William the Bastard and Reality in Fiction

[Peg Herring]

A lot of the fun of writing, for me anyway, is learning about people. Sometimes I get to know characters I've invented, a matter of letting them settle into my head and become what they are. But others are real, and therefore research comes into play.

I do talks on historical novels, and I'm always surprised that some people are offended when I admit that authors "make up" facets of characters who actually existed. "How dare you" comes through in their expressions and voices. "You mean he didn't really say that?"

Here's the thing: we research everything we can research, at least those of us with scruples do. But then we have to fill in the gaps with our imaginations. It's a novel, so it isn't supposed to be gospel. Besides, history can be really stingy with details about what Napoleon Buonaparte said at breakfast on the 23rd of May.

My historical character in the current WIP is William the Conqueror (aka William the Bastard). He's a secondary character, but he has to be convincing because he causes a pivotal event in the plot. So I researched him as a person, trying to discover how and why he might come to the point of ordering said pivotal event. Luckily for me, it's exactly the sort of thing William might do. His personality, perhaps affected by his illegitimacy, made him prone to issue orders and expect others to like it or lump it. He probably couldn't imagine that anyone might disagree, since he trusted his own judgment implicitly. I have a relative who's very like that, and I can easily picture her ordering two people to get married because (a) it suits her purposes and (b) they will look good together. My picture of William is a lot like that, and I don't think 942 years has changed personalities much.

In the end, I guess what I would say to those who question an author's right to put words in a historical character's mouth is this: the job I took on was to write an interesting story. I'll be as true as I can to history, but you need to understand that history is not the point; the spirit of history is.