Hello! I don’t know if you’ve been asked this before but I have a genuine question. I loved your Dancing with the Lion duology, but isn’t it considered a little disrespectful to write about the intimate interactions between a conquerer and his general? They were DEFINETELY lovers, that much I don’t have a problem with, but I found the details very explicit. Personally if i was a king who conquered half the known world i wouldn’t want my intimate moments with my companion to be public, but maybe that’s just me.
The Legitimacy of Historical Fiction
Whether or not the asker realized it, their question rubs up against a much larger issue regarding historical fiction generally on which I have Many Thinky-Thoughts and have published about in the intro section of my book chapter, “Alexander the Great and Hephaistion in Fiction after Stonewall.” I also wonder if, from the phrasing (“isn’t it considered a little disrespectful to write about the intimate interactions between a conquerer and his general?”), this question might derive at least partly from discussions regarding the ethics of what’s called real-person fic in fandom. Matters of privacy violation are important to that debate.
My TL;DR answer: these are fictional characters, not real people. The asker says, “Personally if i was a king who conquered half the known world i wouldn’t want my intimate moments with my companion to be public,” except I’m not publicizing anything Alexander and Hephaistion said or did in intimate moments because we have absolutely no idea.
The historical Alexander is already semi-fictional, thanks to the nature of our sources.
That might give a clue as to where all this will land. But follow me down the rabbit hole.
To include living or recently deceased people in published fiction, memoirs, autobiography, and biography can be problematic for both legal and moral reasons, requiring written permissions. One matter that comes up repeatedly is a question of “harm”—to a living person, their family, or their immediate descendants. Enter threats of libel for entertainment lawyers to sort out. Even if something won’t meet the bar for libel in a courtroom,* we can still ask whether something is right. So, I acknowledge this is A Thing. And it’s especially tricky for public individuals because “public knowledge” can be included without threat of lawsuit, even when unflattering. Yet it’s also why weasel language such as “alleged” may be required in places.
I’m equally aware a fair bit of real-person fic exists that depicts imagined relationships between actors, musicians, athletes, and other celebrities, which may include graphic sex scenes. Some readers find these deeply troubling, infringing on the privacy of these folks. Defenders say the stories are clearly marked as fiction not reality, actors play fictional characters all the time, and the person will (probably) never read it, so where’s the harm? [Back to issues of harm.] It’s a gray area that will likely remain gray because nobody has litigated it (that I’m aware of), and such a lawsuit would be bad press for the celebrity against fans. Not to mention they might lose based on fair-use and parody precedent already in place.
In short, that legal train already left the station. The question still remains as to whether real-person fic crosses a line and is inherently inappropriate, or at least in bad taste. Hence my conjecture that the asker’s question stems from this wider discourse, as it seems to arise from similar concerns.
But historical fiction is not real-person fic, even if it may include characters who represent historically attested individuals.
While there is no precise time for when a story moves from contemporary fiction (what real-person fic is) into historical fiction, the Historical Fiction Society says the story must be set at least 50 years in the past.
Alexander is 2300+ years dead. He has no living relatives.
More to the point: we have extremely problematic ancient sources about Alexander’s life. They cannot be trusted, sometimes even in big brushstroke events, never mind the niggling details of what he said or did on a particular occasion. Specialists argue about whether this or that episode occurred, and if so, in what fashion exactly?
That’s simply the nature of ancient historical writing. It came closer to creative non-fiction than the footnoted narratives of modern history where citing sources is a must.
Ergo, I’m not the least bit bothered by anything I invent in a novel, clearly tagged as a novel, because I often doubt things found in the original sources that constitute our history.
As I said earlier: Alexander is already semi-fictional (or semi-mythical).
But THAT brings us around to the deeper objection I really want to discuss that I saw buried under the ask, even if the asker probably didn’t realize as much: history is true while fiction is false—a lie, if a pretty one. Ergo, historical fiction is actively harmful because it twists an historically discernable truth. Mark McKenna slams historical fiction as lacking a “real confrontation with a real past.” But this assumes a “real past” can be excavated enough to have what he calls a “moral relationship” with it. The further back we go, the dicier that gets.
