Historians turn to fiction as advances are slashed

[sweetpotatoboy]

An article in The Times yesterday about falling advances and non-fiction historians resorting to writing historical fiction to earn more money:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6684436.ece

A related comment article in same paper:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article6684522.ece

[Divia]

The links don't work :(

My history professor told me this a few years ago. Its different though writing an academic paper than it is a story. Not saying it cannot be done, but there is a difference.

Hey, if they can find money in it...go for it.

[Ash]

"resorting" to writing HF? I do hope that their novels don't read like that!

[Chatterbox]

My eyebrows hit my hairline on reading this comment:
“There is a dangerous tendency among historians to slide into historical fiction, which must be avoided at all costs.”
Oooh, the poor historians, forced to write HF....
The academics I'm sorry for aren't the Lisa Jardines of this world (though I think her books are great; fascianting.) They are the ones who have to take extra jobs in fast-food outlets -- like many other writers of all kinds -- because the academic institutions can't pay them.
Those advances are pretty damn lavish for authors that routinely fail to earn those advances!!

But maybe that explains the rather horrifying phenomenon of a reasonably good historical writer like Carolly Erickson turning to appalling and badly written "historical entertainments". I am boycotting them; they are simply that bad and not worth spending a nickel on.

[Margaret]

Hmmm. I wonder if this is happening in the U.S., too. It's pretty pathetic when people "resort" to writing novels in order to make more money - with very rare exceptions, novelists have never made very much. Most cannot support themselves with their writing and have to work at other jobs.

[Divia]

It has to be happening becuase my professor mentioned it a few years ago that people were doing it. I dunno who, and we may never know if they are under a pen name.

[sweetpotatoboy]

The links don't work :(


Oh they should work. It's possible they may not work outside the UK. I can post or send the articles if anyone wants.

[boswellbaxter]

Oh they should work. It's possible they may not work outside the UK. I can post or send the articles if anyone wants.


I'm in the US and the link worked for me just now.

[Divia]

Oh they should work. It's possible they may not work outside the UK. I can post or send the articles if anyone wants.

It worked when I came back. :)

[Chatterbox]

The two I can think of are Alison Weir and Carolly Erickson.

But I suspect a lot of the names wouldn't be familiar to us unless we're also historians, since rather few historians write for the 'general' audience as they do. I'm familiar with Lisa Jardine, because I'm very interested in the era and subjects she specializes in, but someone who focuses mostly on medieval stuff or ancient Greece/Rome, might pick up a book she wrote not realizing she was a historian, unless that was disclosed. There have to be scads of historians with the background knowledge of quirky events that many of us would just never stumble over (think of all the offbeat things that David Liss writes about, for instance!)

[Lauryn]

I can understand the distress the Old Guard (for lack of a better term) must feel, when faced with the evolution of a business model that cuts out their fat advances. However, if the current (and long-standing) norm is that authors tend not to achieve sales which justify the size of their advances, then it seems like a no-brainer that the business model would change. But I felt it was a little rich to portray HF as so distinctly undesirable as they did, and Kudos to Elizabeth Chadwick for calling them on it.

[Ariadne]

The article made me wonder who Hunt was talking about, as I can't think of many other examples. I may have to go through Publishers Marketplace to find it, but I remember a recent historical novel deal in which the author (a man) was described as a British historian writing under a pen name. Jane Kamensky and Jill Lepore (Blindspot) are both academic historians, too, but somehow I don't think that's who he had in mind (both are American).

I won't read Erickson either, for what that's worth.

[Ariadne]

OK, found it, that didn't take long:

British historian writing under a pen name James Forrester's SACRED TREASON, a thriller set in Elizabethan England, whose reluctant hero, a herald in the Queen's service, is drawn against his will into a conspiracy concerning the secret hidden in a manuscript chronicle upon which depends "the fate of two Queens," and who must outwit Elizabeth"s spymasters Cecil and Walsingham in the race to unravel the secret, to Martin Fletcher at Headline, in a very good deal, at auction, by James Gill at United Agents (UK/Commonwealth).

A little googling reveals "James Forrester" as Ian Mortimer (http://www.thebookseller.com/news/71747-thriller-signings-show-headlines-intent.html).

[boswellbaxter]

OK, found it, that didn't take long:



A little googling reveals "James Forrester" as Ian Mortimer (http://www.thebookseller.com/news/71747-thriller-signings-show-headlines-intent.html).

Goodness! He's certainly busy enough with his nonfiction--I've been eagerly awaiting his planned book on the Duke of York.

[Sheramy]

Huh. These big-advance academics must be people I've never met. ;-)

Speaking for myself and myself alone, I didn't write Sunflowers to make money compared to my scholarly work. I wanted to try something new, and I wanted to write about van Gogh, share my love of him with others.

