Historical Accuracy in Fiction

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I posted this artcile in the Random Thoughts thread. then decided perhaps it deserves its own discussion thread and people may want to share their thoughts on this subject matter.

Feel free to tell us what you think of the topics outlined in this article.
__________________________________________________

Here is an interesting article by Tessa Harris at the Huffington Post
To see article at the Huff Post.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tessa-h...

Treading Warily Through History
14/02/13

Writing historical fiction with real-life characters at its core is a bit like negotiating a minefield that's already been swept. As long as you keep to the tried and tested path you'll be safe.

By that I mean that as long as you stick to the basic facts, the accepted road map which draws on events that are a matter of record. But if you stray - beware! If you're not blown to pieces by eagle-eyed critics, then there'll still be readers out there keen to take pot shots at you.
Some of our greatest writers have ventured on this course. Think Shakespeare, Dickens and Tolstoy, not to mention Robert Graves, Colm Toibin and Pat Barker. Yet if combining fact and fiction is nothing new, it has always been viewed with suspicion by purists. Virginia Woolf, for example, deplored Lytton Strachey's original decision to garner the facts with invented passages in his book, Elizabeth and Essex. 'Truth of fact and truth of fiction are incompatible,' she told him.

Most historical novelists will tell you, however, that they have no desire to ride roughshod over the facts. Many are indeed respected scholars as well as writers of fiction. I am thinking of novelists like Alison Weir and Philippa Gregory who both go to original sources. In fact the latter struck literary gold when she took the trouble to delve into the archives herself. That is how she came across a tiny footnote in an original document stating that Henry VIII had to seek dispensation for his marriage to Anne Boleyn, not only to divorce his first wife Catherine of Aragon, but also because he had been sleeping with Anne's sister. This led Gregory to write her best seller The Other Boleyn Girl, which was subsequently made into a successful movie.

Kings and queens seem to be especially favoured by historical novelists, although several presidents and many artists, writers and actors have also had their names taken in vain for the sake of literature. As well as Hilary Mantel's hugely successful Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies, there have been countless other novels that have at their heart real characters: Peter Carey's The True History of the Kelly Gang, Michael Cunningham's The Hours about Virginia Woolf and Joyce Carol Oates' Blonde about Marilyn Monroe to name but a few.

Yet all these writers would probably tell you that they are storytellers first and historians second. Take, for example, Bernard Cornwell, with 50 novels to his name. Most of them are historical, ranging from the early 19th century Sharpe series to his latest 1356, set at the time of the battle of Poitiers in the Middle Ages.

In a recent interview he said: "If you are wanting to write historical fiction I always say, you are not an historian. If you want to tell the world about the Henrician reformation, then write a history book but if you want an exciting story, then become a storyteller. Telling the story is the key."

And there's the rub. There are an awful lot of (bestselling) writers who don't let facts get in the way of a good story. (Mr Cornwell, I hasten to add, is meticulous in his research and is certainly not one of them.) And yet I would argue that if you can stick to the facts, then your story may well be all the better for it because, as the saying goes, truth is very often stranger than fiction.

History will always be open to interpretation, whether it is written as fact or incorporated into fiction. No matter how objective the writer tries to be, there will also be insurmountable obstacles to impartiality. Events and characters will always be filtered through our contemporary lenses and there will always be doubters and detractors, just as there are apologists. One writer's hero is another one's villain.

That is why I believe it is so important to work to ground rules in historical fiction. There are basic facts which should be rigidly adhered to. Yet even here we can run into trouble. Take for example Gore Vidal's Lincoln. The writer claimed that his work contained nothing but "agreed upon facts." But, as the president of the Abraham Lincoln Association, Frank J, Williams pointed out; Vidal did not tell us who had agreed them.

That's where, I believe, the author's note has a very important role to play. It gives the writer the opportunity to set the record straight, if necessary. If certain facts have been skewed or emphasized for the sake of the narrative, then it provides the chance to put things right. If liberties have been taken with locations, for example, for the sake of the narrative, then the writer can hold their hands up and say so.

