I’m currently reading a historical novel I’m enjoying overall, but which gives readers too much historical information all at once in places. For example, a character will enter a building and then there are three paragraphs telling readers all about the building’s features.

Now, wait, too much historical detail, in a historical novel? How can that be? Surely a historical novel should contain quite a lot of historical detail.

Well, yes, but that detail needs to be relevant to the story. When it’s not, it’s just the author feeding their research to readers, which isn’t very satisfying. Even if readers are interested in the historical period in question (and I’d argue they shouldn’t have to be to enjoy a historical novel) a novel is not nonfiction. That doesn’t mean it can’t also educate readers about a period, but I’d argue that its main role should be to tell a story.

When I open a new historical novel, I expect to be transported to another era and told a good story that takes place in that era. I also expect to learn interesting historical facts about the period, but that’s secondary to enjoying the story.

If the character in the novel I’m reading were an architect, then giving readers three paragraphs of information about the building might make sense—the character would likely notice all of these intricate details. However, when there’s nothing to show that the character would have any interest at all in such features, there’s no reason to include this information.

Of course, as this particular novel is written in a version of omniscient, there is no point-of-view (POV) character from which to experience the story. This is probably why there’s so much exposition. Still, I’d argue that historical facts are not story. They’re backdrop. Readers only need to know so much to picture the scene and this information would, ideally, be peppered throughout the story rather than provided in great dollops.

I think that writers sometimes do this because they’re not sure what information is relevant to the story and what isn’t. This is often related to their use of POV and sometimes goes back to the story’s purpose. Is the main purpose to educate readers about the era or to tell a story? They’re not the same thing.

Although many authors do successfully use omniscient POV in their stories, most modern stories are written in close third person POV. This means that readers see the story through one character’s eyes (though this character may change at scene/chapter breaks). Close third person POV helps readers to feel they’re experiencing story events alongside the character. It creates a more intimate reading experience, which is generally seen as a positive thing (we often read fiction to better understand the human experience). On the other hand, omniscient POV is sometimes (not always) used to try and show that something did, indeed, happen. But its distance from the reader also makes for a more distant reading experience, which is generally less popular these days.

As a developmental editor, I usually advise that writers at least consider using close third person POV if they’re writing in omniscient POV. This is partly because many writers seem to default to using omniscient POV rather than it being a conscious choice on their part. This might be because the writer mostly reads non-contemporary novels, or it’s their first foray into fiction writing and they may need more guidance before making story choices.

This isn’t to say that omniscient POV always provides for a distant reading experience. There are writers (such as Alexander McCall Smith) who do this very well and are even able to use head hopping while maintaining a sense of intimacy with their characters. (If you’re not sure what head hopping is, you might want to read this article.) But these writers are the exception, not the norm. When a writer is starting out, it’s generally safer to err on the side of caution. Then, when a writer has more experience/knowledge under their belt, they’re better equipped to experiment.

One reason I enjoy reading close third person POV historical novels is because they bring the past to life more vividly for me. This is especially the case when I don’t have a special interest in the time period, or the story is set in the distant past. The further the story world is from my world, the more I appreciate seeing it through a character’s eyes. The close third person viewpoint is sometimes what makes me care about the story in the first place, because I care about the character.

Anyway, this is just one editor’s, and reader’s, experience. I’m sure that other readers, writers and editors have other takes on the subject.

If you’re a fan of historical fiction, or someone who either writes or edits the genre, I’d love to hear your opinion on this. Please feel free to share your experience in the comments section below.

Alternatively, if you’re looking for someone to help you with your historical novel, feel free to get in touch with me by using the contact button below.