We have a word for this (Day 31)

I had been working on the story that became my second novel for over two decades when I finally wrote it. Suffice to say, I knew the characters really well at that point, and it should have been a matter of setting the story to paper. But in the meantime I had introduced new characters, and they brought something different to the story, and helped answer a question that had been bothering me about my main characters. Thus, one day I came to have a breakthrough about what was really going on: I didn't change any of the action, but instead changed the perspective and orientation. Now the story and characters jumped off the page and told me very clearly what I needed to do for the rest of the series.

I think it's fair to say that my writing process was influenced by my years reading and studying history. There's a reason it can be better to study older periods: if nothing else, for the most part we are less invested in the propaganda. Which is part of why it's hard to study (or write) history as it happens, especially about our own country. One way or another, we have an opinion about national mythologies, and most of us are taught to bring those opinions with us into our reading of history; hell, most of us are taught mythologies, not actual history.

But what if we could bring that same detachment with us to more recent history? What if we could narrow our eyes, cock our heads, and look at things without the noise of the propaganda? How different would history look?

I have some thoughts, but I need to do a little more research first. But I'll leave readers with this. Please read, then look at the date, and see if you can figure out why more wasn't made about this at the time.

Deb in the City