how to restore diversity to historical narratives

THE OPENING LINE OF novelist Zoe Sivak’s online biography states that, “Zoe aims to restore diversity to historical narratives,” which is just what she does in her debut novel, Mademoiselle Revolution. The book is just out from Berkley Random House. Along with writing and publishing fiction, Zoe is pursuing both her Juris Doctorate and Master of Public Health in Philadelphia with a focus on women’s health. Listen in and read along as we discuss how to restore diversity to historical narratives and so much more.

Zoe: Hi, Marion. Thank you so much for having me. I’m really excited.

Marion: I’m excited too. And I love that bio of yours and it further states that in your writing, you strive to explore famous male figures through the lens of the women beside them. Women who could have existed, even if history left them behind. So, let’s start there and talk about making this professional choice of what to cover. My audience is writers, many of whom would like to write from what they believe is important, or politically necessary. But, we’d love to hear from you on how you arrived at that. Is that permission? Self-approval? Is it just pure ambition? First of all, what do you even think of that as that right to do that? Is it emotional, intellectual permission? I just really want to know how you categorize it. And how did you get there?

Zoe: Finding my own niche. . . I think for anyone, takes experience. Life experience. Not always years, sometimes it’s years, sometimes it’s just living life. And, for me, I found that I was frustrated with the way that historical fiction, and history in media are presented to me as I was growing up, because I loved history. And there were all these very significant figures throughout history, significant events throughout history, that were presented to me in a very specific way. And I believed that that was the end all, be all. That the way that we see it in the media is how it actually happens.

And my years of experience, and my education, et cetera kind of illuminated what I would say is more of the truth in that the past is diverse and that there are powerful women, and powerful people of color, and other forms of diversity, that have functioned in these really well-known spaces like, for example, the French Revolution and right alongside these really incredible figures. I just knew that I wanted to share and to teach. And I find that novels can be a really powerful tool to do that while also, obviously, putting my own spin and my own identity into the work. Hopefully, that gets to the question.

Marion: Yeah. So, you said you were frustrated in the way the history was given to you, presented to you. So, let’s talk about that need to address that kind of frustration. When you were a kid, did you see yourself, your ambitions, your family, or even the world you inhabited, in the stuff you were reading? Did you find yourself there, or did you feel excluded? Did you feel that it wasn’t covering the territory of who you are?

Zoe: Oh, well, I mean, of course not. And we’re still seeing a little bit of limitation regarding what we see on our shelf. So, I mean, I’m a bisexual, biracial, Jewish girl raised by a single blonde mother. So that’s pretty specific. And I don’t think we all want to see our exact selves represented on every shelf. But I think it’s more that I didn’t see any woman that looked like me unless she was in a field, or she was being exploited in some way. And I thought that that was my entire identity historically, and that that was accurate.

But it’s not accurate. Black people and Black women have been in positions of power or at least adjacent to power for as long as there have been women. And as long as we’ve had these historical structures. So, I mean to get back at, I think that initial line that you read, that’s why I say restore, because it’s not that I’m inserting false narratives. I am meticulous, sometimes to a fault, about making sure that what I put in, if it is not actually historical, it does still fit into the framework. That it is possible. And so that, I think, I try to emphasize that I’m trying to restore it. I’m restoring the full narrative of history, so that people like me, in whatever branch of my own identity that may be, feel seen because they were present and have always been present on that treadmill of just humanity.

Marion: Yeah. I love that word, restoring. And I was so taken by it when I read your bio. And, as you just said so beautifully, it clearly states that the diversity of the world has always existed and that the stories of many have simply been shouted down by the stories of others. And this is clearly true on all platforms, fiction, non-fiction, in print, online, on the air, everywhere.

So historical fiction, literally going into historical fiction allows you what? More clearly based on what your direct passion is to do?

Zoe: I think that people have an easier time learning a message when they believe there is distance. There is very little distance on the continuum of human existence between the French Revolution and now. I mean, that’s what we would consider modern history. Early modern is 17th century. And then we see modern, we consider that starting from the 18th century onward. So, it’s not a lot of time.

And people have been essentially, people, in the same way that we think and feel, and look, for about a few hundred thousand years. 200,000 is a very conservative number. So I find that when you use historical fiction, not only because I simply prefer it as a genre that I read myself, but I find that when you use it as a platform, people are more open to the message that you send and more open to, I think, comparison and juxtaposition, then if you take a contemporary story with these contemporary themes. The themes can stay the same. But sometimes when it’s contemporary, I find that people are less willing to be introspective and to be a less willing audience. But the minute you put it in stays and a petty coat, put it around tea, all of a sudden it’s entertainment and they’re more willing, right? They’re more willing audience members. So that’s part of the reason. That’s part of the reason.

Marion: Stays and tea. There’s an essay for you to write right there. Yeah, that’s gorgeous. And yes, it’s true. There’s frippery, but we get comfortable amid the frippery of it. It’s strange and interesting. And the complexities of placing people in their proper place of prominence are enumerable. I mean, enumerable. And yet, as we look around, we have terrific examples in art that does just that. The recent Apple TV program called “Dickinson” takes Emily Dickinson from the pale housebound, virginal white dress wearing, nature loving, quiet person we needed her to be for so long and just ratchets her right up to having a voice, a sexuality and real political awareness about the Civil War. And the musical “Six“, now on Broadway, directly confronts the placement of Henry VII’s six wives. And they scream out. They sing out, “Consider us for who we are.” Those replacements are really fraught. They don’t carry as much of a burden of language that other historical characters do.

So because all of those women I just referred to are white. And you open your book, Mademoiselle Revolution with these remarkable words and they’re simple, but I did find them remarkable. “The language and opinions described in this novel expressed the problematic beliefs held by many in the 18th century and beyond, even by those who themselves are victims of racism. Words like mulatto, Negro, slave and master instead of biracial, Black, enslaved person and enslaver, were terribly commonplace. To depict history is not to condone it. We must face our past with clear eyes so we may continue down our long road toward dismantling racism.” Perfect. So let’s talk about language. Let’s start with that simple but deeply compelling statement you use to start this wonderful book. Talk to us literally about the decision to put that there.

Zoe: I am a big proponent of communication and a book is, I mean at its bassist form, just another way to communicate. And I like everyone to be operating under the same assumptions in the same lens. So when I use the word slave in the book, it’s because that’s the word you would’ve used. I’m not going to ascribe our 21st century framework onto people living in the 18th century. That’s not because for example, the concepts of anti-racism didn’t exist. Of course they did, but they’re not going to call it that. Or they’re not going to call people enslaved persons. They’re going to call them slaves. They’re not going to call Sylvie a biracial or mixed race girl. They’re going to call her a mulatto, which derives from the word for say a mule girl or mule. That’s where that word comes from. I mean, Sylvie, yes, she’s aware of the origin, she speaks Spanish, but that’s the word that she would use and ascribe to herself.

It doesn’t mean that she thinks less of herself. It doesn’t mean that she doesn’t understand how she fits into the fabric of this racial society. That is the language that we use at that time. I don’t think that we can’t be progressive and elucidatory and illuminating and enlightened, without using modern language. I don’t think we have to prescribe modern language onto the past to make it relevant and to make the meaning any less or any more clear. So I think it’s very important to acknowledge that no, these are not good words and you should never use them. They’re derogatory or worse, they lack complexity or they lack truth. But that doesn’t mean that I am not aware of that when I write that in my book.

And so all of these things are decisions and authors make those decisions all the time. I could have used the N word throughout the book, because there is some type of equivalent in the French language. Was it necessary? I didn’t think so. So I didn’t use it. There are times and places where a lot of imagery or language is appropriate and that’s up to the author to make that decision. But in the end, I like to be transparent about why I make those choices. And so that’s why I have that little preface at the beginning, just to say, “You shouldn’t be using this language. This is the correct language in 2022 that you should be using, but I make the decision to reflect history as it was. And so I try to preserve most of it.” That was my decision making.

Marion: Fascinating and so helpful, because Mademoiselle Revolution opens in 1791 and it provides the reader with an education on many things, not the least of which is the idea that the Haitian Uprising was a catalyst for both the American and French Revolutions. And thank you for reminding me of that. So let’s talk about that. Let’s talk about, well, I guess we should give the listeners a quick history lesson. The Haitian Uprising began in 1791, as I said, and it was actually a series of uprisings between many parties that ended in 1804 with the former colony’s independence. So talk about when you made the decision to place it there. Now we’ve got the context of the language. We’ve got the context of you and your intent in this world and what you like to do. So why there? Why did that particular time in the world give you this terrific place to take on this wonderful character and these series of issues that you like to take on?

