# Reality in Fiction?



## SueC (Oct 18, 2017)

Recently, I submitted a story to a writing critique group (in real time). The process is for the attendees to read a story out loud in the meeting and then comment on it. Authors are not encouraged to get into a discussion with the group; they are just expected to listen, take notes, and nod. 

When I write fiction, I try to incorporate as much realism as possible. I always thought this was a good thing to do – real cities, landmarks, even time frames that reflect mores of society. I don’t write speculative fiction. So, this piece I had given to the group for review was the beginning of a novel (I may have posted it here too), and I was surprised at the comments I received. For example, regarding this:

_“Your name is so interesting, Manny. Where are your people from?_

_“Poland originally. My parents somehow survived the Hitler mess and then our family became refugees in Spain. They stayed there for many years, but I was educated in England. By any chance, is there a Catholic Church nearby?” We then talked about St. Jerome and I invited him to go to Mass with me._

The comments from the group focused more on factual details, rather than story details. The leader pointed out to me that he is pretty sure that no refugees made it Spain during Hitler’s reign. He also said that it was a disservice to simply say “the Hitler mess,” when it was so much more than that. Other comments were similar. When commenting on a policeman’s behavior in the story, one woman asked me if I had ever watched _NCI_?

I wanted to say that these two people above were standing in the foyer of an apartment building, had just met, and so I thought it unrealistic to have either of them go into much detail. All I managed to squeak out in response to the leader, however, was “remember, it’s fiction.”

So, my question. *Is it better to fictionalize everything in a fiction story, so there is no confusion about whether it is fact-based or not, or can reality be incorporated effectively so that no one thinks I am writing a memoir? I don’t want readers to get caught up in the possibility of incorrect partial reality in my stories, so much so that they miss the story all together. Thoughts?*


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 18, 2017)

Hmm. I suppose checking whether wartime refugees made it to Spain might be good if you want historical rigour. If however a key part of your story imagines that they did, then that's what you must write. It's very easy, as I'm sure you know, to be overadvised to the point that a writer finds the core of their story has vanished, but equally, things must hang together. I can't imagine why they wouldn't in this case - and a quick google search reveals that many Jews did escape to Spain, even though there was much anti-semitic sentiment in the country at the time.

Saying the "Hitler mess" is, in my view, perfectly okay if that is how the character talks. If someone takes offence at that, then perhaps that is good as it is them reacting to the character; have them take it out on that character. If they are taking offense for offense's sake, then I dunno; unless one of your story's themes is downplaying the Holocaust (which I'm sure it isn't!) then they probably just need to grow a bit of a pair. Fiction is supposed to challenge our viewpoints.

So yes, I would say it is perfectly okay to merge reality and fiction! In fact it seems entirely normal to do so. I suspect your book club leader simply wanted to be seen to be picking holes. Does he do that to everybody? It may just be his way of showing an interest or something.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Oct 18, 2017)

I think, first, it's good to have a real setting rather than a fake setting. However, the fake setting lets you construct whatever you want. The real setting makes you try to conform to reality.

And obvious mistakes will be jolting. Google is your friend. I always end up with an afterward that tries to sort out what is true and what is not.

I am still angry about the character who was driven to Montauk and then took a bus North.

One attempt to explain to my readers. The main character has to write a review.



> We find a small room where we can talk.
> Me: "What are the ethics of writing fiction about a real country?"
> Frederick shrugs. "What do you mean?"
> "This is a good example. Our heroine decides there is a sadist serial-killer protected by the police. She does amazing things, and the sadist is wiped out. Good clean fiction, right?"
> ...


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 18, 2017)

I don't see the going to Spain thing as a make or break issue. Even if not enough folks left via Spain to get mentioned anywhere, that doesn't mean that one family didn't go that way.

Calling WW II "the Hitler mess" is different. To those that lived through it, your label trivializes something that was far bigger than a mess. There are still ripples from it today. Holocaust survivors' children have been found to have altered genetics. It's not quite understood, but there it is. And being forced to leave your home and everything behind, fleeing for your lives, is a lot more than a mess.

There's an eighty-something year old man who went back to Poland or Czechoslovakia region to see his childhood home.

I think it's a good idea to avoid disrespecting one's readers. No reader "has to" do anything, including remembering it's 'just' fiction. 


On the subject of feedback in general : over time you should be better able to determine what criticism you should take to heart.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 18, 2017)

I think it's fine to include real facts and historical details in your writing, just as long as the reader doesn't get confused (or worse: bored).

Regarding the comments you received: to me, they were nitpicking the technical stuff a bit too much—something I believe happens quite often in live critique circles (someone brings up a concern, no matter how minor, and others feel the need to weigh in. Suddenly, a potentially irrelevant nitpick becomes the topic of a vigorous debate).

Also, remember that, as the writer, you have the authority to disregard any and all feedback you receive. If you find it isn't helpful, or doesn't work for you, feel free to just smile politely, thank the commenter, and in your head, mutter, _Thanks, but no thanks_.

And as a reader, I, personally, would not have any concerns about the excerpt you posted. I would have read it, learned a little something about the speaker, and continued reading without even blinking.

Hope any of that helps! :encouragement:


----------



## SueC (Oct 18, 2017)

Thank you all so much. Very helpful. This isn't a story about the Holocaust. It's just an moment shared in the lobby of an apartment building; definitely not meant to be disrespectful to anyone. A casual conversation, although the connection to Poland later makes a small appearance, but that's all. It sounds, from what everyone is saying, that reality should not be toyed with in fiction, that it is distracting if it isn't correct. You are right about Google! I always try to check. This has helped me quite a bit. 

The leader of the writing group is sort of a pompous a**. He is published and never misses an opportunity to say so. Everyone seemed to like the story until he waded in with his observations, and then they all "piled on." But, I was really only left with the questions I had about factual places and events in a fiction piece. And you guys stepped up!!! Yay all of you


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 18, 2017)

SueC said:


> The comments from the group focused more on factual details, rather than story details. The leader pointed out to me that he is pretty sure that no refugees made it Spain during Hitler’s reign.



He is vastly, resoundingly, luminously wrong about that.  

There was a whole battalion of Polish Communists who fought on the Republican (i.e. antifascist) side in the Spanish Civil War from 1936-1939.  They were called the Dabrowski Battalion.  After the fascist victory in Spain, some of them went on to fight against Hitler in France, and were evacuated to the UK at Dunkirk.  There was a Polish unit (using American equipment) that took part in the invasion of Normandy in 1944; it was called the First Polish Armoured Division and attached to the Canadian forces, where it served with considerable distinction at the Battle of the Falaise Pocket --- notably on Hill 262, a fight so bloody and important that it has its own chapter in most of the better histories of the Normandy Landings.  The Germans were caught in a bottleneck and the Poles on Hill 262 were the stopper in the bottle.  They came under sustained attack from the 12th SS Panzer division and fought until they literally ran out of ammunition on 20th August 1944.  The Allies dropped more ammo by plane that night, and the Poles kept on fighting on 21st August, as a result of which the Germans failed to escape the Falaise Pocket.  They were encircled and lost about 15 divisions (which means somewhere more than 60,000 men).  

The Canadian engineers erected a plaque on Hill 262 which still stands; it says "A Polish Battlefield".

In fact quite a lot of Poles travelled a remarkably long distance, and fought remarkably hard, against fascism during the Second World War, and there are some really interesting stories to tell about them.

Your story isn't just historically accurate, though, it's also _plausible_ which is the key there.

I've just read that again and I need to apologise.  I'm so sorry ---- I'm a second world war nerd and I do think these things are important.


----------



## Plasticweld (Oct 18, 2017)

I remember talking to a salesman who was part of the one percent that made millions as a salesman.   I asked in to give me a no bullshit answer to a no bullshit question.  Maybe it was the way I worded it but he gave me an answer that was honest and had a huge impact on me as a writer and storyteller. 

I asked "Do you lie to your customers?" 

He said, " I tell the truth 98 percent of the time, so that the handful of times I do lie, no one would believe I wasn't telling the truth." 

As a writer the first time you tell a reader something that they perceive to be a lie, they then doubt every word after that.  If the reader believes everything you say and you introduce one small fact that is wrong, you will more than likely have them believe you. 


Good fiction is believable, it is plausible and often something we could picture doing.  In the Wall Street Journal today they had a review of the TV show "The Walking Dead" which is going on its 8th season and has been a number one show.  What the writer's contribute to the show's success, is that it features everyday people doing extraordinary things.


----------



## SueC (Oct 18, 2017)

Wow, wow and wow. Thank you so much for your detailed response. I am enamored of history and love incorporating tidbits into everyday stories, especially anything to do with WWII. I admit to not being very educated as far as maneuvers, but more as to how the war impacted people. You are a wonderful resource and I may be seeking you out again. I'm glad to know the group leader was wrong.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 18, 2017)

I am confused. Are you leaving "the Hitler mess" the way it is?


----------



## Non Serviam (Oct 19, 2017)

I would.  

The technical word for that is meiosis ---- understatement for effect.  Poles do that.


----------



## SueC (Oct 19, 2017)

Don't be confused, Jack.  I can certainly change that - seems to be the consensus that it should be. I said I didn't want to offend anyone, so maybe "_My parents somehow survived the German invasion and then our family became refugees in Spain._


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 19, 2017)

SueC said:


> Don't be confused, Jack.  I can certainly change that - seems to be the consensus that it should be. I said I didn't want to offend anyone, so maybe "_My parents somehow survived the German invasion and then our family became refugees in Spain._



Personally I would be mindful of making that change. I understand the reasons for it, but I do think you risk compromising _your _prose and _your _voice. Asking for, and receiving, advise can be tricky because of this; I would go with what you, the author, think works. You are quite literally the _author_ity in this instance. Now, down the line, if some editor at that hot agency who is repping your book thinks it ought to go, then maybe consider it then. I don't think that by using it implies any disrespect or will make people think you are some raging anti-semite. I am sure there are far worse things in books. Marginalised groups - whether historical or contemporary - taking genuine offence at this sort of thing seems to be pretty rare.


