Historical vs. Real Person (11)

1 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-07-29 17:41 ID:I6drXctg

How do you define a historical character?

I've been looking for a clear cut awnser on this one because of the fact that I critique fanfiction and I don't want to give the people that I critique the wrong awnser. From what I can tell, the idea of what is a historical character is even more amiguous then what a Mary Sue is.

First off, the way I went about it in the past was to ask if the person inserted into the fanfic was still alive. I told readers, if the person who is inserted into the fanfic was still alive, chances are, they were not a historical character.

One of the fanfics I read happened to have Michael Jackson in it and when he passed away, I asked myself the question, now that he is dead, is it all right to put him into a fanfic? So, I thought about the whole matter and decided that the person likely should be dead five to ten years before they could be concidered a historical character.

But then there runs into another problem. There are people that can mount an arguement that Michael Jackson made historical contributions to the history of music. Thus he was a historical character even before he died and should have been allowed in a fanfic that was posted to ffnet.

At that, I began thinking about all the arguements that a person could mount to say that a character was "a non-fictional, historical character" that is allowed via site rules, rather then simply being "a non-fictional, non historical character." The site specifically lists actos and musicians as not fitting the bill. But then what about Frank Sonatra?

One person that I've realized rather recently could be concidered a historical figure is actually J.K. Rowling. It is because of her Harry Potter series that the catagory "young adult exists". So then, can someone use her in their fanfics? Well... while what she did was historical, at this point in time I don't think many people know about it and for only a select few is it significant, even amoung those studying literature.

So, does that mean to be a historical character is that the person made a kind of contribution that is well known. That, or they've been dead for a very long time. So then, has Tolkien been dead long enough? He died in the 70's. And C.S. Lewis died in the sixties. Maybe that isn't long enough.Kipling died in the 30's.

However, the difference between those two and Rudyard Kipling is the fact that he actually contriputed to the first world war efforts. It wasn't just his writing that made him a historical person, but his actual involvement in the politics of the time. So the question comes, what does it mean to be a historical character. That, and the difference in years in which they lived.

My point is, some people define it as someone being dead fifty years, others being dead ten years, maybe only five. Others define it as major historical contributions, while others define it as minor historical contributions, even if they are not well known. What is your guys take on this?

2 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-09 23:45 ID:Uckub9QU

So, the topics seem REALLY slow and no one is really chatting much. That said, I am really wanting to hear what people have to say about this topic, because it relates to what I tell people I critique. Is historical characters ambigious and subjectional?

3 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-09 23:46 ID:Uckub9QU

So, the topics seem REALLY slow and no one is really chatting much. That said, I am really wanting to hear what people have to say about this topic, because it relates to what I tell people I critique. Is historical characters ambigious and subjectional?

4 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-09 23:46 ID:Uckub9QU

So, the topics seem REALLY slow and no one is really chatting much. That said, I am really wanting to hear what people have to say about this topic, because it relates to what I tell people I critique. Is historical characters ambigious and subjectional?

5 Name: MaryMagdalen : 2011-09-10 05:26 ID:x5t1TvEB

I know this doesn't answer the question - mainly because I don't know the answer! - but I'm curious to know what the rules are (if there are any rules) about including "real" people, alive or dead, in fanfiction. (Maybe nobody really knows, which is why nobody's replied to the topic?!)

6 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-10 08:27 ID:Uckub9QU

>>5 - That may be. Because as I've said, I can see how Rowling would be concidered a historical figure because she has contributed to society and her books are being discussed on the college level, having a course dedicated soley to her books.

7 Name: Anonymous : 2011-09-10 14:23 ID:w0LlgINs

This is a REALLY good question, but I honestly don't have a strong answer. I've got a suggestion, anyway.

I think a historical figure is a person who has contributed something to their field which has later influenced this here present day.
Obvious science based examples are Darwin in biology and Freud in psychology. Politics also comes into this, such as the American founding fathers.

