People understand that, and will grant you a little leeway, esp. if you write a mea culpa at the back of the book that says "okay, so I took this historical reality and tweaked it this way because, gosh darn it, that was what the book needed."Let me address #3 first. What you're writing will never be all true. It's historical fiction. People understand that, and will grant you a little leeway, esp. if you write a mea culpa at the back of the book that says "okay, so I took this historical reality and tweaked it this way because, gosh darn it, that was what the book needed."
I popped over to the Novel section, and saw your story takes place in Jerusalem. Totally outside my geographical speciality, regardless of time period, so I can't help you with specifics there, sorry. I have found "The Time Traveller's Guide to Medieval England" a good source, but that would only be even marginally useful to you if you're doing something set in the middle ages.
If other people have written historical fiction in your time/place, I'd look them up all and read through those books with an eye towards historical detail. Ditto any good "What Life Was Like" monographs for your particular time and place. Those will help you more than standard history texts (though those can come in handy too, esp. primary sources.) The more of these there are, the more you can quickly figure out what's canonical knowledge for the time period you're writing in.
Another thing that would help is if you know anyone who specializes in your era. They can read your manuscript with an eye towards historical detail and trivia on a level that most normal people couldn't even imagine. Plus they tend to run into all sorts of cool stuff in their research that might liven up your story.
In terms of how long it will take - the average PhD in history will take around seven years to complete, but that includes three years of coursework which sometimes does or doesn't relate to what you're doing a dissertation on. Part of what takes so long there is the mundane reality of having to support yourself, and your dedication to the project waxes and wanes over time. Ditto with a novelist. And any novel is going to take at least months to write, and some novels will take years, regardless of genre.
Okay, I'm rambling a bit, but it's late in my time zone, so I'll let it stand as is. Hope it helps (sorta) answer your question.
For anyone who doesn't know what a microhistory is, they usually involve a historian finding some kind of cool legal or diary documents and then filling in all the necessary historical background for the reader to make sense of it. It's the closest history and historical fiction can come. Mad for God is a good example, also The Hanged Man, and Voices of Morebath. The Return of Martin Guerre was even made into a movie.
The Complete Works of Flavius Josephus may be a good starting point. He was a major Jewish historian who lived during the first century A.D. He extensively chronicled the destruction of the temple and the exile to Babylon.
There is also a wealth of commentaries on these two prophets and the books named after them. There are textbooks that focus on prophets, specific books of the Old Testament, and societal characteristics of this time period.
Many of these, with the possible exception of Josephus, have strong theological presuppositions. There are doctrinal differences between the many religious groups that claim these books. Even within denominations, such as Southern Baptists, there is argument whether Daniel is eschatologically prophetic or socially prophetic. Throw in the mix of every Jew, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, Penteconstal, Seventh Day Adventist, Mormon, Jehovah's Witness, etc. and you get every diffence under the sun. These differences range from how the language is interpreted to what is considered canonical and from what is a miracle to what is a natural phenomenon.
You may wish to scrutinize your reference material before making any bold purchases. I personally think that openly investigating other viewpoints makes one all the more wise, but this is not typically the belief of those who have deep convictions. Most people desire to learn from those who share their viewpoint, and openmindedness is often the first step to heresy of one kind or another. Best of luck to you.
quote:
to be sure that what your writing in a historical fiction novel is all true.
As a flipside, since establishing events as being 100% fact may actually prove impossible, you might choose to do just enough* research to satisfy yourself that setting and events are relatively correct according to the accepted norm, and then write the story you want readers to experience.
If you're worried about scholarly criticism of the historical accuracy of the novel, then don't: It's going to happen anyway, no matter how well researched. Consider how you'd feel if you researched for decades, spent even more time on writing and honing your perfect text, and then the market bickered and squabbled over the minutia and ignored the larger story.
Some authors get around this by taking historical events and 're-imagining' them in a new setting (Daniel in outer space? The Lions are aliens?). Does this make such authors cowardly or bold? Who cares! Critics will always argue. What matters most, perhaps, is what the story means to you? For if it truly sets your heart on fire, you cannot stop talking about it, thinking about it, or yourself from writing it, then fact or fiction, it reflects you, your identity. And maybe then your written word will share with your reader that identity, the story's soul, regardless of the minutia.
On the other hand, if you aim to please the scholars, then maybe only scholars will read it.
*an intangible amount, defined only by you.
Not all the delay in getting around to it has been research though. It's an important story and one that I didn't want to give short-shrift. An equal if not greater delay has been developing the skills to craft the story. I've been through draft after draft that didn't live up to the story.
Over time, it went from an accurate telling based on a woefully lacking historic record, to a slightly more informed and looser telling based on a still woefully lacking record, to an imaginative retelling based upon a conflation of the historical record. Letting go of historical accuracy opened up the story in ways that tell the story more authentically and yet are still faithful to the record. But it's firmly a fiction now, not a historical narrative.
I'll be relying on experts debating the story's accuracy to promote the novel. Free advertising, huh, controversy sells, right? It's a controversial enough topic all by itself, even if the experts approve. And relying on others who will come down on all sides and argue endlessly about the novel's validity will also cause a buzz. Or it will be one of those unexplainably global and incontrovertible stories that just awes readers. Ha-ha-ha, snicker and guffaw.
http://www.danbrown.com/novels/davinci_code/faqs.html
Here's Bernard Cornwell, one of the most read historical fiction authors currently writing: http://www.bernardcornwell.net/chapters/writingadvice.htm
Your goal is to write novels, not become an expert on everything Mayan or Elizabethan or whatever it is.
Here's L.A. Meyer on the writing of the fabulous Bloody Jack YA series. http://www.meyerstudiogallery.com/Jacky%20subhead%20folder/Bioandbirth.html. 7 months to write that first book AFTER he got the idea.
Sure, you need to know a lot. Sure, if you get some things wrong you may break the fictive trance for some readers. But your goal is novels. My advice: go research for 3 months and then write your story, continuing your research.
But if you want the input of someone who is actually moving and publishing in historical fiction circles, contact Judson Roberts who just had 3 historicals about Vikings published at strongbowsaga at gmail dot com. Tell him John Brown sicced you on him.