Historic and Historical

We have an answer-guy in our local paper. Clay Thompson gets some very weird questions (some even from me) that he replies to in a sardonic way. Trust me. You want Clay to take your question and take you down, too. I know. That’s weird, too.

Recently someone wrote in wondering about the difference between the words “historic” and “historical.” I know. Don’t these people own a dictionary?

In his inimitable way, he succinctly answered that historic is an event worthy of noting, commemorating, or celebrating. Historical means something from the past, noteworthy or not. Simple, right?

Unless you’re an historical fiction writer. In that case, what is “historical” becomes quite important. Along those lines, one of my Facebook historical fiction pages had a thread going about just when is something historical?

When I attended the conference in Portland, Oregon last June, someone said if something is fifty years old or more, it’s historical. Uh. That’s my lifetime. I’m historical (though not historic). Sobering thought.

The Facebook thread wasn’t so definitive as the conference person. Still, fifty, sixty years--that works most of the time. But what about more recent events that are historic, if not historical? Could an historical fiction writer write it as historical fiction if it’s on the cusp of fifty years?

Someone suggested such writings be called “vintage”. I like that. The term vintage first came to my attention vis à vis clothing. Vintage is something high quality, denoting the best or most important of an era.

So if you were writing about an event in 1968, perhaps a novel about the integration fight in the south, maybe you could call it “historic fiction”, instead of “historical fiction”, or is that just adding layers of confusion? Maybe the answer is a category of “vintage fiction.”

I honestly don’t know that our readers care what label publishers and book sellers put on a novel. However, that labeling can make it easy or hard to locate the book.

When pondering this topic, I was reminded of university courses I taught in children’s literature. Contemporary fiction and historical fiction are easy designations, right? But what about the copyright date? When Frances Hodgson Burnett’s The Secret Garden (1911) was published, it would have been considered contemporary fiction. But as we read it today, we call it historical fiction since it is over 100 years old.

Do you see the problem? When does contemporary fiction become historical fiction? And what is the definition of what makes it historical fiction? Does merely depicting an earlier era make it historical fiction or would The Secret Garden be better labeled as vintage fiction?

Did you find this post interesting? If so, please share it with others. Copy and paste the messages below or write your own for your social media outlets. Thank you!

Facebook: What IS historical fiction and when does it begin? Historical Fiction? Historic Fiction? Or Vintage Fiction? Read the post and join the discussion. http://bit.ly/2xGvBfd

Twitter: #Historicalfiction? #Historicfiction? Or #Vintagefiction? Which is it and why? Join the convo @Caroline_Adams9 http://bit.ly/2xGvBfd

Mrs. Ex-President Tyler

That’s what she called herself later in life. A secret admirer called her “The Rose of Long Island.” She branded herself as the first celebrity First Lady. Preliminary investigations show her to have had quite the life. Maybe even a sensational and sensationalized one. Some say Julia Gardiner Tyler was our most scandalous First Lady. And one of our most beautiful.

I happened quite coincidentally across an article about Julia, second wife of John Tyler, the 10^th President of the United States. The post purported to be little known facts about Julia. And, indeed, for me it was true. I, to tell the truth, didn’t know one piddly fact. But, oh, my. If true, she was “a piece of work,” as my grandmother would have said. I had to go searching out more. Could she be another Intrepid Woman for my middle grade biography series?

Here’s what I know from a brief search:

Julia Gardiner was born in 1820 and died in 1889 at age 69 having been First Lady for less than one year.

She was reared in wealth and status on Gardiner’s Island (Long Island area), one of the largest privately owned islands in the U.S. She was very close to her father.

At age 19, she posed (as “The Rose of Long Island”) for a department store handbag ad in a newspaper, scandalizing family and friends. Her family took her abroad for a year to avoid negative publicity.

She was known as a flirt and was sometimes considered bold, even brazen, for the era. She knew what she wanted and went after it.

At age 21, Julia met President John Tyler at a White House reception (January, 1842). His wife died eight months later (September), and he began to court her. She rejected his first proposal five months after his wife’s death, but finally accepted when he was there to comfort her after her father’s death in 1844.

Their Episcopal wedding was small and quiet, some say in deference to her father’s recent death, but others say it was because of the scandal of Tyler marrying a woman 30 years younger than him who was younger than one of his daughters. John Tyler was 54 years old; Julia was 24. Gossip surrounded them throughout his courtship.

John’s daughter’s hated Julia, but eventually all but one came around.

Julia loved running the White House and enjoyed being First Lady. She ordered that the sometimes-played “Hail to the Chief” always play to announce Tyler’s arrival at events. Mrs. Polk, the next First Lady, continued the tradition, and to this day the anthem is played.