It absolutely is a different skill, writing a novel vs scholarly writing. That was a very hard transition for me at least. So any academic who might be thinking a novel would be a easy project involving less work and rendering more money is nothing short of cuckoo.

[Ash]

I agree about the difference in skills writing fiction versus non fiction. Thomas Costain is a good example: I love his latter, but find his fiction poorly written (tho I promise to try Salt, which I just picked up). More recently, Geraldine Brooks non fiction is on target; her writing fails in fiction imho (tho I thought People of the Book was a very interesting combination of the two.) I imagine for a historical writer, you want to convey the historic events period. For a HF writer, you want to take those events and write the 'what if' parts that intervene. Doing either well takes talent, lots of it, but it doesn't always flow the other direction

Wonder - Distant Mirror has some HF to it, when Barbara Tuchman is talking about the nobel family she centers that excellent book around. Did she write any HF?

Speaking of BT - there is a big debate between scholarly historians, and 'popular' ones, the former often looking down their noses at the latter for their ability to reach the public. I wonder if the popular ones manage to make history come alive in the same way HF do (thinking of Stephen Ambrose, BT, Simon Winchester, David McCullouh)

[cw gortner]

I've always been a bit leery of the transition; I have found that not all excellent non-fiction history writers do hf that well, and vice versa. Fiction and non fiction are very different animals.

It also makes me wonder at the downturn in quality that we might see. With everyone looking to cash in on PG's and C.J. Sansom's success, will we suffer even more of a lessening in original stories and ideas?

Personally, I'm thrilled to see the Elizabethan thriller sub-genre heating up (thanks, Ariadne, for that PM item!) because maybe there's hope for re-selling my Secret Lion book and subsequent installments in the Spymaster Chronicles. So, I too can be mercenary:rolleyes:

However, at the same time, Sharon Penman mentioned at the HNS conference that her publisher will not publish more of her mystery series in the near-future - which I think is a shame, as medieval mysteries are often cookie-cutter, while hers is a different concept.

[Chatterbox]

Yes, CW, Penman has the 'formula' down right, in that she blends historical event with a mystery-oriented plot. Which is why I love her mysteries and have yet to find any others that really measure up, with the exception of Sansom's. Which, come to think of it, occupy that same middle ground.

I'll look forward to reading those James Forrester books -- nothing on Amazon.co.uk yet.

This is why I'm now turning to Amazon.fr for some French HF, since they seem to cast a slightly wider net, era and geography-wise. In particular, they seem to like Italy, and the Medicis, while everyone else seems to be obsessed with the Tudors... I'm getting rather weary of Henry VIII and Mary Queen of Scots...

[Sheramy]

You know, flipping this discussion on its head a bit, academic writers tackling fiction (historical or otherwise) could potentially improve their nonfiction writing skills. How many academic books have you read that are so dry and dull--or overburdened with theoretical jargon--that the material really suffers? I've seen more zip in my own scholarly writing since taking on fiction. In graduate school nobody really teaches you how to write per se. You pick it up as you go along, and it's very easy to fall into a stylistic rut after a while.

I have been surprised to learn that a number of faculty on my campus are closet novelists. Most have no plans to publish; they just think it's fun and a way to unwind. It's very healthy, I think!

[Chatterbox]

Excellent point, Sheramy! I'm sure that's one big reason why historians who aren't primarily academics -- Alison Weir, Barbara Tuchman -- fare so well. They are natural writers, who happen to have gravitated to history rather than to fiction. Niall Ferguson is another one (although I don't know when he sleeps -- he must have a team of gnomes doing all his basic research!), and Simon Schama.

[cw gortner]

That's actually an excellent point, Sheramy, and an interesting way to look at it. Some of the nf I've read can, indeed, be dull as watching paint dry.

[cw gortner]

This is why I'm now turning to Amazon.fr for some French HF, since they seem to cast a slightly wider net, era and geography-wise. In particular, they seem to like Italy, and the Medicis, while everyone else seems to be obsessed with the Tudors... I'm getting rather weary of Henry VIII and Mary Queen of Scots...

Yes, I saw at least six titles that if I read French better than I do (I can survive if I'm stranded in Paris, and that's about it) I'd have snapped them up. There was the Cour des Dames series, the Guerre de Trois Henris, and the Medici saga. I was salivating.:p

[Chatterbox]

i have just ordered the first in the cour des dames series, and the first in the Medici series -- Contessina.

Suggest going to live in the youth hostel in Arras for a month. By the end of it, I was dreaming in French... And that's when I began to read in French, because there were no English books in the town! So it was French -- ou rien... And since rien was impossible... et bien!

[Sheramy]

Excellent point, Sheramy! I'm sure that's one big reason why historians who aren't primarily academics -- Alison Weir, Barbara Tuchman -- fare so well. They are natural writers, who happen to have gravitated to history rather than to fiction. Niall Ferguson is another one (although I don't know when he sleeps -- he must have a team of gnomes doing all his basic research!), and Simon Schama.