I did a quick search and found this site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/a.shtml which manly lists influences in science, politics and literature.
And I also quickly checked up on your example of Tolkien, and from wikipedia: "This has caused Tolkien to be popularly identified as the "father" of modern fantasy literature[6][7]—or, more precisely, of high fantasy.[8]" so I would include him as a historical figure.
These examples are of deceased persons and distant family probably won't complain if they appeared in fanfiction.

Then you've got chaps like Richard Dawkins, who are no doubt historical figures. Even I don't know if it is fair to use Dawkins in a fanfic whilst he is still living. I can't help but feel a little bit weary of the idea, frankly. It's your writing, your works, your ideas, and then putting someone else's life and name into it. I don't know if Michael Jackson would want me using his identity in my work. (He refused to allow "Weird Al" Yankovic to parody "Black or White" because he felt the message was too important.) So I guess what I'm getting at is, if you can justify the person as historical, you can use them in the fanfic, but you must write them respectfully, and not OOT/OOC.

I hope I've not missed the question, and I really don't know if any of what I said above is good critiquing guidelines. I mentioned the best examples I could think of, not taking into account well known writers like Steven King. Would he count?

>>6 I checked on wikipedia (perhaps not the best source but oh well) and it seems J.K Rowling was not responsible for the Young Adult Literature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young-adult_fiction but I would still consider her a huge influence on young adult literature itself and a historical figure because her books are so greatly admired by such a large audience. (I have never heard of Sarah Trimmer before, so a memorable figure must have something to do with positive reception.)

8 Name: Marth : 2011-09-12 06:43 ID:WW2jC0Hf

The question (as far as FFN is concerned, at least) isn't "is this person properly historical." It's "is this person (or their estate) likely to sue us for this?" That's why there's a rule against non-historical RPF--Shakespeare's way less likely to sue the site's pants off than, say, Harlan Ellison is.

Relatedly, this is why it bugs me when people try to use the no RPF rule as an excuse to report self-insert fics. That's clearly obeying the letter of the law without obeying the spirit, because no one writing about themselves on the site would be able to sue.

9 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-22 22:41 ID:Uckub9QU

>>7 - I got the information about Rowling not from wikipedia, but from my educational class and one of the textbooks in said class. The wikipedia entry is correct in saying that Rowling was not the first person to write a Young Adult book.

What that wikipedia article doesn't talk about is the fact that while the books were being written for that particular age group, the term Young Adult didn't exist in common use until the Harry Potter books started beating out books meant for adults on the best seller list.

Before this point in time, libraries and books stores were devided into two age categories only, Children and Adult. A few had already taken steps to create a Young Adult section, but what constituted Young Adult was still up in the air and despite having the category of Young Adult (or Teen), they happened to put some of these books into the Children and Adult sections.

After the Harry Potter books, there was a major push to destinguish the Young Adult category from Children and Adult, first started with the people who created the best seller lists. Before this period in time, a good deal of the books now listed there as Young Adult were originally concidered Children and Adult.

>>8 - So then, the rule of thumb I should give the people I critique about whether or not they should post it to the net is whether or not a lawsuit could be made and held together.
~ That means no person who is still alive.
~ That also means no person whose estate is under protection, like Elvis, Jackson and Monroe.

The exception to the rule is if the person is used in historical context I guess.

Actually, self-inserts aren't allowed because of the rule against interactive fanfics that are you based. I'm not talking about the self-insert that is meant to be a representation of yourself, but the ones where the author is using the character to get their wishfulfillment done. And yes... there is a difference between the two... though I may not have explained it well.

10 Name: Marth : 2011-09-23 08:39 ID:WW2jC0Hf

>>9 What? "You-based" doesn't mean "fic based around the author." The reason it's called "second-person/you-based" fic in the posting guidelines is because the site doesn't want confusion from people who don't understand what second-person POV is. And self-inserts are not interactive, either.

11 Name: Yemi Hikari : 2011-09-26 21:15 ID:Uckub9QU

>>10 - Gotcha. Thanks for the explanation Marth.

Return Entire thread Last 50 posts
Name: Link:
Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
More options...