It also fundamentally misunderstands what history (especially ancient history) is and how we go about doing it.
Let me give an example from the asker’s own query. They state: Alexander and Hephaistion “were DEFINITELY lovers." But in fact, we don’t know that… for reasons I’ve addressed before in detail HERE and HERE. All mention of them as lovers is quite scarce and late. And by "late," I mean centuries after they lived. Nor is any clear mention found in our chief histories.
The currently popular perception that they were lovers "of course" and any argument against it is homophobia coming from cis, white male fuddy-duddy historians in tweed jackets ignores the fact the main scholar currently arguing this is a woman from Germany who's younger than I am, definitely doesn’t wear tweed, and definitely isn’t homophobic: Sabine Müller, the other chief Hephaistion specialist out there.
While Sabine and I agree on a number of things about Hephaistion’s underappreciated skills, we disagree on the lovers bit because of when we each think Hephaistion and Alexander met. Again, for details, see links above, but my point is we do not in fact know they were lovers…even if we may strongly suspect it. Obviously, I’m hardly biased against the idea. But I AM quite rigorous about what we can—and can’t—know from the historical record.
When doing history, we tend to rank things as 1) almost surely true, 2) fairly probable, 3) certainly possible, 4) maybe but speculative, & 5) purely speculative/fictional. For instance:
Almost certainly true: There was an eclipse of the moon 10 days before the Battle of Gaugamela, which Alexander won despite the odds against him. (Verifiable fact)
Fairly probable: Alexander used the belief that the moon represented Persia to give his men a pep talk in the face of poor odds for them. (Several sources relate this)
Certainly possible: This eclipse (seen as a bad omen for Persia by common astrological planetary assignments) played a role in the battle’s outcome. (Sources suggest this)
Maybe, but speculative: Alexander’s psych trick worked, and that’s among the reasons the Macedonians won. (historians’ speculation)
Purely speculative: Darius lost because he believed he was destined to lose and had a complete loss of confidence, as did his men. (Curtius suggests this but Curtius makes up shit and we have no idea where his info about the Persian court actually came from.)
YET wouldn’t that last point make an historical fiction story resonate for readers? It’s about what Darius feared; it gets in his head.
Guy Vanderhaeghe said, “History tells us what people do; historical fiction helps us imagine how they felt.”
So, for those who are squicked by the idea of someone speculating about the lives of real people, as historians we already do that. Most historical secondary discussion is about our speculation: arguing a position. It also misses the point of historical fiction, which isn’t about who any historical person actually was, but with who we are now, and what it’s possible for us to become.
These are characters. They may be based on historical people and use a lot of what we know about ancient Macedonia, but it’s fiction. Furthermore, like any scene in a story, a sex scene should serve a specific purpose, or it’s deadwood (and can be cut). The sex scenes in both novels develop my characterizations of the two boys/young men. They’re not mere titillation.
If I were bothered by writing a sex scene between Alexandros and Hephaistion, I wouldn’t be writing historical fiction at all. Because. It’s. The. Same. Principle. ...whether a sex scene or any other speculative event. Yet as I said above, those who object to historical fiction on that principle are kidding themselves about lines between “truth” and “fiction” in history in the first place.
Now all that said, some folks are just uncomfortable with any graphic sex in fiction, in which case, please skim or skip it.
---------------------------------------
*A quick terminology lesson (although remember, I’m not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV): SLANDER is what is said about a person, while LIBEL is what is written about a person. In the US, both have a high bar for courtroom conviction. To win, one must prove the defendant said something bad knowing it was untrue, in order to defame the character of the accuser. If I believe my neighbor is fucking his dog and say so, that’s my opinion, and protected free speech. But if I know he’s not and spread it around anyway to make him sound perverted, that’s slander. Still, how will the accuser prove as much?
