Hello my fellow writers, My question to you all is where is the best place to source research material for your story. Bearing in mind that the internet and especially Wikipedia are not a reliable source. So where should we cast our net in order to get credible information to back up our story. I ask this because I like to read historical novels. But the amount of time I have read a story that has used the same point and characters from history but are in conflict with each other. when this happens which side do you believe. This is why I think research is a vital point when telling a historical story. what do you say ?
As someone with a Degree in "History" - and, to qualify that - a Degree in Western "liberal" history, I would point out that, unless one was there and saw an event (in which case you will put your own interpretation on it) all history is a story.
Hi-story - tells an account of something that happened - from a point of view - frequently with an intention of getting a point across - justifying a cause or a course of action.
When people write up a road accident for their insurance claim they write "histories" of the event...
Then again - it does help if one at least gets the year right - and does not have Roman soldiers launching their attack when their wrist watches tick to a certain time.
Research into basics is essential. Good control of continuity (not changing a left handed person to right handed and not changing a blonde to a brunette) is essential.
Are the errors you are spotting more ones of continuity than historical detail? These are bad enough - historical inaccuracy (of something that is "known") is disgraceful.
:-)
The problem nowadays is not so much where you go you find information, but how you use it.
I'm a big fan of books (old habits die hard), but I use the internet a lot too. You regularly find differing viewpoints of the same story, either because new information comes to light over the years or historians have put their own slant on original sources. I don't think there's anything wrong with that - in fact I search specifically for those events. It's then far easier, I found, to insert fictional characters who may have really affected the eventual outcome.
But however you deal with 'accepted fact', you're writing a fiction. If you're worried about straying from what most would consider the norm, just write an afterword explaining why you did it. Because I write about cavalry I head mine 'Author's Tail' - semi-humorous in the hope readers will actually read through it after they've finished the story rather than simply close the book. Which is what I would have done years ago when proper history was too boring to bother with (!)
And that's the danger with research. You must do it, but the more dry fact you include in your story the more it becomes like a non-fiction, and the less you'll hold your readers' interest, in my view. A novel is about people, not things.
I'll get me coat ;)