Teotonio R. de Souza  Sir,

All writers  have to consider seven critical elements: character, dialogue, setting, theme, plot, conflict, and world building. While every story succeeds or disappoints on the basis of these elements, historical fiction has the added challenge of bringing the past to life.

please check the resources

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5cLyJIEM-xwC&pg=PA29&lpg=PA29&dq=What+are+the+privileged+components+of+an+historical+novel?&source=bl&ots=Bln3ZOz5wM&sig=rHHqu2SUyKpK0V_5gdXkzrfNc3g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiOpuqH1ozPAhVCJZQKHY2rDwsQ6AEIQzAH#v=onepage&q=What%20are%20the%20privileged%20components%20of%20an%20historical%20novel%3F&f=false

A fictionalised retelling of history thorough the eyes of a central character, whether autobiographical or otherwise, is always done from the privileged position not only knowing, in retrospect, the facts of history but also from the privileged position of realising the lessons history has to offer us. The complexities and dilemmas of your character must reflect both of these to make the historical element come alive. History doesn't come alive through fact alone. Life is always how we see it. In my semi-autobiographical novel Finding Harriet" (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Finding-Harriett-Maria-Teanby/dp/1622123654) Harriet sees the world in a distinct and unusual way that allows her to deal with the harsh social and historical facts of her life.

Also, to create characters that feel realistically complex, you need both constants and variables. Real characters need both strengths and weaknesses. They can't be good at everything,  and they can't be bad at everything; nothing but a mass of problems. Both perfect characters and totally lame characters annoy readers (and bore them.) The traits you choose to depict need to make biological, social and historical sense. Again you are in a privileged position here.

Biological traits are important. Heritable traits will be found (to a lesser or greater degree) in the character's family with recurring experiences that, with the privilege of retrospect, will allow you to deliver familiar and predictable consequences. Readers like this, but you can also surprise them. Another point about strengths and weaknesses: they may reverse value in different situations. What was a weakness may be valuable; what was a strength may be useless. Characters, like you and me, may have depended too much on one talent, and have to learn to use others. So your character will have certain constants which will be social or genetic, but many variables which is how he or she sees and deals with life. It's not the hand we're dealt, but what we do with it.

Character and plot collide to make a story; the collision points are the constant/variable traits you've shown in your characterization. Traits that have no plot function are useless for storytelling; some of your character's traits won't show (though, the longer the story travels the more you can show.) Plots that don't make use of characters' innate traits and experience are boring. So in developing character, think of each trait as a bur. Burs stick to things like historical fact and plot points so a character with a lot of traits will interact with the plot in interesting ways, with motivations that seem natural and inevitable to readers even when the actions may surprise them.

Also a note about historical accuracy. Yes you have the privilege of knowing what happened in history, but beware!! there are plenty of folks out there who will know far more than you, especially about places. it's sometimes better, therefore, to use fictional but easily recognisable places rather than real ones. It would be a great shame to have a good story brought down by historical inaccuracy.

Finally, never underestimate the power of metaphor, which is a mental process describing how we all interpret the world in front of us. In a historical novel the metaphors are especially powerful because you have the privilege of being able to link them to how the character is seeing the world in his or her own social and historical context. It is pure intuitive thinking and the greatest of burs you can give your character.

Good luck!!

To judge by the historical novels that I have read there do not seem to be any differences between these and any other genre.  I certainly question how many authors actually have a respect for historical accuracy either with respect to historical or technological details, I cannot think of any off hand.  This of course has a long pedigree if we look to the ancient and medieval world the tradition is to add in characters that the readership will find memorable regardless as to whether or not they were genuinely contemporary; three good examples of this are the king list in Beowulf, the accretion of historical characters around the Arthurian cycle and the by now set in stone linkage between Henry Morgan, governor of Jamaica, and Blackbeard the pirate.  The same applies to technology which is usually added in order to produce excitement for the audience and therefore often contains anachronisms, the use of formalised 15/16th century jousts in novels etc regardless of when in the medieval period they are set springs to mind.

Indeed it may be impossible to write a historically accurate historical novel.  in part this is due to changing cultural expectations particularly as it affects the portrayal of the hero.  A good example of this is the El Cid legend.  In the medieval Spanish version when Diego kills the man who has insulted his father he decapitates him and presents the bloodied head to his father while the latter is at dinner, much to his father's joy.  This behaviour was quite acceptable in a medieval work, however, by the 1950s when Charlton Heston famously portrayed him such behaviour would have been totally unacceptable in the good guy.

The upshot of which is that I wouldn't worry too much about historical details, concentrate on writing a good novel and keep out the worse anachronisms while incorporating however much period detail you need for background colour.  If you do this you will be in keeping with the greats of literature: Homer, the Athenian tragedians, the Bible, Beowulf etc and that can't be bad!

Moving against a thoroughly researched, plausible historical background are fictional characters whose attitudes and feelings, although within the norms of the period, are highly relatable to the reader for whom the fiction is designed. E. M. Forster in "Aspects of the Novel" articulates the problem facing the writer of this genre (whether it be Dickens in "A Tale of Two Cities" or Sir Walter Scott in "Waverley") as negotiating a space between the mountains of historical fact and literary exploration. The novelist realizes "the period," but does not permit the historical backdrop to overwhelm the narrative. One of the problems for the novelist in the historical subgenre of the novel is the authenticity of dialogue and underlying attitudes; people in Romola, for example, have to sound as if they live in the Renaissance, but speak and act in such a way that they are convincing and intelligible to the 19th c. reader. The challenge, then, is anachronism: characters' espousing attitudes and possessing knowledge that they could not have in the period of the novel.

Sorry Philip I don't recognise this model in historical novels, backgrounds are rarely well researched and at least the good guys rarely espouse attitudes acceptable for their time period.  in contrast bad guys are often made to look bad by espousing views unfashionable now but common then.

I wish to thank profusely the various colleagues / respondents to my question. All have raised very significant issues which I will certainly keep in mind in working out my novel. Thank you Nirmala, Maria Teanby, Dibakar, Timothy, Torsten, Philip, Michael and Dimitris. I shall try to follow your suggestions and indications / links provided.

Indeed, recognizable and crucial historical events such as Napoleon's invasion of Russia (War and Peace) and the 1745 Jacobite Rebellion (Scott's Waverly) are absolutely essential to the backdrop of an historical novel. The event should be at least a generation ahead of the time of writing, as is the case with George Eliot's Middlemarch and Thomas Hardy's The Trumpet Major.

I have to question the concept of recognisable historical events.  This depends on what you mean by recognisable since often the novelist distorts the details so much that the event is unrecognisable without being labelled as such.  Perhaps the better term would be famous.  This again has a long pedigree, think of the Trojan War in Greek literature.

No doubt historical novels can be located on a scale of historicity.  At the upper end of the scale I would put Galileo's Daughter, which includes historical documents in the form of the daughter's letters to her father.

Oh, indeed, the novelist often uses coincidence to re-shape historical events to suit his ends. Culloden in Scott's novels formed useful reference point for his entire series ("Tis Sixty Years Since"), and his novels set in mediaeval France and during the Crusades are faithful as to the general outlines of famous events that form the tapestried backdrop of his historical fiction.

Yes Philip in very general terms are they faithful to historical events, but only the biggest and most famous, and like Scott they are more throwaway lines in order to introduce characters.  This should be no more adequate to characterise a novel as 'historical' than the very limited use of well known scientific concepts in space opera is to classify it as science fiction.  Indeed by your definition the novels based on many episodes of Doctor Who could be classified as 'historical' novels since they often have as much, if not more, period detail than many works that claim to be historical novels.

Eliot's Middlemarch, set at the time of the Great Reform Bill, actually provides few specifics about the parliamentary background, but Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities is highly specific as to settings and events leading up to the French Revolution. In other words, the term "Historical Novel" is quite broad, including everything from The Eagle of the Ninth to The Wide Sargasso Sea. For me, War and Peace and Romola are the quintessential representatives of the genre.

Given that no archaeologist/classicist seriously entertains the premise that the Ninth Hispana was lost in Scotland is it possible to accept The Eagle of the Ninth as a historical novel since it's core premise is now regarded as being as accurate as David Drake's Ranks of Bronze?

The shade of the language being spoken at the time of event adds extra flavour to the novel.

unfortunately Arvind that is of only limited use, it is fine for relatively recent time periods but as we go further back it would necessitate writing speech in a completely different language.  The same would also apply to novels set in other cultures.  I would note that the Eagle of the Ninth or A Tale of Two Cities would be as popular if the characters were speaking in the correct language.  The usual approach is to adopt a pastiche whereby characters speak in something that the readership think they should be speaking in, which for English language novels often means a vaguely Shakespearean patois.

  The same approach is also adopted to express race/social rank.  Indians are always saying "goodness gracious me", Welshmen, my own nationality, "look you" and "boyo" etc. So this approach is not just confined to 'Historical' novels.

In some respects Prange seems to have cut and pasted from a Classical discussion regarding the difference between biography and history.  There seem to be two strands here.  The ancient concept of a biography was that it should contain anecdotes that inform on the life of the person concerned and these do not have to be literarily true.  The purpose of biography was to write for the present, this seems reflected in most of Prange's ideas.

