historical fiction: how much can I fudge?

Well, as some know I'm doing an historical fiction novel for NaNoWriMo. I finally came up with my ending, the only problem is it isn't...historically accurate.

My novel is about an SS officer who works at Auschwitz. Though, I do not think I will specify Auschwitz, but it will be easy to know that is what I am talking about. I want Auschwitz to be attacked by the soviet troupes. When in, reality, a good majority of the Germans left before the Russians got anywhere near Auschwitz. Is this fudgable history? It's not like.... giving my SS officer a laser gun, or something, it's just not accurate, but it's certainly possible, and did happen to other camps.

Is this Ok or.... a completely bad idea? >< Mostly directed at other History nerds. [Where is Jack when I need him??]

I think you can do that.

Lots of historical authors that I've read have put notes at the end or beginning saying what's accurate or what's not. I think writing historical fiction is a bit like writing fanfiction - you're allowed to do what Holmes forbids and twist the facts a little to suit your theories.

I'm thinking of Rosemary Suttcliff's The Eagle of the Ninth, which doesn't stick close to historical fact. I don't think she knew all the facts as we know them now, but what she wrote couldn't have happened, as it doesn't fit with what did happen.

... If you get my thread.

ooooh, Twit, darling, you're wonderful. I could just make a note at the end about what really occurred. will up my word count, too!

Yep, I agree with Twit (Eagle of the Ninth is a pretty cool book, by the way). I've been reading a lot of Philippa Gregory's books dealing with the reigns of Henry and Elizabeth. From what I can tell, she keeps to the broad outline of the facts, but will occasionally use a thesis from a historian concerning a more obscure aspect. She also includes a note at the end of all her books explaining how the characters' motivations and feelings are her own interpretation.

So yeah, pretty much redundancy on my part here.

Just don't say it's Auswichtz.

Icaruss, I would, but it's going to be obvious with the arbeit macht frei gates, which I am going to use. xD

When in doubt, place a piece under a different genre entirely. Make it alternate historical fiction, or something like that. Unless you're writing for a publisher who wants stringent historical acuratity, you can do anything with a story. That's the beauty of fiction.

-Kylan

Suzanne wrote:Icaruss, I would, but it's going to be obvious with the arbeit macht frei gates, which I am going to use. xD

Historical allusion?

Trident, how do you mean?

It could be a different, non-existant camp that just happens to have those words above it. When reading, it will be like a clue that it's similar to Auschwitz, but not necessarily the same. Many of the people who read it might be like, "Oh, that was what was above Auschwitz, I get it." and they'll feel like they're in on the secret almost.

Just because it has those words above the door doesn't make it Auschwitz. In fact, it might be more interesting to do a fictional camp. Not sure if it's too late for your plans though.

Not at all. ^_~ Thanks for the suggestion, Trident. I was kind of playing around with that, and I suppose that is what I am doing. I'm a very indecisive person, so it's good to hear someone else tell me I can do that! Otherwise, I wouldn't even think of it, haha.

Even seen Shakespeare in Love? Of COURSE you can fudge history. Just don't make the faux pas that Mr. Brown did (The Davinci Code, amyone) and pretend that it's history. Be sure the reader knows you know it's fiction.

I'm dealing with the SAME thing in one of my novels. I think I agree with Trident, that perhaps it could be another, fictional camp? (I did the same thing round-aboutly in my novel with a prison. )