Q&A with Steven Pressfield discussion

I'm wondering how it is you choose which historical "facts" to use when writing on ancient topics, particularly if there are discrepant sources.
Perhaps the question is too broad/simplistic, not sure if I can articulate it well.
Do you decide, for example, to use Herodotus at face value...or whatever happens to be the modern scholar opinion du jour? I suppose since there is so much unknown, it is both blessing and curse when it comes to literary freedom.

heather, I approach an historical novel just like a contemporary novel. The story comes first and underlying the story is the theme -- "what it's about." I bend historical "facts" to the theme of the story. I try not to bend them too much. But I keep in mind that I'm not writing a history or a biography, I'm writing a novel. Here's an example: in "Virtues of War" (which was about Alexander the Great), the theme was leadership and how closely a genius leader should follow his own "daimon." I wanted Alexander to represent that leader and the subordinate characters, particularly his generals, to represent different aspects of that theme. So I took two of them, Craterus and Hephaestion, and took literary license to make them what I needed them to be. There was some historical basis for this, as much as can be known of that era, but for the most part I was just "taking them over." I made Craterus represent the hard-core warrior for whom victory is everything and I made Hephaestion a more moral commander who believed that how one conducted himself as a warrior was just as important as whether one won or not. Between the two, I had Alexander -- torn between these different points of view. Does that make sense? In other words, the theme dominates; historical "fact" is respected but secondary. That's my story and I'm sticking to it!

It seems to me that Thucydides, in particular, and maybe classical historians in general, adopted a similar attituded with regard to historical "fact" and its relationship to the "story" that he intended to tell. Classical history was, after all, considered to be a subset of classical literature (specifically, literature with a didactic function).

One could imagine Thucydides considering the various and possibly contradictory reports he had, for example, about the Melian dialogue (he was not there after all and he reports that the dialogue was secret), and then choosing the one (or inventing a new one) that respected the facts (in a "secondary" way--as you say above) but which served to get to the heart of the matter (in this case, a description of the cold migh-makes-right perspective behind the Athenian war doctrine).

While modern historians might scoff at this method, it seems to me that they, not classical historians, are the ones that should have to justify the tedious repetition of the "facts." Classical history, as literature, would seem to come under the inspiration of the Muses (was it Clio?). Modern history would seem to be, in an important sense, a rejection of the idea of divine inspiration and an attempt to replace it with a rather droll empiricism. I will simply note that Ken Burns (among others) understands history as a story that deals with human nature, motivation, and virtue (both personal and corporate). While he likely sticks to the facts (that are, of course, more accessible than ancient history), it is clear that he inserts a philosophical view into his analysis (for example, that the Civil War is the price that American paid for the sin of slavery). In other words, Burns doesn't fall prey to the 18th and 19th century understanding of history as related somehow to empirical science.

Just my thoughts, but it seems to me that only alternative history earns the title historical fiction. Your books seem more in the tradition of classical history.

Richard, you are a learned dude and I thank you very much for your parting compliment. I had never thought of it that way but, hearing it in your words, I agree. Who is to say that "facts" are factual anyway? Any reporter knows you can take the facts and skew them any way you like. Empiricism is just another word for a different sort of subjectivism and one that's less honest because it pretends not to exist at all. I go with Shakespeare in "Julius Caesar." He stuck very faithfully to the facts, as we know them, and produced a work of art that's probably (we'll never know, of course) truer to the actual Roman reality than any history we have from anyone.

Fake but accurate?

Maybe we should invent a new genre called "Virtual History".

I've always found, for me, that fiction rings truer than fact. When I write a scene that totally made up, that's the one that people say, "Wow, that was so true!" When I try to be true to reality, I get told, "I don't know, that wasn't very convincing."

The art of writing convincing fiction is to be more real than reality.

No one ever believes reality. It's too wierd.