In many respects contributors to this debate seem to be advocating  the writing of this kind of work.  The problem is that the term historical novel also incorporates anything set in the past, and these frequently contain so many anachronism in period detail and behaviour as to render it doubtful if Prange's 5th point is either achievable or desirable.

I recall JRR Tolkien's comments about writing which was to make the novel consistent rather than slavishly true to any real setting, although even this is rarely followed.

Indeed the only 'privileged' detail of a historical novel seems to be that it is 'set' in some bygone society and  this seems to be confirmed by Prange, stand back and apply these to any novel and you will produce the same results

My use of cut and paste was not meant to imply plagiarism merely that the same concepts seem to be common to all forms of literature,

I still think that the most telling thing about Prange's list is point 10 which prioritises the novel over the history, although this may just be a continuation of points 1-3, once this is accepted then the historical novel loses any "privileged components" and becomes merely an author determined setting for his story, and no real details are to be allowed to interfere with the feel of the novel.

I think Ankersmith is wide of the mark here by discussing such details as an aspect of historicity, a similar level of detail may or may not be used by fantasy, horror, sci fi or techno thriller writers, indeed it is diagnostic of the last genre

A quality piece of historical fiction tells a compelling story that balances authentic and accurate information with fiction. There is a mixture of real and fictional events. Historical fiction Reflects the values and spirit of the time and culture.Objectivity is an essential aspect of historical writing.Just as in a novel, the background, that is the scene and characters, should be described in detail, provided of course that sufficient historical evidence exists to back up the description.

However, the novelist (even so great a writer as Tolstoy, Scott, or Elliot) cannot escape the attitudes of the present in which he or she is writing, attitudes to which the Common Reader can relate.

The story must not be possible, it must even in its smallest background detail be plausible.

In that case Ivo and Philip Walter Scott's Ivanhoe for all that it is among my favourite works of fiction is most definitely not a historical novel since Scott takes too many liberties and not just with "its smallest background detail" but with wider cultural aspects, I presume Ivo that your comment on learning medieval history from this source was intended to be ironic.

My thanks for all suggestions received from Wolfgang, Grover, Ivo, Allingham, Jones et al. I agree with you all that there is always a place for creativity and originality. Historical novel for me is a successful interplay between verosimilarity and provocation!

What about reasoning in the ancient rhetorical terms of exempla, templates to be reproduced and modified ? For instance, I think that Walter Scott's Ivanhoe is a historical novel, which takes a great degree of liberty on details and cultural anachronism, but it belongs to the genre and it is an example of great success. Another, patently ironic and rather free, even if with a lot of "real" inserts from original sources is Eco's in the name of the rose. A historical novel is simply a novel placed in the past. What is it a biographical-historical novel implies first of all the question of what is it a biography. A genre that always collapses the already blurred distinction between narrative and historical report.

In this case, it seems to me that you mean a novel about you, and facts that happened to you, but placed in another age. If it is so, I think that your novel would be anyway more figurative than historical, I mean that you will use the past to allegorize the present, and so you can be as free as you want, and the accuracy of details, without pedantry, could just be a possible cause of enjoyment for your readers.

A very good example of this use of the past in a novel is certainly Manzoni's Promessi Sposi, when critics to actual Austrian occupation of Italy were transformed into critics to the old Spanish rule. Is this your case ?

Manzoni cited many real figures, but made no effort to make characters speak in a XVIth century manner, their costumes were highly idealized, and their feelings were those of a post-romantic generation of XIXth hundred. 

After all if yours is an auto-biography can you make yourself feeling and having the emotions of a Roman or a Greek, or a German belonging to the Holy Empire ?

Many thanks for your rather intriguing question.

Dear Pier

Thank you for many concrete suggestions. Several of those elements will be addressed in my "sort of autobiography", but the element of "history" will come from Portuguese colonial presence in Goa to set the context. Joaquim Rosa is my alter-ego, some type of heteronyms of the Portuguese modernist writer Fernando Pessoa. Eco will also influence the book with his penchant for finding manuscripts. 

All historical novels have two components: field (setting + atmosphere) and objects (real people who are among imaginary characters). The narrative flows through these two. The timeline, being an important element of historical narratives, may be altered  by the writer to suit the plot or the objects. You can read "A New Historicism Reader" by Stephen Greenblatt for more info.

The key to the fictional names is plausibility, as in Waverley and Romola. Sir Walter Scott was quite willing to bend historical fact to needs of his narratives and to rely on coincidence to bring fictional characters into situations with historical personages.

Thank you Fathima, Dibakar and Philip for your suggestions / comments.

Modern "documentary fiction" such as Ken Follett's is essentially the 19th c. historical revised, although Follett's model is more likely Tolstoy than Scott or Elliot.