Zoe: So another big part of when I make a decision about a book, it generally requires two things. It requires a lesson. I don’t think anyone, especially diverse people, have a responsibility to teach readers. I personally do enjoy that. I like teaching. So for my process, it encapsulates a lesson. And then the second thing that I require is a historical beat. And so the beats are, and the historical beat and the lesson, are actually quite tied together. I had at the time, what was it, 2016. I was in a course and the way my professor presented she was actually a specialist in Caribbean history, but she was teaching American history at the time. It was up until the Civil War and the way that she articulated the significance of the Haitian Revolution, how it fundamentally informed. And at my belief and many historians’ belief, was the direct impetus for the fissure in the United States that would lead to the Civil War.

When enslaving or enslaving sympathizer Americans saw what happened in Haiti, which was essentially a successful uprising, they saw it as validation, that if you were to free Black people, they would brutally destroy society as we know it. Because more or less they did. They did do that. It was a society that hurt them and dehumanized them and killed them and mutilated them. But it was a society that was profitable to a certain sub sect of the population. And that was very dangerous. So they saw it as, “I told you so.” And then you go to abolitionists or anti enslaving blocks of the United States, mostly the North, not exclusively. They saw this and they said the same thing. They see a successful Black population creating a democracy using the same ideals that the United States did or at that time the colonies did when they sought freedom from, at the time Great Britain. And so they said the same thing. They said, “I told you so.” And therein lies the polarization that we still see.

And so I thought that was so critical to my understanding of the United States and in my understanding of race that I was obsessed. And I was like, “The world needs to know.” I didn’t think it was my place to do an entire piece that was set in Haiti. I’m not Haitian. I’m not wholly Black in that sense. And I didn’t think it was my space, but I thought I did have the background to be able to at least begin our story with that uprising and then connect it to something I knew very well, which was the French Revolution, because they’re fundamentally tied. The French Revolution was occurring roughly at that time, if you say it begins during the Bastille, which is 1789, it just started. Revolutionary fervor was rising all along the Western world. And I had to tie these things together.

So the lesson that, the connection between the United States and Haiti, that was something that I thought was very important. And the Haitian Revolution as a fundamental precursor to the French Revolution, as we understand it, say the Reign of Terror. I just thought that was so important. I wanted to write a story using a woman that I felt looked like me, who was multiracial and who was both a victim of white supremacy, but also a perpetrator of it in that space and navigating that as she understands what it means to forgive yourself and to actively work towards redemption. Those were my framework when I was going into this.

Marion: Oh, it’s great. I just feel like we went on the best story, slay ride ever, because I understand. Yeah. And I love your conditions for yourself, that you’re not Haitian, so you’re not going to go there completely, but you’re going to stage it here. And the understanding of transparency, also fascinates me. You’re very transparent about who you are in your bio data. And as you said earlier in this interview, you identify as biracial and bisexual and your protagonist in Mademoiselle Revolution is biracial and bisexual as well. And I bet I’m missing the point utterly when I assume that making these matter of fact declarations like yes, there is a biracial, bisexual person in my book. Yes. There were bisexual, biracial people in history who lived, loved and died among us, is supposed to make that all less exotic and more, as I said, matter of fact. But am I missing the point of your choice here to portray her the way you do?

Zoe: I wanted it to be not a point, I suppose. I wanted what I thought was A, I struggled to… Not struggle, I suppose that’s not fair. I’m much more interested in writing bisexual characters simply because it’s hard for me to imagine a space where I’m not attracted to both genders or maybe other genders in between, personally. I simply find it makes for more fun storytelling and it’s more engaging for me. I’ve written other characters that weren’t, that were exclusively gay or exclusively gender queer or exclusively bisexual. I mean sexuality, as we understand it, is a creation of the late 20th century. So, that’s kind of another piece of it where I don’t ascribe my modern view of sexuality onto historical figures. Those words meant nothing. And people regularly engaged in same sex relationships without having some crippling issue of identity. That wouldn’t have happened.

The only time it were a real problem is if it impacted your role as a parent, as a father, as a patriarch or matriarch. Generally, those behaviors needed to stop or become extremely discreet upon marriage. However, it was well known that people had these romantic friendships and well-documented honestly, and they didn’t really stop until about the 19th century. So my point was not a point. It was supposed to just be Sylvie doesn’t think critically about her attraction to Cornelie, because I mean, A, she grew up with brothers and B, I mean, it’s a very liberal time. Who was going to criticize her? Who in this field would’ve been upset with it? Goodness. I mean, her aunt grew up during the enlightenment. I mean, it was incredibly laissez-faire about sex and sexuality.

So I’m not interested and I don’t think I ever really will be in the dark turmoil of sexuality, because for me that isn’t my space. I write about sexuality and love simply as minor tangents to who we are, but to not inform us so completely, that I needed to vote a significant part of my developmental arc to it, because it wouldn’t have existed in the 18th century. So I don’t put it there.

Marion: Great answer. And I love what you said when you said those words meant nothing. In other words, the language of now meant nothing then. And it literally, meant nothing. So let’s talk about the tension between research and restoring diverse characters in stories. Because as we well know, history is usually written by the advantaged, the winners or the people with the power and the money. Meaning there will be little, if any accurate documentation on the very people, time, ideas, you wish to portray. So give us some insights and tips, especially to those writers listening, who would like to perform restorative work as well, but are daunted by the lack of documentation on the lives of women, for instance, or in your case, biracial, bisexual women. How do you function as a researching writer, with this reality?

Zoe: In my instance, I was fortunate because the time that I chose, literacy rates were skyrocketing and women were a huge, huge movement in pushing the French Revolution forward. So there is a lot of resources and primary sources. Olympe de Gouges, who is a minor character featured in this book, I mean, she was a major player and unfortunately did lose her life, but I read her writings and I got to see her letters. I mean, these people did fortunately document many parts of their lives. I got to see personal effects of Cornelie and her personal portraiture and her letters and her writings and her sister’s writings. So I think a lot of it is conditional.

So these are white, privileged, upper middle class, middle class women, with a father who was very, very forward thinking. And he was devoted to his children’s education regardless of gender. So that in and of itself gives them more power. Someone like say Sylvie, who is a mixed race woman. She may not have had anything recorded from her own lips. Her birth may have been recorded. Her marriage may have been recorded. Men of free descent and generally of mixed race, also had significant power, which is another interesting dynamic about the Haitian Revolution and why I say they were in a position of privilege. And also you could both suffer and benefit from the dynamics of that island.

So as someone like Vincent Oge, who famously was executed very early in the story, I read all of his letters. He had just been fresh from France. He went to basically address their governmental body for the rights of free men of African descent that were basically in a certain income bracket. So there is nuance. And I think that’s the hardest part is about, whose voice can I find in this region, in this time? And what is some of the context to this voice? And you have to be careful not to make assumptions and you have to do a lot of contextual research. Because for example, one would assume if you’re thinking about 2022, well, if you’re a biracial, mixed race woman of African descent, of course, you’re going to identify strongly with all people of Black and African descent. I certainly do.

Well that’s not really the case in Haiti in the 18th century. They actively wanted to maintain slavery. They benefited from it greatly. They owned slaves and they had no interest in extending freedom or enfranchisement to people that were of Black and African descent that were enslaved. It wasn’t only until right before the actual Haitian Revolution that they recognized that if they wanted to succeed, they needed to embrace everyone and all voices and all perspectives and all peoples. And that you could not allow white supremacy to partition your brothers and your sisters based on who was free and who is not.

And so that I think is just an example of how much nuance and it takes time. And you have to pace yourself as you parse through all of this nuance, because it will not be immediately clear to you until you start taking the time. So try to go in without assumptions and you’ll be surprised at what you find.

Marion: Oh, it’s the rule in journalism. Don’t go in with intent and don’t go in with an argument fully formed because you’re going to just research to that argument as opposed to finding all these gorgeous sidebars and assistants to your tale. How do you pull up when you’re reading the letters? You’re finding the artifact. The greatest, greatest temptation is to just stay there in the research, because it’s glorious, right? There’s almost nothing like putting your hands on something that you’ve been looking for, looking to read. The kind of documentation you describe sounds to me like utterly glorious day after day after day. So if we don’t go in with intent, we don’t have an end point. And how in the world do you pull up? That’s what I think of. It’s a crazy like horse racing analogy, but how do you pull up and say, “Okay, I got to go home and write.” Did you assign yourself a length of time? Or did you say, “When I find out this, I’ll have all I need to write this.” Just give us a sense of how you stop researching and start writing?

Zoe: That is such an intuitive question because it’s something that I am always trying to master. It is hard when you’re someone who A, enjoys the research and B, you don’t know as much as you’d like to. So you’re always chasing more. And when you’re finding the nuance of this information that you didn’t even think would matter, and then you find yourself looking up when pencils with lead in them started being produced? And you find a specific town in Germany in the 18th century. I mean, it’s a little absurd. And so a stopping point, that’s a hard one to just articulate offhand. But something that I have found is very useful is, do I have enough at this stage to create and paint a convincing story? Right? Well, do I have enough information to say what I want to say?