----------



## SueC (Oct 19, 2017)

BD, you know I do keep going over it in my head. It's a conversation, with a relative stranger . . . and it's such a minor thing, this comment. Since the book isn't even about Hitler or his "mess" at all, I don't feel compromised by changing it to something more subtle. Even though I wouldn't be offended by such an off hand comment if he were talking about say, the potato famine in Ireland (being Irish), I can see how some may be super sensitive. But thanks for the reminder. We don't have to please everyone, do we? Something I need to keep in mind as I meander through this site. You're the best!


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 19, 2017)

I asked the question because you mentioned how everyone agreed, and I didn't see a consensus on that point.

I'm not sure you should base your decisions on consensus, though. It needs to be right for you. 

When I'm not sure about a change, I live with it for a bit, mentally, and see how it feels after a couple weeks. Then I decide.

(Maybe there could be a thread on how to decide what advice to follow and what to ignore.)


----------



## Olly Buckle (Oct 19, 2017)

It sounds like the consensus has more to do with the structure of the group than an analysis of the story.

I like finding stuff that is about real places I know. I don't live there now, but truly I am a Londoner, and I loved a kids book called 'The Borribles' for that; Ben Aaranovich's 'Rivers of London' does it too, and yet they both manage to combine it with the wildest fantasy.

People who take offence so often take it on behalf of someone else, I am 73 and I was only just born before the war ended, there can't be many of us left who still directly suffer from 'Hitler's mess'. Remember Ian Dury's record 'Spasticus autisticus', the able bodied took great offence at it 'On behalf of all disabled people'  but Ian was disabled, a spastic who wore a calliper as a result  of chilhood polio!


----------



## SueC (Oct 19, 2017)

Olly, I know what you mean. I LOVE reading any stories about Chicago, wondering if I can pick out the places that I know from growing up there. As far as the other, I need to develop a thicker skin or something. I need to trust my gut. I watch every documentary on the Holocaust I can - on purpose - but I still felt that the guy in the foyer of the apartment building might say something like that, trying to appear casual about his distant connection to his Polish relatives. Thanks for your comments; always appreciated.


----------



## ppsage (Oct 19, 2017)

If I had a character say 'Hitler mess' I would have intended it to be provocative.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Oh how I love it when people call out historical 'errors' and get it back assward...

To answer your question, no I don't think it is necessarily better to fictionalize things out of worry over getting people fired up. What I would say is if one is going for a historical reference (or, for that matter, a historical story) they should make sure there are no errors that would constitute being disrespectful (especially important with something like the holocaust) and do their best to get the important facts straight. One of my books concerns time travel and yes, I tried to do my research. I was lucky to have a decent exposure to people alive during that period so I mainly used that instead of books...but obviously they could have got things wrong - I know for fact they did. Anybody who is going to turn their nose up at a book because of an incidental anachronism or error is probably not who you want reading your stuff, in my view.

There's definitely a thin line, though. Most people - myself included - absolutely hated the movie Pearl Harbor and a large reason for that is for anybody even vaguely familiar with the history it's absurd and borders on disrespect with how little lip service is paid to facts. The director justified that he wasn't trying to do a documentary. Well, fair enough, but the movie was literally called Pearl Harbor. By losing credibility we are left in a place where we do not know what - if anything - to believe when we see error upon error. The kind of piece it is definitely matters. If you're writing a book about a historical event you MUST get the salient aspects right. If its merely a setting, it probably matters less...but still matters some!

Still, though, consider how much can potentially be lost by dispensing with an opportunity to ground your story in a historical period. People generally enjoy realism and by fictionalizing absolutely everything you do comes across as a little limp, in my opinion. There's a reason so many movies put "Based on a true story' (ha ha) on the poster. 

Oh, and, people did in fact flee to Spain during world war two. Not as many as Switzerland, etc due to Spain being under Franco, but they did. And in a dialogue context there is nothing wrong or disrespectful about referring to it as the "Hitler mess" - that is the kind of thing people likely would have said. Not "the evil Nazi plundering of Europe", not even "the holocaust". When people talk about 9/11 they call it 9/11, don't they? Not "the worst and most saddest terrorist tragedy ever to befall America" because you'd sound like a walking propaganda poster.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

> If I had a character say 'Hitler mess' I would have intended it to be provocative




Why? It was a mess. People during or after crises rarely refer to traumatic episodes by what they are. We tend to sugarcoat the worst things not out of disrespect or provocation but to maintain our sanity. This is a character speaking who was there and Sue should keep the term as is. Changing it to "holocaust" or anything more 'accurate' would be a pathetic exercise in pandering to political correctness.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Why? It was a mess. People during or after crises rarely refer to traumatic episodes by what they are. We tend to sugarcoat the worst things not out of disrespect or provocation but to maintain our sanity. This is a character speaking who was there and Sue should keep the term as is. Changing it to "holocaust" or anything more 'accurate' would be a pathetic exercise in pandering to political correctness.



Balderdash.

It doesn't have to be changing it to the holocaust. It could be fleeing Hitler or fleeing the Nazis.

Being respectful is not pandering.

I had relatives impacted by both world wars. None of them would have called what they lived through a mess. Fleeing for your and your families' lives, leaving behind all your possessions, or just about, and all your friends, acquaintances, and relatives is more than a mess. Having your farm or business taken or destroyed is more than a mess.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 23, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Oh how I love it when people call out historical 'errors' and get it back assward...
> 
> To answer your question, no I don't think it is necessarily better to fictionalize things out of worry over getting people fired up. What I would say is if one is going for a historical reference (or, for that matter, a historical story) they should make sure there are no errors that would constitute being disrespectful (especially important with something like the holocaust) and do their best to get the important facts straight. One of my books concerns time travel and yes, I tried to do my research. I was lucky to have a decent exposure to people alive during that period so I mainly used that instead of books...but obviously they could have got things wrong - I know for fact they did. Anybody who is going to turn their nose up at a book because of an incidental anachronism or error is probably not who you want reading your stuff, in my view.
> 
> ...



Put the shoe on the other foot. How would Americans react if 9/11 was refered to as the Bin Laden mess. Or the Bush Jr mess. It would be disrespectful to those who died and are still dying.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

I agree it’s more than a mess, obviously, but that doesn’t mean people who lived through it truly comprehended what it was or could psychologically handle referring to it as such. Context is everything. If somebody who suffered through the Nazis refers to it as “the Hitler mess” my impression would be that they are uncomfortable with examining the subject too closely, that they are trying to lighten the mood, not that they are secretly indifferent to the suffering they endured. It makes no sense to think that. On the other hand if - just for examples sake - President Trump, who was not there, and has a spotty record on that stuff, used that phrase tomorrow in a tweet it would be an entirely different impression.

It’s much the same as if an old man refers to his own pending funeral as his “death party” or spoke of “kicking the bucket” we would smile and find him stoic but if I referred to another persons grandfathers death as such I would be disrespectful. This is a character and therefore there is license. Some people may not say “fleeing Hitler” with it sounding natural according to who they are and how they talk elsewhere in the piece. So what? We aren’t going to compromise on subject matter if it means compromising on the quality or authenticity of our work. Sorry if that triggers you.

My Recently completed novel is actually set in 1940 and in order to complete it I spent about twenty hours over three weeks interviewing veterans, housewives, and yes - holocaust survivors. My grandpa from England had his house bombed when he was seven and spent the rest of the war as an evacuee. I am well aware of the sensitivity of the issue but more aware still from having those conversations that different people (including fictional characters) think and feel about things differently and frankly I have met more people with humorous or even flippant takes on their sufferings than otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 23, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Put the shoe on the other foot. How would Americans react if 9/11 was refered to as the Bin Laden mess. Or the Bush Jr mess. It would be disrespectful to those who died and are still dying.



Im not sure if the two events are truly that comparable and dismiss your questions validity as operating under a false premise that the quote was in any way disrespectful. 

However, as an American, it would again depend on context - tone - the person saying it. If it was somebody who had survived it, no problem whatsoever. Why should I judge the nomenclature selected by a person who had lived through the event and suffered more than me? My business is only that I do not call it by those names. 

I’m honestly not really sure why you seem to not understand the importance of context here and seek to constantly apply blanket rules to things...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 24, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Im not sure if the two events are truly that comparable and dismiss your questions validity as operating under a false premise that the quote was in any way disrespectful.
> 
> However, as an American, it would again depend on context - tone - the person saying it. If it was somebody who had survived it, no problem whatsoever. Why should I judge the nomenclature selected by a person who had lived through the event and suffered more than me? My business is only that I do not call it by those names.
> 
> ...



It was your own example and now you're not not sure if there're comparable.

Well I am sure. They aren't. 9/11, bad as it was, was a single day. WW II was much larger.

This has gotten too ridiculous for words.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 24, 2017)

Here's the difference. SueC is the person choosing the words. Not her character.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 24, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Here's the difference. SueC is the person choosing the words. Not her character.



Yeah, that’s how writing works.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 24, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> This has gotten too ridiculous for words.



Hallelujah! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charcoal (Oct 24, 2017)

SueC said:


> When I write fiction, I try to incorporate as much realism as possible. I always thought this was a good thing to do – real cities, landmarks, even time frames that reflect mores of society. I don’t write speculative fiction. So, this piece I had given to the group for review was the beginning of a novel (I may have posted it here too), and I was surprised at the comments I received. For example, regarding this:
> 
> _“Your name is so interesting, Manny. Where are your people from?_
> 
> ...




