Can I make up History?

[MMI]

I have no problem with setting pure fiction in a historical plot - real events happening in the background, even influemcing the heros' actions. There's no misrepresnetation there.

My concern is this: my main character would appear to want a certain outcome, but in real history, that outcome did not happen. Therefore, I would like to suggest that history turned out the way it did because the main character was, in fact, antagonistic to his espoused cause and eventually betrayed it, or, alternatively, that he was manipulated by real historical characters (who probably did meet him).

I am aware of no evidence to support or refute my suggestions, but they do seem to make more sense than the current interpretation of the few facts there are. But the current interpretation is based purely on those facts, whereas I would attribute motives and actions that are completely unrecorded.

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

[Clevernick]

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

I think that's the essence of all historical fiction. The good stuff, anyway. Nobody really knows why things turned out as they did, so your interpretation, using your fictional characters, is as good as any.

And if your characters are believable enough, people may go away thinking, "I wonder if that character really existed! That explanation makes so much sense!"

And I think that's your goal.

[leo9]

I have no problem with setting pure fiction in a historical plot - real events happening in the background, even influemcing the heros' actions. There's no misrepresnetation there.

My concern is this: my main character would appear to want a certain outcome, but in real history, that outcome did not happen. Therefore, I would like to suggest that history turned out the way it did because the main character was, in fact, antagonistic to his espoused cause and eventually betrayed it, or, alternatively, that he was manipulated by real historical characters (who probably did meet him).

I am aware of no evidence to support or refute my suggestions, but they do seem to make more sense than the current interpretation of the few facts there are. But the current interpretation is based purely on those facts, whereas I would attribute motives and actions that are completely unrecorded.

So, I wouldn't be offering an "alternative" history as such, but would be casting a different light on the way things did turn out.

If his sympathies are known, I would go for the version where he is frustrated by events, rather than attributing motives that are historically doubtful.

But if his preferences are not recorded, only assumed from the results, then it would be an interesting plot device to paint a picture of his motives which is contrary to what is popularly assumed, but which you can show to be consistent with the known facts.

There is a particular flavour to historical novels where the protagonists are striving to achieve something which we know did not, in fact, happen. Since one knows that they will fail, there is a tragic fascination in waiting to see how.