Picking an important real life historical figure for a protagonist could be seen as a sign of advanced writers' masochism. Sure, plenty of interesting people to choose from, with real life personalities and experiences people would brush off as unreal if you made them up. And probably some wonderful marketing opportunities, which is a consideration in getting published. But you're fighting a lot of preset notions and assumptions in the heads of every single reader and potential reader with every word you write. The bigger the historical figure the bigger a problem that can be. You can do a fabulous job—all meticulous research and photographic fidelity—and that problem's still not going to go away, because it's all about people's beliefs and opinions rather than the facts. That's why I think it's usually better to choose a bit part player on history's stage. Someone whose name people will probably know, but not a lot else about them. But masochism will out, and writers going after the big guys despite my advice (yeah, I know, the nerve of them) can still leave me cheering them on despite that.
I've just finished the two books out in Michael Atkinson's new mystery series featuring Ernest Hemingway (and why hasn't anyone used him before—seems a natural when you think about it). They're fascinating reading for anyone interested in the man but also solid reading as mysteries. Not only are there real clues and red herrings to go with the murders, but Papa actually engages in real detection to solve them. Sadly, that's not necessarily a given in books labeled mysteries (yes, one of the petting zoo filled with peeves). Atkinson sensibly writes as himself, telling the stories in his own way and not even trying to make his prose an echo of Hemngway's famous style. The dialogue still rings true regardless because it fits the character Hemingway, who wouldn't talk in the polished prose of his stories. No one does. But what really hits home in the end is the characterization, which would stand out even if Atkinson's Ernest Hemingway wasn't that Ernest Hemingway.
Probably the best example of that is the reason I personally enjoyed the second book more than the first. The series doesn't run in chronological order by Hemingway's life. Book one, Hemingway Deadlights, is set in 1956 Key West and Cuba; book two, Hemingway Cutthroat, in 1930s Spain during the Civil War. The still hard-drinking Hemingway of Deadlights isn't just the expected older shell of someone who lead a rollicking, physical life and hasn't exactly embraced the idea of current limitations. What's even more impressive is the depiction Atkinson provides—without ever hammering you over the head with what he's doing: a classic show don't tell—of a Papa who is still funny, forceful, smart and clever (although not necessarily as much as he thinks) at times, but also clearly showing the effect of decades of heavy drinking in forgetfulness, confusions, paranoias, etc. It's clear just how good a job Atkinson did with that aspect of the aging Papa when compared with the Hemingway of Cutthroat, who is unquestionably the same man and already fond of the bottle, but (again, shown more than told) is also clearly a younger man and with a brain that hasn't been thoroughly pickled. It's a lovely job of characterization, making something that is not easy to do well look effortless. I realized just how nice a job when I realized which book I preferred and why. I've just known too many pickled brains too well to enjoy their company by choice, no matter how much I enjoy their story. Now that's true to life characterization.
Great post and I'm so glad you enjoyed HEMINGWAY CUTTHROAT!
Posted by: Dana Kaye | June 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM