternate history, or historical fantasy. Originally, it was going to be a sort of gritty noir-like spy thriller, but as I kept planning the story, it kept getting into Rule of Cool territory

I know how that is, lol.

I'm sort of thinking of doing 2 different versions: one that's very serious and as accurate I can get without harming the story, and a historical fantasy that takes the same basic story and runs wild with it

I think with this approach you will probably end up finding you prefer one over the other. You might realize that you like the constraints the accurate setting sets up for you. To quote Evangelion, "You have lost one degree of freedom, but you have obtained a comfort." Alternatively, you might realize you want to invoke that Rule of Cool all the time, and find the accurate story boring to write. My recommendation is to write what you personally like above all.

[Zylinder]

1. Do you think setting should always be the priority in historical fiction?

Yes. It's the entire point of historical fiction, as opposed to Wildly Inventive Fiction.

2. Are historical errors enough to bring you out of a story, or is it more dependent on consistencies within the story itself?

Historical errors wouldn't bring me out of the story, but it'll certainly raise a couple of alarm bells. It depends a lot on the error itself - if a very big event is happening all the wrong ways, and the story takes itself seriously (that is, no note anywhere) I'll be bugged.

3. If the story isn't accurate to history, is it worth calling the setting an "alternate universe", or does that seem like cheating?

You should call your story an alternate universe only if there's a huge difference between your version and the real history. Otherwise it's okay in my book to call it historical fiction. It's fiction, after all. I don't really read historical fiction expecting the 100% real thing.

Edit : Will both your serious/unsrz versions be of the same story? That might mean players of one would be spoiled for the other though, if they choose to play both. @_@

[Tsundere Lightning]

So, yeah. Is it worth creating a VN with a historical setting, especially if you aren't completely familiar with the time period or place? It seems like whenever anyone brings up creating a historical VN, they're always passionate about the setting and already know a great deal about it.

Part of why I'm asking is that a while ago at work I thought of a story about 2 spies from opposite sides who fall in love, and the setting that immediately came to my mind was East Berlin in the Cold War. The main problem I'm having is that while I know a bit about the time period, I don't know many details. While research can help a lot, it's often the bigger stuff that's the hardest to research. As someone mentioned in another thread (I can't remember which), there will always be something you'll miss.

So, I guess the three main questions I have are:
1. Do you think setting should always be the priority in historical fiction?
2. Are historical errors enough to bring you out of a story, or is it more dependent on consistencies within the story itself?
3. If the story isn't accurate to history, is it worth calling the setting an "alternate universe", or does that seem like cheating?

1: In as much as unaddressed innaccuracies and anachronisms can bring you out of a story, yes. I always have a bias towards characterization as the most important part of a story.

2: If it's consistent with the storyline and the world, you can get away with some anachronisms, but you have to address them at some point.

3: It can be a cop-out, but if handled well, it can also be very effective. It all depends on the reasons why you're calling it an AU.

[manco7]

I might be wrong, but I think that most people who start writing about a certain historical period are not experts. Getting a superficial knowledge about a certain time period is not hard at all, mostly. Don't let the lack of knowledge stop you, if you do indeed write your story you will not only have a finished piece in your hands but will also have a better idea of what constitutes our history, or of whatever subject you decide to research.
Spies? Get ready to learn about weapons, conspiracy and what not, they are all interesting topics so I'm sure you will enjoy learning about them.
In the end you don't need to get everything right, just make it believable.

[fleet]

It's always a good idea to have someone (or several people) review your work before going "final".