I know some have commented calling it a "Hitler mess" is a bit... bland. Or insulting. If that's the case, don't read it. People have many ways to cope & calling it something else would be one. Because when most people think of the Nazis they think of the Holocaust. That's an automatic assumption. Like saying the sun is orange, sky is blue, and whales don't 'fly' unless they're breaching. 

But the Nazis had quite a bit of influence throughout Europe (the world) & this went well beyond the Holocaust. A number of Poles were murdered, and some quite brutally, by the UPA. They basically used the Nazi-controlled Poland as an excuse to rid themselves of a 'problem', for lack of a better word, that Poland/Ukraine had been sort of bickering over for years prior. The Nazis didn't have direct influence I believe, however, they were a smokescreen for these UPA ethnic cleansing massacres. The same as how the Japanese used the Nazis' claims of superiority, and their Nazi alliance, as 'permission' to slaughter thousands upon thousands of fellow Asians in ethnic cleansing. That's the "mess" of Hilter's regime. 

The world, after all, didn't exactly revolve around the Holocaust (the highlight of high school history lessons). Nor did the suffering stop when the Nazis ceased to exist. People who think that's how the war played out should _try_ educating themselves about the entirety of the war & the aftermath. 


The thing is, is you're not going to discuss something like this - or the Holocaust even - in an apartment lobby. You're typically not even going to discuss it with an out-of-the-blue stranger. I should know as my grandmother was a WWII nurse, a friend of hers was a spy, and a very close friend happened to be of Polish Jewish ancestry from the War, etc. These ancestors were blubbering about their experiences to everyone under the sun. The spy went to the grave only telling a very few people about what they had done, seen, who they met, experienced, etc. 



As for refugees making it to Spain. Yeah, they did. Hence why I made that comment about your reviewers needing to know something about the war & having to educate themselves if they don't know. 

Hundreds (to thousands) of Jews sought shelter in Spain from France & western Europe as well as central & eastern Europe (Poland, Turkey, etc.). A entire troop of Spanish doctors who ventured into Nazi controlled Poland brought word back to the government & essentially the Spanish/French border disappeared for anyone seeking shelter. Sanz-Briz, the Angel of Budapest, gave thousands of Jews Spanish citizenship. While almost anyone who had even the tiniest hint of Spanish ancestry were given Spanish (nationalist) documents so that the task of keeping their heads on their shoulders was a little easier.




The only real suggestion I have to make given what you've said so far is the possible inclusion of footnotes or something similar. It adds a bit of fact, of reality, to the memoir feel of your work. Particularly when readers, such as the ones you mention, might know only the bare bones [the utter basics] of WWII.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 24, 2017)

Charcoal said:


> I know some have commented calling it a "Hitler mess" is a bit... bland. Or insulting. If that's the case, don't read it. People have many ways to cope & calling it something else would be one. Because when most people think of the Nazis they think of the Holocaust. That's an automatic assumption. Like saying the sun is orange, sky is blue, and whales don't 'fly' unless they're breaching.
> 
> But the Nazis had quite a bit of influence throughout Europe (the world) & this went well beyond the Holocaust. A number of Poles were murdered, and some quite brutally, by the UPA. They basically used the Nazi-controlled Poland as an excuse to rid themselves of a 'problem', for lack of a better word, that Poland/Ukraine had been sort of bickering over for years prior. The Nazis didn't have direct influence I believe, however, they were a smokescreen for these UPA ethnic cleansing massacres. The same as how the Japanese used the Nazis' claims of superiority, and their Nazi alliance, as 'permission' to slaughter thousands upon thousands of fellow Asians in ethnic cleansing. That's the "mess" of Hilter's regime.
> 
> ...



Exactly. Assuming this is adult fiction, it is absolutely senseless to sterilize it with the terminology of academia. That is what history books are for. Honestly, if people are triggered by such benign terms they have no business reading books. It's not like we're talking about a book called "The KKK's Guide To Lynching" or "Why I Love Hitler". There are plenty of books that are far more controversial and, dare I say it, _disrespectful_ in terms of content ("The Man In The High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick would be one) but context is everything.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 25, 2017)

VonBradstein said:


> Exactly. Assuming this is adult fiction, it is absolutely senseless to sterilize it with the terminology of academia. That is what history books are for. Honestly, if people are triggered by such benign terms they have no business reading books. It's not like we're talking about a book called "The KKK's Guide To Lynching" or "Why I Love Hitler". There are plenty of books that are far more controversial and, dare I say it, _disrespectful_ in terms of content ("The Man In The High Castle" by Phillip K. Dick would be one) but context is everything.



Calling something as low key as the Hitler mess sterilizes it.

It is not necessary to call it the Holocaust. As I said before.   There are other options.


----------



## Terry D (Oct 25, 2017)

I think something that's being lost in this discussion is that the comment under discussion "the Hitler mess" are the words of a _character_ in the story, not the author's own words. If the comment is in character for the person speaking, then it doesn't much matter if the wording fits our ideas about that period in history. Perhaps this is the sort of character who frequently minimizes, or understates events.