A mature student of the Italian Renaissance once related how her tutor had recommended that before she started studying any academic literature she should read Sarah Dunant's The Birth of Venus to give her a flavor of the fascinating period. Surely that has to be one of the over-arching goals of the historical novelist: to so imbue the reader with a sense of wonder and passion about their chosen subject that they, too, are compelled to set off into the minefield of history without worrying too much about treading on a mine.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

This below is what I posted in response to the article and some fellow A&M members thoughts on it.
-------------------------------------------
Some twist on truth is okay. Some twist, 90% of us readers would not even notice, but an author should not mess with written history too much or on the big things.

For example....Battles that took place, should still take place. The historical winners should still be the winners. If the King is historically killed on the field he should still be killed on the field.

...and William Wallace shouldn't have an affair with the Queen. :)

[happy]

Terri wrote: "This below is what I posted in response to the article and some fellow A&M members thoughts on it.
-------------------------------------------
Some twist on truth is okay. Some twist, 90% of us rea..."

I totally agree!

[John]

What a well written article, thank you.

[Richard]

The question 'how inaccurate can a good historical novel be?' doesn't have a definitive answer for me. There are different types of inaccuracy - that which has been chosen to be that way because of the necessities of the plot, and that which is just the result of bad research or lazy writing.

For example, I'm fine with the way that I, Claudius presents Claudius as a sympathetic underdog, even though he was probably as ruthless as the rest of his family, because it makes the book what it is. But at the same time it drives me mad when books set in ancient Egypt describe the gemstones round a woman's neck, because that's only there because the writer hasn't bothered to find out any different.

I think what annoys me more than anything are writers who claim to be telling a true story when in fact they're doing nothing of the sort. There is one author, whose name I won't mention, who writes horribly inaccurate historical novels at the same time as claiming to be an academic and world authority on the time period. More than one actual real authority on the time period have told me they've never heard of him.

But yes, William Wallace's affair with the queen was unforgiveable. I switched the film off at that point. And I haven't even bothered with the one where the Americans cracked the Enigma code.

[John]

Also, if you are going to show the Battle of Stirling Bridge, it would be kinda nice to have a actual bridge : )

[Dawn]

I have a completely indifferent view to films and historical accuracy. The are all about the entertainment for me, though I have to admit to being a bit annoyed with Lucas when he messed up his own timelines with the new Star Wars movies. :)

With books I require the historical basics to be correct. I can accept minor changes as long as I have a historical note at the end. Things such as clothing and language have to be really off for me to be bothered. So if the Medici's were wearing spandex....

[Richard]

Dawn wrote: "So if the Medici's were wearing spandex...."

...I'd have paid more attention in history class at school.

[Monica]

And here's the unpopular viewpoint...;-)

I read fiction (historical and other) for the enjoyment of the story. The word "fiction" itself implies something "made up". For historical fiction, I generally gravitate to those time periods in which I have an interest (and some knowledge). I don't rely on the author to provide a history lesson...it's about the storytelling.

How does anyone know what is and is not a true reflection of a time or event? Historical recordings are interpretations made by someone...many are translations of translations.(Ask 10 witnesses and receive 10 variations on the story...as well as what each of them deemed as "important".) "New" info comes to light everyday, and that changes our view of history. Should we trust one author's sources (and interpretations of those sources) over another?

If I'm bothered by the details of the story (or the writing), then the book goes into the "abandoned" file.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I think the authors historical note is key for me.
You know how sometimes you are reading a book and there's a battle and you think..hmm..I did not think that battle took place for a few more years...that sort of detail is usually always covered in the historical note.
Hist fic authors quite often move events and battles around to help with their story, and I am okay with that. As long as it is cleared up in the Authors Notes at the end and as long as it isn't too far fetched.
The battle should still take place how it is supposed to. The battle of Shrewsbury should still take place somewhere near Shrewsbury, but because they are not 100% sure which field it took place in, I would not care if the author moved it to another field.
Of course if a battle is definitely known to take place somewhere, eg Gettysburg, then it has to be there or I would be most disgruntled with the author.

A gripe I do have is things like clothing or historical detail. As Richard says, it implies laziness if the historical detail is wrong. For example; having a woman wearing long hanging sleeves a hundred years before they were fashion. Or using a long bow, way before they were invented.
That kind of detail bugs me, because it is easy research for an author to do and these are known facts.

