It's a good idea Ann . Following the traditional version of events gives a historical novel a back bone as it were...a needed starting point and one goes from there , expanding the known via fictional writing. Really , such books need as much research as straight up history books and one is cheating themselves as well as the reader if that research is not done ...because as I say earlier, the actual events are always more interesting and researching them leads to learning of other interesting events and facts . Following the the traditional version is no impediment to creativity, it's a spur . Your novel proves that!
Agreed on all parts!
I think the job of a novelist/director when dealing with historical subject matter, other than bringing the story itself to life, is simplifying things for the reader/viewer. In my writings one of the things that's tricky is knowing when to take some liberties with the facts.
For example...I've been working on a couple of scenes involving Alexandra speaking with General Kornilov post-Nicholas's abdication but before his return to Tsarskoe Selo. In reality Kornilov made at least two visits in the span of three days to the palace. One of them he was accompanied by Alexander Guchkov. So do I choose to be historically accurate and feature both scenes individually? Or do I combine the important elements of both into one considering their proximity to each other and how it makes it easier for the viewing audience?
Another thing that can be tricky is in deciding who should fit into a scene. In reality you might have had a room full of people, but on screen you only want to focus on the main characters and/or those with speaking lines. Makes for a lot less clutter and confusion. The decision of who to include and who
not to include within a scene is as difficult as whether to include a particular scene at all.