I see people responding here falling into the same errant thinking that Sue's writer's group did. Getting hung up on what they feel is the appropriate amount of gravity, or respect for the event rather than focusing on what the character's opinions, or motivations are. Bits of dialogue like that can be important clues to the nature of our characters. It's good to play with the reader's emotions if the writer does so intentionally. If that's the case here... good on you Sue C. If not, darn you, Sue... to the pillory!


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 25, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I think something that's being lost in this discussion is that the comment under discussion "the Hitler mess" are the words of a _character_ in the story, not the author's own words. If the comment is in character for the person speaking, then it doesn't much matter if the wording fits our ideas about that period in history. Perhaps this is the sort of character who frequently minimizes, or understates events.
> 
> I see people responding here falling into the same errant thinking that Sue's writer's group did. Getting hung up on what they feel is the appropriate amount of gravity, or respect for the event rather than focusing on what the character's opinions, or motivations are. Bits of dialogue like that can be important clues to the nature of our characters. It's good to play with the reader's emotions if the writer does so intentionally. If that's the case here... good on you Sue C. If not, darn you, Sue... to the pillory!



Lost in the discussion? I literally made this exact point like four times in four different posts...but maybe he will listen to you. 

Wouldn’t bet on it though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 25, 2017)

Terry D said:


> I think something that's being lost in this discussion is that the comment under discussion "the Hitler mess" are the words of a _character_ in the story, not the author's own words. If the comment is in character for the person speaking, then it doesn't much matter if the wording fits our ideas about that period in history. Perhaps this is the sort of character who frequently minimizes, or understates events.
> 
> I see people responding here falling into the same errant thinking that Sue's writer's group did. Getting hung up on what they feel is the appropriate amount of gravity, or respect for the event rather than focusing on what the character's opinions, or motivations are. Bits of dialogue like that can be important clues to the nature of our characters. It's good to play with the reader's emotions if the writer does so intentionally. If that's the case here... good on you Sue C. If not, darn you, Sue... to the pillory!



Also don’t know about “people responding” that way. Seems like just one individual wanting to proliferate arguments as he appears to do on multiple threads. Hence I have stopped responding to him. Each to their own joys.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 25, 2017)

Terry D said:


> Bits of dialogue like that can be important clues to the nature of our characters. It's good to play with the reader's emotions if the writer does so intentionally.



To me, this is one of the real benefits of writing; the way in which ideas that are potentially toxic can be tackled in the sandbox of the novel.


----------



## Kyle R (Oct 25, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Calling something as low key as the Hitler mess sterilizes it.



I just saw it as verbal shorthand. When her character said, "Hitler mess", my brain saw the two words and _The Holocaust _pinged in my mind. Then I continued reading.

Sure, some might get offended by the lack of a stronger word there. But if we were to scour through our fiction to try to scrub away anything that might potentially be offensive . . . well, we'd probably have very little time left to write anything at all.

I have a character who internally moans over a coal miner who just walked into the bar. He refers to the new arrival as a "damned _blacklung_". And yes, I could sit and fret over the potential coal miners (or loved ones of coal miners) who might happen upon my story and get offended by my character's prejudice.

But I believe characters should be allowed to have prejudices, to speak inaccurately, to have flaws that may or may not offend readers who notice them. Especially if such actions fit the mannerisms and motivations of the character.

So in the end, I'd use the same wording (or not), depending on only one factor (which others here have already mentioned): Is it something my character would say, or not? :encouragement:


----------



## Kevin (Oct 25, 2017)

It does downplay it. I could see someone who'd gone through it doing that; like they'd rather not mention it at all, but.. Sort of like how vets often don't like talking about the war, whatever war. Like too much remembering is too hard all of the time, keeps you from getting on with things at the moment, day to day. 'We all know about the war (it's assumed), so why give it more than a mention (in this specific dialog)?' . Like, that is the character's...disposition. Anyway, that's how I took it. Not some sort of revisionism or something.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 25, 2017)

Kevin said:


> It does downplay it. I could see someone who'd gone through it doing that; like they'd rather not mention it at all, but.. Sort of like how vets often don't like talking about the war, whatever war. Like too much remembering is too hard all of the time, keeps you from getting on with things at the moment, day to day. 'We all know about the war (it's assumed), so why give it more than a mention (in this specific dialog)?' . Like, that is the character's...disposition. Anyway, that's how I took it. Not some sort of revisionism or something.



See but I don’t have that experience in talking to the WWII folks. Some of them, sure, but it’s we the modernites who tend to be more sensitive about the past. I think the whole “they don’t like to speak about it it was so awful” is a modern construct. 

Bear in mind for a lot of these people, it happened during their formative years and is sewn into their identity regardless of how tragic it was. They can’t help but talk about it. That’s not to say it’s all who they are, but they do refer to it. That’s natural and normal and therefore worthy of a place in fiction..

