The Paradox of History by Nicola Chiaromonte (1970) investigates the idea of History by assessing literature (e.g. Tolstoy, Stendhal, etc.) which gave me some things to think about in terms of creating characters, relationships, and events. Here are a few of those things:

Belief 

• Culminates in thought which is externalized through events (action)
• Defines limits and possibilities
• Can deteriorate and die

Inconsistency in a single belief between allied characters can initiate a parting of ways (despite all other congruences)

Ties that Bind 

Separate entities (characters, communities, etc.) are more tightly united through morals than through reason.

When it comes to following a leader/character with leadership qualities, people are drawn to:

1. Those with power and success, or
2. Those they believe in.

The Paradox of History  

History (or any of my fictional worlds) isn’t a construction of pure fact. Instead, history is the result of facts + perception. In light of this, the book proposed two conflicting ideas:

1. A character’s beliefs decide his/her world.
2. Events in a character’s world define and give significance to his/her beliefs (Chiaromonte favored the latter rather than the former).

Food for thought.