Julia was the first photographed First Lady, though she didn’t care for the likeness. She made copies of more flattering images and sold them. She had dances named after her.

After John Tyler’s single term was up in 1845, John and Julia retired to a home he had bought in Virginia. They had seven children between 1846 and 1860.

The Civil War interrupted their quiet life. At age 72, John likely died of a stroke in 1862, and Julia lost her slaves and her land thorough the disruption of war. Even though she had wholly adopted the Southern Lady lifestyle and considered herself a Confederate, she had to move to Staten Island to live with children and eventually moved into her mother’s home.

Union veterans tried to burn down the home she got from her mother when they found she flew a Confederate flag on her property. Her estranged brother sued to keep her from getting the bulk of her mother’s estate claiming she had used undue influence to get a will favorable to her.

At age 52, Julia became a Roman Catholic. A year later she lost most of her money in the Panic of 1873, a major recession. She lobbied Congress for the first-ever pension for surviving First Ladies that continue to this day.

She died of a stroke at age 69 in 1889 and was buried next to her husband in Richmond, Virginia. Those are the facts we know. Other purported may or may not be true.

Rumors had her pursued, before her marriage, by Tyler’s married son. True? She instituted monarchical features (including ladies-in-waiting) into the White House protocols. Maybe? She danced too closely to other men. Could be? She made a deal with a reporter to only write positive things about her in his paper. Possible? She rode around in a coach pulled by eight Arabian horses as royalty might. Likely? There’s a lot more for me to find out about this controversial First Lady.

Was Julia merely a strong, independent woman out of her time or was she a self-centered, entitled woman who was in a state of arrested development? I think the question is worth looking into. Intrepid Woman for my series? I don’t think so. I’ve not yet discovered the hallmarks of selflessness and heroism which mark my other women.

Bloggers love it when readers share the post with others. If you would do that, I’d be most appreciative. Here are some copy/paste messages you can use.

Facebook: Caroline Adams pulls back the curtain on the second wife of the 10^th POTUS. What do YOU know about Julia Gardiner Tyler? http://bit.ly/2iiotCW

Twitter: The 2nd wife of the 10^th POTUS was quite a gal. Check out her adventures and misadventures from @Caroline_Adams9 http://bit.ly/2iiotCW

Book Review: Caleb's Crossing

Okay. Here’s an admission. I am a Geraldine Brooks groupie. She was a keynote speaker at this year’s Historical Novel Society Conference in Portland, Oregon. And I stood next to her in the buffet lunch line! I got up enough courage to speak to her. I told her that I loved all her works, but my favorite was Year of Wonders: A Novel of the Plague. “That’s my husband’s favorite, too,” she replied. Yessss!

So here I am to share another of her works that I loved: Caleb’s Crossing.

First, to speak more generally across her various works, the aspects I value highly are her attention to historical accuracy and detail. That is paramount for historical fiction, but some write more historical FICTION than HISTORICAL fiction.

I wrote about this in movies in an earlier post, but it holds true for me for novels as well. I love to learn things when I read historical fiction. If I can trust the author’s research and interpretation, I enjoy the book more.

Brooks also has an eye for observation and writes spot-on characters. They leap off the page into your consciousness becoming as real as people you know in life. She also deals always with broader issues humans face such as faith, ethics, and responsibility to others. Oh, and she finds the most interesting, odd, little-known stories to shine her light on.

In Caleb’s Crossing, the recently-formed college that would later be named Harvard had a mission in its charter to not only educate settlers of the New World, but also to educate local indigenous peoples. Isn’t that remarkable? Caleb was the first Native American graduate in 1665. One of two graduates, actually, but the other was killed on his way to the graduation and Joel Iacommes didn’t get his degree awarded until 2011. At that same 2011 graduation, Tiffany Smalley, the first member of the Wampanoag tribe to attend Harvard since Caleb, received her diploma.

Caleb’s story is told through the journal of 12-year-old Bethia, a settler on Martha’s Vineyard, home to Caleb’s tribe. The fictional Bethia, daughter of the local minister, befriends Caleb and is drawn to the humanity, ethics, and spiritual practices of his people.

Cheeshahteaumuck, Caleb’s native name, was recognized early on as an intellect and was schooled by the white settlers. Their intent, of course, was not so pure as to educate for the sake of education. Thinking at the time included the implicit and explicit expectation that with the white man’s learning, the local indigenous people would no longer be “savages” and that they would embrace Protestantism resulting in peaceful cohabitation with “civilized” neighbors.