I will tell you this too, I have heard numerous holocaust survivors make jokes about the holocaust. Not the kind of jokes that an anti Semite would make obviously, but certainly the kind that make me wince. The kind I would never even think of saying. And you know, that’s okay. My sensitivities, or yours, ultimately do not matter very much. because however uncomfortable we are we know that anybody who spent a second in Auschwitz has earned the right to hold whatever view they want to on that issue. 

I think you would generally be surprised at the variety of perspectives. I have heard stories about pranks played in the Warsaw ghetto, about snowball fights in Bergen Belsen, jokes about food, about Nazi guards. I have heard a 90 year old lady at a Cleveland hospice tell me with eagerness about a concentration camp guard who came down a diarrhea attack during a morning roll call. She said it was the first time she remembered hearing laughter among both Jews and Nazis at the same time and that it lasted only a few seconds, yet she still remembers it seventy years later.

It sounds insane to us, but history isn’t a Ken Burns PBS documentary. There’s life and color and humor and it’s rough and dirty and not everybody speaks of it in the same register. It’s not disrespectful to try to capture some of that so long as it’s done as true to fact as possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sas (Oct 25, 2017)

If a character uses derogatory term about someone IN A STORY would the writer be told to change it?  This suggestion was ridiculous. And, I'd certainly find another group that had more writing depth. Move on.


----------



## SueC (Oct 27, 2017)

Thank you all for your contributions to this discussion. I guess I need to clarify some things. First of all, in my own personal dialogue, I would probably not be as glib as my character. However, he and Maggie had just met. They were standing in the foyer of the apartment building where they live; a rather public place. They were both on their way back to their apartments. This neighborhood where they live - at least when I lived there - has a large Jewish population.  I felt he wasn't, at that time, prepared to get into a discussion of how much his family suffered during their flee from Germany and not knowing Maggie's level of interest, he made an offhand comment. She had asked him where his people were from. Using the words, "Hitler mess," may have been his way of keeping her from further discussion of the topic. It was not meant to be disrespectful in any way - by that time he already knew that Maggie was not of that descent, so he, who was of that descent, could use any term he wished. 

As you might guess, there is more to the story. 

After vacillating back and forth, I've decided to keep it. 

Whew! I tried really hard to use short sentence, but . . .   a work in progress.


----------



## sas (Oct 27, 2017)

I can't even believe you had to explain why you kept it.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 27, 2017)

Sue's important response importantly demonstrates why blanket statements, pseudo-principled moralist hand wringing, and nauseating piousness have no place in literature.

Coming Up Next: We ask whether Harper Lee should be put in jail for having the temerity to portray southern white racists using the N-Word...followed by inquiring about why it is the Jews in the famous Schindler's List are shown totally naked during the gas chamber scene, and how distracting that is from The Real Message.


----------



## sas (Oct 28, 2017)

I left a poetry group when I got popped for using the N word, in a poem title. I put it in quotes. It was said by a Mississippi judge, after three civil rights workers were murdered. I write so my granddaughters can know the times that shaped me. And, that damn word, and the actions with it, did. I censor nothing of mine or others. I lived through an era of ridiculous censorship. At Hedonismas (Xmas) I always buy what was once a banned book, for my oldest granddaughter. I only ban people.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 28, 2017)

Portraying actual reality is one thing. But that's not the case in this instance.

Sue is not a Jew who life was impacted by the Nazis. So the question is -- how well does she know how a Jew who fled Hitler would phrase that? And the corollary question -- is she portraying her character realistically? 

I think she is not. I don't know anyone, even someone who didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion about it, who would use such a phrase. I think fleeing the Nazis would be more common. And why would a lengthy discussion even be necessary?


----------



## Terry D (Oct 28, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> Portraying actual reality is one thing. But that's not the case in this instance.
> 
> Sue is not a Jew who life was impacted by the Nazis. So the question is -- how well does she know how a Jew who fled Hitler would phrase that? And the corollary question -- is she portraying her character realistically?
> 
> I think she is not. I don't know anyone, even someone who didn't want to get into a lengthy discussion about it, who would use such a phrase. I think fleeing the Nazis would be more common. And why would a lengthy discussion even be necessary?



So, now we are only supposed to write about things, or put our characters in situation, with which we have had direct experience? That just doesn't make sense. Only Jews who lived through the Holocaust can write about it realistically? Hogwash. Writers of fiction have every right to choose any topic they want. And their readers have every right to decide if those writers have chosen well. What no one has a right to do is to tell a writer what he, or she is qualified to write about. If that were the case we'd have a lot less science fiction on the shelves, or thrillers, or spy novels, or horror.