Simon Schama's actually a history prof at Yale, so he's the real deal. But he is more versatile than the average bear -- he tackles very disparate time periods whereas most historians by virtue of their training stay put in one place/time. He's done quite well for himself. Good for him.

His dvd series on the Power of Art is very, very good. I don't much like Andy Serkis' portrayal of van Gogh in the Vincent episode, but on the whole, Schama does a fine job.

[Susan]

Simon Schama's actually a history prof at Yale, so he's the real deal..

Just a wee correction...Simon Schama is a professor at an Ivy League school, but at Columbia University in New York City.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/html/dept_faculty_schama.html

[EC2]

And Simon Schama got several pieces of the medieval period wrong when doing his TV series. Can't recall the specifics now, but self and an Anglo Saxonist friend were not impressed - obviously so not his period.

[Ariadne]

Thought of another trained historian who's written historical fiction - Simon Sebag Montefiore. His Sashenka has gotten good reviews from what I've seen (and is sitting on the TBR like too many others).

Very occasionally I dream in French. I was a French major once upon a time, so obviously retain a lot more than I consciously remember. If I were to try to speak it now, I'd have to think about it awfully hard. I should try to get up to speed again, just so I can read some of France's historical fiction. And much of it not likely to get translated, sigh.

[Sheramy]

Just a wee correction...Simon Schama is a professor at an Ivy League school, but at Columbia University in New York City.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/arthistory/html/dept_faculty_schama.html

Oh yeah, Columbia, that's it. One of my friends knew him from undergrad, and I got mixed up which friend and which school. Thanks.

[Volgadon]

And Simon Schama got several pieces of the medieval period wrong when doing his TV series. Can't recall the specifics now, but self and an Anglo Saxonist friend were not impressed - obviously so not his period.

He gets quite a lot wrong. The imperialism episode is a case in point.

[Chatterbox]

Yes, and Niall Ferguson is excellent as a monetary historian, but doesn't understand the nuances of say, delta hedging, in today's financial markets.

So maybe as long as historians are sticking more or less to their core area of expertise -- if Schama wanted to write about Continental Europe during the Englightenment -- that would be a better bet than if he wrote a novel about the baron's revolt and Magna Carta...

[Sheramy]

So maybe as long as historians are sticking more or less to their core area of expertise -- if Schama wanted to write about Continental Europe during the Englightenment -- that would be a better bet than if he wrote a novel about the baron's revolt and Magna Carta...

Actually, it could go either way, depending on the person. If someone writes fiction outside their academic specialty (I did -- my formal training is art of ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt), s/he could feel less constrained and really let go. You'd have to do more legwork if the period is not your own, but the payoff is feeling more free and fresh with the material, if that makes any sense. It's also a great way to learn about something outside one's field! One of the huge drawbacks of academia (I think) is that by the time you get your PhD, you're in such a tiny niche it's hard to find your way out again.

[theredsoldier]

You can make money at this?

wow... seems like I every time I turn around someone is always hitting me with a charge or asking for something free out of me! It's ahrd to imagine these professors being broke and thinking they'll pay all thier bills on writing one novel, I just don't see it.

I get the distinct impression that some historians actually LIKE thier job, and therefore when they sit down to write for fun they write a hostorical fiction, and now somebody with an ax to grind wants to make this person appear horrible, inplying as if his fiction would somehow integrate with his work and affect his credibility.

Always somehow looking to further themself at your expense.

[Ash]

I get the distinct impression that some historians actually LIKE thier job, and therefore when they sit down to write for fun they write a hostorical fiction, and now somebody with an ax to grind wants to make this person appear horrible, inplying as if his fiction would somehow integrate with his work and affect his credibility..

Well, I know that some historians look askance at 'popular writers' writing history. I think those with an ax to grind probably populate just about every group of writers possible (and every profession, actually) I also think those who are doing it for fun and their own pleasure should ignore the ax grinders. Actually whats interesting is that I find these writers write very very good books because its fun fo rthem

[Chatterbox]

For the professors, this would be in addition to their existing income and instead of the money (presumably) that they would have earned from selling more straightforward history books.

I'm a bit surprised at the sense of entitlement among some of these folks -- they cheerfully admit the books never earned out the advance and then wonder why advances are shrinking and complain about it... Umm, let me ponder that one... :confused::p:)

There are people, as Ash said, who like to diss anyone who succeeds in a new area or by doing something different or simply working harder and competing more ferociously. See tall poppy syndrome.

You can make money at writing, but just as those historians wouldn't have gotten big advances for first books on obscure topics, no would-be HF novelist is going to find it very easy to break in. The more people think of a life as glamorous or interesting, etc., the more people try to break in, and the harder it becomes to stand out. Law of nature, alas.