Jonathon Robert Wright asked Colleen K. MacFarlane:

I really like some of your reviews and input on the Christian fiction page. I probably would describe my writing and more historical than fiction but have used my imagination to describe the events. Because of this, I am creating biblically inspired short stories. How would you describe the difference between historical fiction and historical non-fiction? I am a little confused.

Colleen K. MacFarlane Hello Jonathan, Thanks for your comment. I read a great book a couple of years ago called The City of Scoundrels. It's about Chicago politics in 1919 and serves to describe historical events and underpinning of underhanded political gamesmanship. The author, Gary Krist, wrote this non-fiction book, loaded with facts and hundreds of footnotes. Mostly non-fiction, but also lots of dialogue. If I recall, the author was also able to footnote quotes from people from newspaper research. That's the difference. In MY book, Listening to Her Own Voice, I touched on exciting events in Rosa's life, but simply gave a voice to all family members that couldn't possibly have been researched or known. But, with the help of cousins and info passed down to me, I could piece together a flavor of their personality. In the early stages of my writing, and editor advised me NOT to use footnotes for historical fiction. I listened to her, as I knew it would save me tons of time. I now wonder if I would have published a better and more authoritative product if I had provided footnotes ... and even pictures. Upon further investigation, I've read that footnotes can in fact be used in historical fiction. With historical fiction, I think the writer has more creative advantage, whereas with non-fiction facts and documentation of those facts is critical -- as the readers will quickly analyze. What do you think? Tell me about your short stories - they sound interesting.

flag