Writing style
Many people don't understand what is meant by "narrative non-fiction" or "creative non-fiction", which is my writing style. Although my book states that it is "Australian History" in the cataloguing information on the back-title back and on the back cover, some people confuse it with fictionalised history (otherwise known as "faction") or say that I write "historical novels". A "novel" is a work of fiction, of the imagination. "Narrative non-fiction" means that the story is not imaginary but that it is written as a story; this means that I tell history as a true story focusing on the narrative rather than the analysis. The analysis is, of course, included in this website because it is too large for the book.
Most historians telling the tales of history act as an omniscient narrator and use a passive-voice writing style. In effect, it seems as if the narrator is standing at a safe distance and viewing the events of history through a motion-picture lens, as if they are seeing a single stream of events and are merely recounting what they see. But history isn’t pre-packaged in this way. Historians make it easy for the reader. They draw their information from reports and letters and journals, from newspaper articles and court records and other documents left by individuals and entities (as shown in my Timelines). Then they transform the results of their research into what appears to be a seamless narrative. In so doing, however, they can lose the impact of the participants’ own accounts, the immediacy of personal experience that novelists have to imagine in order to bring their fiction to life.
I write in the "active voice narrative of history" rather than the "passive voice", or, in layman's terms, I allow the characters to live their own stories, where possible, rather than "narrating" the story for them. For example, when they provide depositions or information for newspaper reports, they say "I said" and "he said" and I put those words into the relevant mouths at the time of the events in question so the narrative reads like fiction. But it isn't. It just takes exhaustive research and clever writing. I also set myself rigid guidelines in crafting the narrative. For example, if I want to say what the weather was, I have to research it!!
According to some reviewers, my books are so vivid and alive that they read rather like thrillers. It takes a lot of work to write "compelling" history (see Reviews). But it's also lots of fun.
Most historians telling the tales of history act as an omniscient narrator and use a passive-voice writing style. In effect, it seems as if the narrator is standing at a safe distance and viewing the events of history through a motion-picture lens, as if they are seeing a single stream of events and are merely recounting what they see. But history isn’t pre-packaged in this way. Historians make it easy for the reader. They draw their information from reports and letters and journals, from newspaper articles and court records and other documents left by individuals and entities (as shown in my Timelines). Then they transform the results of their research into what appears to be a seamless narrative. In so doing, however, they can lose the impact of the participants’ own accounts, the immediacy of personal experience that novelists have to imagine in order to bring their fiction to life.
I write in the "active voice narrative of history" rather than the "passive voice", or, in layman's terms, I allow the characters to live their own stories, where possible, rather than "narrating" the story for them. For example, when they provide depositions or information for newspaper reports, they say "I said" and "he said" and I put those words into the relevant mouths at the time of the events in question so the narrative reads like fiction. But it isn't. It just takes exhaustive research and clever writing. I also set myself rigid guidelines in crafting the narrative. For example, if I want to say what the weather was, I have to research it!!
According to some reviewers, my books are so vivid and alive that they read rather like thrillers. It takes a lot of work to write "compelling" history (see Reviews). But it's also lots of fun.