I bring this up because I’m trying to work through how to
make some ancestors come to life in my writing. Obviously, the people I have
actually known are not a problem. Over the years I’ve seen how they acted under
many circumstances; I’ve talked with them and know their sense of humor.
They’ve related stories to me about themselves and others which revealed their
priorities, their beliefs.
The problem comes with those I’ve never met. In some cases,
I have the stories relayed about them by those I’ve known. I, then, can see
these unknowns through the eyes of the known. That, of course, could be a
biased view; however, it’s more than I know about many others. For the people
truly unknown to me, I really have nothing more than a picture of them through
historical and cultural events and locations.
Historical timelines are certainly helpful in determining
significant events in a given location at a given time. Reading specific
histories about how developed or under-developed a place may have been can aid
in a setting. Having as many documents as possible to define a personal history
is essential. Finding a journal or diaries from someone else during the same
time and location is a true benefit.
All these things help a writer understand the times in which
a person lived and even some personal events they encountered. For the most
part, what they don’t do is show how that person viewed what was going on
around him/her. Without a document like
a divorce or court record (they can provide a picture of at least one of the
petitioner, although it’s important to remember the purpose of the testimony)
or like a letter or two that give a peek into the writer’s feelings, one is
left with conjecture.
What is that conjecture? We’re back to cultural and heritage
characteristics. How did other people feel and act during a given time? Are the
people of that time and place generally described are stoic or passionate? Did
they live in a close-knit community? Would fear have played a role in the
general population? Was there an expectation of bravery during their time and
place in history?
Sometimes conjecture is all we have left. Sometimes in order
to give a person life on a page we need to use that conjecture to give them a
personality. Look at your friends and family. Is it the events in their lives
that make them who they are or is it how they deal with and feel about those
events?
I’m not talking about the writing of a genealogy reports
recording the facts of a person or family. We need those to identify the facts and show our sources. I’m talking about actually writing
their story. Is it right or wrong to use some generalities to describe an
individual?
I think you can use generalities as long as you are clear about how the facts that you have (and present) are tied into the generalization. You can present "like many people in the county, [A] did x/y/z ..." or "unlike most farmers, [B] did not x/y/z ...". There may even be cases of conflict that contrast the generalities with the specific facts -- "Although [C] is recorded as having done x/y/z..., this seems to have been an uncommon response to ... and may have been related to [C's] a/b/c ..." Most lives are a struggle against being described by the generalities that may apply and should be celebrated when possible.
ReplyDeleteGlenn,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. That's my leaning too:)
Hi Becky
ReplyDeleteThanks for great information