In her notes to readers, Brooks shares the little bit of known information about this young man and his educational journey. Then she creates a credible fictional world to place him in the values and conflicts and philosophical discussions of the era. What a remarkable thing, to be the only Native American in white institutions, and so brave for Caleb not only to have attempted Harvard, but to have graduated.

This is a wonderful book to reflect on the purpose of education and the colonization and absorption of local peoples. You will come away understanding better what early English settlers brought to the colony and how they changed the world around them.

If you enjoyed this review, share it with others. Here are some copy/paste messages you can use.

Facebook: Geraldine Brooks’ CALEB’S CROSSING is a remarkable and little known story of the first Native American to graduate from Harvard—in 1665! http://bit.ly/2wu33Ge

Twitter: Have you read @GeraldineBrooks’ CALEB’S CROSSING about the first Native American to graduate from Harvard in 1665? http://bit.ly/2wu33Ge

Irena Sendler-Intrepid Woman

Have you ever wondered what you would do if the Nazi’s had marched into your country and set up ghettos to contain “undesirables”? Would you have the courage to confront them for mistreatment of others even if it meant death? Would you find ways to subvert the Nazi agenda by working covertly? I’d like to think that I would, but no one really knows until one faces the actual situation.

Another Intrepid Woman in the series I am writing for middle grade readers is Irena Sendler (aka Irena Sendlerowa) who was part of the Polish Resistance during World War II. Irena, a Polish Catholic social worker, knew that her faith as well as her moral compass demanded she take action even in the face of a death sentence if discovered.

She was a woman in her late 20s when the Nazi’s absorbed Poland. The changes were swift and deep. One change was the creation of the Warsaw Ghetto to house 500,000 Jews. Such crowded conditions bred disease and starvation. Posing as a health care professional, she was able to obtain clearance to enter the Warsaw Ghetto regularly to attend to health needs.

The Germans were afraid of diseases, so they wouldn’t check the apartments she labeled as having typhus or some other contagion. In this way she was able to protect the identities of the children she and others smuggled out in tool boxes, gunny sacks, coffins, under produce, in ambulances and other ways. Irena herself got out 400 children, some infants. Twenty-five others in her network smuggled out an additional 2100 children.

Irena kept a list of all the children’s names and other details in the hope that she could reunite them with their families after the war. She wrote the names and stored them in a glass jar she buried under an apple tree in a neighbor’s backyard. After the war, she was saddened that most of the children’s families had been exterminated by the Nazi’s and she couldn’t bring them together. However, of the 2500 children, not one had been refused a home by sympathetic Poles, who placed the children in orphanages or reared the children as their own.

An informant told the Nazi’s of her work. They imprisoned her and tortured her, breaking both her feet and legs. Still she would not betray a single person in her network nor the names of the children she helped save. After the torture, she was sentenced to death. She was saved by the Resistance she had been part of when they bribed a guard who helped her escape. The German’s placed a price on her head, but she changed her name and was able to remain free until the war ended.

We only know of her story because a group of rural Kansas middle schoolers discovered her story and won a state history contest by retelling her tale. They wrote a play, “Life in a Jar”, that introduced this remarkable woman to the world.

If you enjoyed this post, please spread the word on Facebook and Twitter. Just copy/paste the entries below:

Facebook: Another post about an Intrepid Woman. Irena Sendler was responsible for the rescue of 2500 Jewish children from the Warsaw Ghetto. If you don’t know about her, you should. http://bit.ly/2uEk5Py

Twitter: Another remarkable intrepid woman. Irena Sendler saved 2500 Jewish children in the Warsaw Ghetto http://bit.ly/2uEk5Py

Elizabeth Jennings Graham-Intrepid Woman

One hundred years before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus in the segregated Deep South, a young school teacher in New York City boarded a streetcar for whites-only and was forcibly removed from the streetcar by the conductor and a police officer.

She suffered injuries and indignities, and took her grievance to court. Like Rosa Parks, who was well-connected with blacks with power and influence, Elizabeth also had an advantage due to her family. Elizabeth’s family were part of the small but influential upper middle class black community in New York City. They were friends with Frederick Douglass, for example. Also, their church was peopled with blacks with influence.

Her own immediate family were remarkable as well. Her father held the first patent ever issued to an African-American for his early version of dry cleaning. Her father used some of his considerable wealth to buy out the indentured contract of her mother, a slave woman forced into indenture when New York state abolished slavery. Her mother went on to become a speaker to black women encouraging them to get education for themselves and their children.

Related to Elizabeth’s treatment, she was encouraged to sue the transit company for damages. Her father contacted a law firm known for handling cases of discrimination and abolitionist causes. The newest junior partner, a recently minted attorney, took her case. The attorney was Chester Alan Arthur who would go on to become President of the United States. They sued for $500. In 1855, the jury, however, only awarded her $225 plus 10% for expenses. The thinking is that blacks of the time didn’t need that kind of money.

The result of Elizabeth’s lawsuit was that the 3^rd Avenue Railroad Company had to integrate all its streetcars. So, another person from Elizabeth’s circle boarded a white’s only streetcar, was removed, sued, and also won his case. As a result, the New York Transit System in its entirety was ordered to be integrated.

Elizabeth married, and she and her husband lost their toddler, an adopted child, to illness during the draft riots in New York City in 1862. A white undertaker helped them smuggle the body through the crowds to burial in Brooklyn. Shortly thereafter, she, her husband, and her mother moved to New Jersey to be near Elizabeth’s sister.

When her husband died, Elizabeth moved back to Manhattan and started the first kindergarten for African-American children in New York. She taught them until her death at age 76.

An intrepid woman for sure. I am working on a series of biographies for middle-grade students to give these little known women the recognition they deserve

HISTORICAL Fiction or Historical FICTION?

Did you see “Hidden Figures”, the movie about three women who worked at NASA and helped get John Glenn orbiting Earth? I loved the movie, like everyone else, but I did have trouble with the historical accuracy.

And, look, I know that most people (well, my friends) don’t agree with me on what Hollywood can do with facts. Heck, they invented “alternate facts”. Hold on to your seat. This is going to be a long one.

If I see a movie that is historical fiction or one that purports to be “based on true events”, I go fact-checking after viewing. I have to research what they got right and what they twisted.

Now don’t get me wrong. I love researching things of interest and have done so for nearly six decades. But movies? C’mon! The fact that I feel the need to fact-check is sorta sad, don’t you think?

I’m not even talking about the dialogue that is constructed to move the story along. We all know that even with the best documentation, not everything was recorded. So I give latitude, and we all should, for dialogue as long as it doesn’t blatantly contradict what we know about a person’s stance on issues discussed.

No, I’m offended by the Hollywood-ization of historical films, making changes for dramatic effect or to place a different focus on the event. If it’s a good story, tell it accurately. If it’s not a good story, find another one.

A writer friend and I had this very discussion recently. Since she writes historical fiction herself, I knew she was a stickler for accuracy. So it surprised me when she defended Hollywood-ization on the basis on trying to appeal to a larger audience and up the tension and drama so as to hook people on historical events and people. I argued that if a book is a best seller, you already know it’s popular, so just stick to the script, so to speak. We agreed to disagree.

Here are a few examples:

Gone with the Wind

My quest began with “Gone with the Wind”, re-released in the 1960s.

This movie was when I first noticed differences between a book and the movie. Likely it was the first time I had read something made into a movie. Scarlett was not an admirable woman, but when I saw her gladly toss her wedding ring into the collection for gold to be melted down, I remembered the scene in the book differently. The book is darker and Scarlett is revealed as much more Machiavellian and evil even than she comes across in the movie. In the movie you see flashes of concern for others on occasion; not in the book. The movie also downplayed Scarlett being grabbed in Shantytown. In the book the assailant is black, and in the movie, white. In the book we know that the men around Scarlett are in the KKK, but that’s not explicit in the movie. She is a terrible mother to three children in the book, but not in the movie where she is superficial and distracted. We know in the book Melanie has no milk for her baby and it is starving, also not mentioned in the movie. And so it went on. That was the first time I wondered if there was a responsibility for fidelity to truth in storytelling. Hollywood was into “alternate facts” before it was chi chi.

Gladiator

Russell Crowe is a composite of the many generals named Maximus, but Marcus Aurelius (yes, that Marcus Aurelius) and his son, Commodus, were real. However, unlike the movie, Commodus likely did not kill his father. The movie also gave Commodus a non-existent sister for dramatic effect.

Both the Coliseum and the gladiatorial combats appear to historically accurate, but the audience gave an historically inaccurate “thumbs down” to let a gladiator die. Commodus was even more of a narcissist and megalomaniac than was portrayed, and his government wanted him gone. Interestingly, rather than being killed by Maximus in the arena as the film depicts, a wrestler named Narcissus killed him in his bath. The assassination was planned by his advisors and his mistress.