Who is qualified to tell a writer what is "realistic" for his character to say? Up until this last year I would have thought it unrealistic to think a President of the United States might say a soldier killed in action, "knew what he was getting into" or would threaten to "totally destroy" a sovereign nation. And that's in the real world, in our fiction we can give our characters any motivation we choose.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 28, 2017)

If a woman writes about an unrealistic man, would you point it out? This is a conversation about realism. When feedback is solicited, as was this case, and that feedback includes pointing out where a character behaves in an unusual and possibly unbelievable way, that criticism should be given as much consideration as an edict of "trim unnecessary words" or "eliminate those adverbs".

Sue went to a writing group and requested feedback. They would have been negligent if no one had pointed out that a character said something that seemed unbelievable. 

Honestly, I don't act on all suggestions that I'm given. I have a beta reader who is trying to convince me to change who is guilty of a crime in my latest book. But in this case I would request more information from a Jewish family, especially if they were forced to flee Hitler, to get a better idea of how they feel and act. Especially if realistic portrayal is important to me.

The posting of this thread led me to believe that Sue cares about having believable and realistic characters. If I am in error, and she prefers to simply write whatever appeals to herself, all she has to do is tell me, and I'll leave the discussion.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 28, 2017)

Unless I am mis-remembering it (it was a long time ago and I can't be bothered to go back at this point) the issue Sue relayed from the writers group was nothing to do with the realism or lack of but that it was a 'disservice', or something equally odious. Basically, their issue was that it wasn't respectful or whatever. So the pivot to 'but is it believable it or not?' is actually pretty new. It’s also impossible to gauge overall realism from a single short sentence so the point is moot.

Anyway, the phrase in itself is believable. I can say definitively that because, again, I have heard similar language used by survivors in person. I don't expect anybody to take my word for it, but this is one of those situations where in the absence of proof otherwise it should be left alone. Nobody is forcing you to read the book. Nobody is stopping you from buying it then going through and whiting out any phrase you find unsavory. Nobody, in short, is stopping you from doing anything you want. You could even read it, maybe.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Oct 28, 2017)

The title of the thread is "Reality in Fiction". That puts how real this is as a key point from the beginning, at least for me.

Still, I see Sue thanked VB and not me, so I will take that as she prefers to not discuss how real her characters' actions are.


----------



## VonBradstein (Oct 29, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> The title of the thread is "Reality in Fiction". That puts how real this is as a key point from the beginning, at least for me.
> 
> Still, I see Sue thanked VB and not me, so I will take that as she prefers to not discuss how real her characters' actions are.



I believe she was asking about the role of fact and the sanctity of history when used in a fictional context and whether certain things should be left out so as not to create something that felt stranded in the gray area between memoir and make-believe. 

While perhaps somewhat related, that is yet distinct from whether a piece of dialogue 'feels unbelievable'. It is entirely possible to write a piece of genuine historical fiction with all objective facts correct and yet construct dialogue so poorly it feels fake, just as it is equally possible to write about a fictional race on a fictional planet in a fictional universe and speak closely to the human condition. SF/Fantasy authors do that all the time.


----------



## bdcharles (Oct 29, 2017)

Jack of all trades said:


> The title of the thread is "Reality in Fiction". That puts how real this is as a key point from the beginning, at least for me.
> 
> Still, I see Sue thanked VB and not me, so I will take that as she prefers to not discuss how real her characters' actions are.



Jack I think you could also take it that many people didn't feel the character's believability was compromised. I know I didn't, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Anthony-Richard (Oct 29, 2017)

Hi Sue,



> Is it better to fictionalize everything in a fiction story, so there is no confusion about whether it is fact-based or not, or can reality be incorporated effectively so that no one thinks I am writing a memoir? I don’t want readers to get caught up in the possibility of incorrect partial reality in my stories, so much so that they miss the story all together. Thoughts?



This is how I handled it for a story I wrote few years ago. The story "Maiden Voyage" is about a group of 50 Scouts who are flying to Zurich to attend the Jamboree at the International Scout Center at Kandersteg in Switzerland. For two of these Scouts the flight was to be their very first.

Please keep in mind, the story is a first draft of some 5.000 plus words, which could do with a considerable rewrite, I might set some time to do that, at least it will keep me out of mischief. To put you in the picture about the extract below, Nicole is a member of the cabin crew, Miles is one of three Scout Leaders on the flight and finally Heinrich Dorf is the co-pilot or First Officer. 



> From where he sat, Neil looked at the tops of white cotton wool cloud, it seemed to stretch for miles below him. Outside the air temperature was minus fifty-seven degrees Celsius, and through the ice crystals on the glass of the window, he saw the white contrail of a westbound Boeing 747 some two thousand feet above him. It was painted in green, red and white, and had the name Alitalia Airlines emblazoned on its fuselage. Little did he and the rest of the passengers aboard the bird they were flying in know that above them was Pope John Paul II bound for New York?
> 
> Nicole came over and spoke to Miles. She told him Captain Pedderson had invited some of the younger Scouts to see the flight deck and suggested Neil and Simon be the first to go up, especially as Simon was a bit distressed when he boarded the aircraft.
> 
> ...



Hope this helps


----------