And then once I feel that I have enough, I have a timeline set up. I have an idea of what these people would be wearing, what they’d be eating, how would they be addressing each other? Is there anything so culturally important to this moment. Those basics, which can take weeks, however much time you give yourself and then you stop, you pull yourself away and then it becomes a, you research as you go. You research as you go. A friend of mine actually and it’s a very useful tip, she uses brackets and that’s something I started to use. Rather than stopping and starting, every time you come across a oh, is this word even exist in this time? Or is there a better equivalent? Or whatever random esoteric piece of information you find that you think is so important that you need. Instead of stopping your flow, put in a set of brackets and then come back to it later so that you can continue on your journey. So, that’s something I find is actually very useful.

So getting a general picture enough to get started and then stop and then transition to a different type of research where you’re putting in blank spaces, so you can come back later. So that you’re not ruining your flow, which it sounds a little funny, but don’t ruin the flow. I think the flow is so critical and just giving yourself separate time for research and separate time for writing, because they are, I really do try to differentiate them. Because I’ve noticed that when I’m trying to do both simultaneously, both suffer. So that I’s say is my advice. That’s my advice.

Marion: I love it. I love brackets. And I love the idea that you’re parsing the time correctly. And as we wrap this up, let’s talk a little bit about time. I simply must ask you about discipline time and allotment in your life, because you’re pursuing both your Juris Doctorate and a Master of Public Health. So how do you make and keep the precious time to research and write? Do you have any tips for those writers who are listening in because they have lives, they have families, they might have houses, they might have dogs. They might have aging parents. They all have quote unquote “regular jobs.” So how do you do it?

Zoe: I always hesitate to answer this question because it is so dependent on our personalities and our own, I think, mentality as we approach time, because time is not to sound pedantic, but is relative. And it’s very different how I can multitask by say, doing half writing for the book and then half writing for school in the library, for example. How is that going to be useful for a mother of three? That’s not really relevant for her, but what I would say is knowing your limits and also recognizing that time is relative. And I really think it’s kind of useless to some people, “Oh, I wrote 5,000 words today. I have to write 6,000 tomorrow.” I really don’t know how much value that has, unless you’re truly writing on a deadline so narrow that you have to do it that way. There are days I write 10,000 words and then weeks that I write none, to be perfectly honest. I don’t hold myself to that type of standard because I don’t think it really helps me and it doesn’t improve my writing and it doesn’t change when I finish the book.

So when I have the energy and the time, I write. And when I don’t, I don’t write. Trying to bend over backwards because there’s this invisible timeframe that you put in front of yourself, I think it will hinder you and it’ll hinder your work. And it creates a really negative, I think, relationship with your writing. I describe it more as homework, because it’s not like I particularly have a good time. It’s not fun writing thousands of words when you just want to snap your finger and all of your thoughts, create it on Scrivener. But it’s an objective, right? It’s a purpose.

And so when I take the time and I recognize that I will have time on this day and hopefully you’re in a space where people can respect those boundaries and you have a supportive family or friends or children that recognize that this is something that is yours and they respect your time and that space. Hopefully all of these things together, can create a really healthy environment for identifying when you have time and putting in the right amount of effort. It’s more about the effort than the time, I would say.

Marion: Ah, that’s very generous and I think it demystifies it tremendously. Thank you so much, Zoe. It’s just been a pleasure talking to you and I just wish you all the best with this book and with your future research and your degrees that are coming up. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Zoe: Thank you so much for having me Marion. This was a wonderful experience and I hope I was of help.

Marion: You were of enormous help. The writer was Zoe Sivak. Her new book is Mademoiselle Revolution just out from Berkley Random House. See more on her at zoe sivak author dot com. I’m Marion Roach Smith, and you’ve been listening to QWERTY. QWERTY is produced by Over It Studios in Albany, New York. Reach them at overit studios dot com. Our producer is Adam Clairmont. Our assistant is Lorna Bailey. Want more on the art and work of writing? Visit marion roach dot com where I offer live, online classes on how to write memoir. And thanks for listening. Don’t forget to follow QWERTY wherever you get your podcasts and listen to it wherever you go. And if you like what you hear, please leave us a review. It helps others to find their way to their writing lives.