Lincoln

Even with its hugely accurate portrayal of the events surrounding the passing of the 13^th Amendment to the Constitution abolishing slavery, Hollywood couldn’t keep from inventing a scene of Lincoln slapping his oldest son is the most unlikely of scenarios. Lincoln was indulgent with his children and averse to “parental tyranny”. And there is no certainty that Representative Stephens had made his housekeeper his mistress. Rumors have no place in a film purporting to be historically accurate. Why include them? Beyond titillation, what was the purpose? Other unlikely scenes, based on what is known of Lincoln? Swearing at his cabinet to get their support for the amendment. Black soldiers sneering and talking back to the President. Lincoln was larger than life. Being totally accurate, as best as possible, would not have taken away from the film one tad.

Hidden Figures

Mary Jackson was the first African-American woman engineer for NASA. She was indeed encouraged to go to school to become an engineer by the man she was assigned to work for. But rather than happening contemporaneously with the John Glenn orbiting in 1962, she had her degree and was a NASA engineer in 1958. Why isn’t that remarkable enough?

Dorothy Vaughn was hired by NACA (predecessor of NASA) during World War II. In 1948, 14 years before the movie time frame, she was made the first black supervisor. In the movie, she was passed over time and again as supervisor in the movie’s time frame. Why isn’t her story remarkable enough?

Katherine Johnson, the main figure, did not have to run a half mile each way to the restroom. That didn’t happen. Nor did the destruction of the sign for “colored women’s restroom.” NASA abolished segregated wings in 1958. Katherine Johnson says she was treated as a peer and did not experience the racism among co-workers that the film shows. That is not to downplay the racism outside the workplace, however.

The women didn’t ride to work together, but that’s okay. That bit of Hollywood-ization allowed for character development and is minor in the scheme of things. The movie makers compressed these women’s stories to fit the movie’s dramatic Glenn circling the globe. But why? I am fascinated with their accomplishments apart from Glenn even though that was part of their story, too.

As one film review in The National stated:

These women deserve to be celebrated, but director Theodore Melfi has allowed heart to rule head. Such factual inaccuracies do more harm than good – by embellishing injustice, you risk creating easy fodder for dark, reactionary forces to seize upon. There was no need to exaggerate the evils of segregation – and doing so threatens to cloud Hidden Figures’s well-intentioned cause. 

Back in the day, I taught children’s literature to both undergraduate and graduate students. I made the case that there is historical fiction and historical fiction. The emphasis being on which one has more weight. We expect and accept less accuracy in historical fiction, but for some reason when we see movies, we think what we see is all accurate. Generations of Americans think they are learning history when they see films. Maybe not so much.

Bloggers love it when readers spread the word about a post. Here are some for you to cut and paste if you'd be so kind. Thank you!

Facebook: There's a debate among historical fiction folk about movies and their accuracy in depicting historical facts. See what Caroline Adams Writer thinks at http://bit.ly/2gNNwgv

Twitter:  Which do you write? HISTORICAL fiction or historical FICTION? Get @Caroline_Adams9 take on it at http://bit.ly/2gNNwgv

Welcome!

All I need is another blog, but what the heck! With this new pen name I am launching another genre focus.

Caroline Adams writes historical fiction and middle-grade biographies of intrepid women. She/I have always been a history aficionado. That is, in terms of definition, not one who is “very knowledgeable”; rather one who is “enthusiastic about an activity, subject, or pastime”. But I love learning, and the research I do for historical fiction is engaging and invigorating.

I have dozens of what I call “tickler files” with story ideas in historical fiction ranging from pre-history, biblical, Southwest Native Americans, the plagues, and onward, dipping into eras like sampling fine wines. A dilettante? Perhaps. I prefer to think of it as wildly curious about too many things to ever explore in this lifetime. I’ll have to reincarnate to finish them all up.

Hmm. Maybe that’s the reason for my passion for the past.

My first completed novel, Lucinda, takes place in two time periods with the chapters alternating between the early and late 20^th centuries. It’s a mystery and a romance. What did happen to Great-great Aunt Lucinda in 1910 Athens, Ohio? I’ve met with some agents and editors who have expressed an interest in this book. Stay tuned for updates—the good, the bad, and the ugly.

My newest foray is writing middle-grade (ages 8-12) biographies about little-known intrepid women. I have been researching more than a dozen, but the first one I’m writing is Elizabeth Jennings Graham who, a hundred years before Rosa Parks, brought about the desegregation of the New York City transit system. Women like that should be known. I intend to bring their remarkable and inspirational stories to children.

In this blog, I’ll share stories like Elizabeth’s and I’ll talk about aspects of writing historical fiction and biographies.

I hope you’ll be back! And share the word if you like what you see here.