Dear Mr Cornwell,
First, I absolutely love all your books! Second, since working on my dissertation many years ago, I wrote an historical novel based on a main character. My question is, after having read your books, does the main character have to be in every scene even though it's their story? I'm in a critique group that writes mainly "cosy" mystery books and want me to discard any historical backdrop and put the character in every scene. But this seems unreasonable and doesn't provide any substance to the story. I've reread the Sharpe and Uhtred books and recognize that you provide wonderful input within the storyline. I'm working at making the book the main character's story, but there are other characters necessary to the story whose backgrounds, even slight, enrich the plot. I value your opinion- am I on the right track to include significant history?
Thank you so very much for your advice (in advance).
Regards,
Gwenn Meredith
That's a hard question to answer. Obviously if you're writing in the first person (Uhtred) then the main character is going to be everywhere, but the third person (Sharpe) - he doesn't need to be, though on the whole I prefer to keep the story from his point of view. I've broken that rule fairly often, and I suspect the choice is entirely personal. It can be very useful to change the point of view, but some readers find it off-putting. I try not to do it, rather like my horror of flashbacks which sometimes are essential. In the end it's totally your choice - what works to make the story work? And making the story work is the biggest task, so do whatever you need and don't worry too much about the real history - that will survive whatever you choose!