I think the answer is rather: "as little as you can get away with". If you were to sit down to write an actual history textbook then the peers who would assess the value of your work would look for "rigor", that is evidence that you have considered all previous work on the topic and are trying to draw some conclusions that are not way out of the realms of possibility.

Having said that all historians understand that beyond a certain point in empirical evidence it's all speculation. Ever been entertained by a History Channel documentation about the life of Henry VIII? Well, any and all assertions about Henry's state of mind are speculation drawn from the opinions of other commentators, any diary entries Henry might have written or, in the absence of these primary sources records of the king's next action. Essentially, we may, occasionally, come close to knowing something of Henry VIII's mind but we are never going to be certain.

A good summary of the facts, such as those to be found on Wikipedia, are valuable. As an author you should be particularly keen on "moot points" where different historians have contrasting views on an event. Other good things are annotations of things that may or may not have happened and are generally regarded as "woolly".

Both of these are licenses to pretty much make it up. As long as you join the dots from empirical fact A to empirical fact B in a plausible manner even respected academics will agree they have no clue about your relative rightness or wrongness.

As an author of fiction your job is to be entertaining and accurate in that order.

EDIT: I'm currently researching the period of sub-Roman Britain, there aren't many primary records of that time and a lot of the sources there are conflict and are vague or confusing.

I am negotiating this minefield with the help of Wikipedia (re-checking sources and sources of sources where necessary but WP is good for a first run). With this info I am constructing a fictional timeline, a chronicle of events that occur in the order in which they occur.

The timeline concentrates on the actions of all actors and needs to collate the research on each indivdual into a coherent whole so that I can see what events are happening on top of one another or concurrently.

Once I am happy that the chronicle is done I use it as the basis for the story. I fill out historic events with narrative ones in the wobble points. I always choose the more narratively satisfying interpretation of events and motivations.

I keep individual notes on each character and give them all their own personal timeline which is the basis for their character arc. I try to keep some separate notes which just remind me of the relationships between characters.

I also keep notes about things I'm just plain making up in a separate place.

I keep a list of authentic names. Try to get a map of the locations from around the time.

With these resources I plot the story and I start writing.

As I'm writing I may well come to a point where I want the character to do something but am not sure of the appropriate language. At this point I mount a little mini-topic research expedition and get exactly what I need. Then I get back to the story. I keep each topic research article, usually about 300-600 words with the rest of the notes in case I need a refresher.

That's what I would call the minimum. A general overview, specifics on real people, a good line between reality and fiction and only ever specific research when I know I'm going to need it. This research approach is made possible only with the internet but the tool is there, so I use it. I suggest you do the same.

---

(0)

Login to post a comment!