But I don't mind if, as an another example, Ann Boleyn's sister had an elaborate fictional affair with Henry VIII while married to Anne Boleyn.
When it comes to people and character relationships in HF, I am a lot more forgiving because we don't know.

[Thom]

Like Monica I read all types of fiction purely for enjoyment. I do feel that you can possibly learn something new, even in a book classified as fiction. Schindler’s Ark by Thomas Keneally is a true story but it has been embellished with suppositions and speculations making the work as a whole suspect as a reference book but remarkable as a work of fiction. The same can be said about Irving Stone’s The Origins and The Agony and the Ecstasy. Both deal with well known (and documented) historical figures but poetic license has been applied to fill in blanks and generate monologs. Edward Rutherfurd’s Sarum, London, The Forrest Ireland Awakening, Russka and Dublin relate the history of a given geographical area. The areas are well documented but written in a strict individual basis lead the writer and the reader into the realm of fiction. The Bronze Horseman trilogy by Paulla Simons and Kate Furnival’s The Russian Concubine use events to weave their tales of life and passion. Diana Gabaldon’s Outlander series takes a similar path with a time period. Even Joseph Heller’s Catch 22 uses a documented war as the stage for his spoof. All of these aforementioned books are works of fiction but all also relate truths; of the events, monologs and characters. I can also assure you that I’ve learned something from all; even if it is only a new insight.

[Simona]

Terri wrote: "I think the authors historical note is key for me.
You know how sometimes you are reading a book and there's a battle and you think..hmm..I did not think that battle took place for a few more ye..."

Actually, historical details bother me more than developments not mentioned in storiography. Ann Boleyn could have had a short and not documented affair, but she wouldn't have worn a cachemire shawl. Not then.

[John]

Simona wrote: "Terri wrote: "I think the authors historical note is key for me.
You know how sometimes you are reading a book and there's a battle and you think..hmm..I did not think that battle took place for..."

Very true......without a head it would have kept falling off : )

[Charlene]

It's the story itself, woven into the time period/event/interaction with historical figures, that is most critical for me. An author's note explaining any deviations from these is always helpful. I actually don't mind seeing a list of sources the author has used, but I'm in academia, which might explain that, and as a writer, I've discovered additional resources for my own work. I'm not a scholar of the time periods I generally read, so as long as there isn't anything jarring and the author is telling a good tale, I'm happy.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

John wrote: "Very true......without a head it would have kept falling off : ) ..."

hahaha! Nice. :D

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

I have to admit, I rarely read the additional sources if they are written in the back of a fiction. I do in a non fiction.

I think most people who have shared their thoughts on this topic seem to all agree. Historical notes are very important. I have always felt they were, but it is interesting to see others feel this way too.

[Kate]

I'm a member on a number of different online HF groups, and I've seen this topic pop up in pretty much all of them. Always fascinating, and what the discussion always seems to boil down to is this:

1. Every reader of HF enjoys the fine line between enjoying a good story which takes some liberty with the facts, and finding certain liberties with facts too egregious to be continue enjoying the story. This line is different with everyone, depending on your own tastes and your own knowledge of the historical period.

2. Pretty much all readers appreciate a Historical Note explaining what liberties were taken with the facts and why. What pisses people off faster than anything is a writer claiming that THEIR version is the TRUE one. I remember the storm that went up when an anti-Anne Boleyn writer went on record with a faintly superior, "Well, my research makes it plain that Anne committed at least one murder."

In the end, it all comes down to personal taste.

[Thimble]

I am new to the world of historical fiction and I appreciate the comments that have been made. If I want to know the history I will study histroy (or I will study it because I am forced to). I read fiction for the story, but also to learn about the kinds of things that are not covered in my history textbook. So I want there to be a good story there but I don't want to learn things that are simply not true.

The thing that I am always afraid of is reading something, assuming that it's correct, and then finding out later that the author was just sloppy. It's one thing to take liberties in order to improve the story, but it's another to be inaccurate just because you didn't know. That is one of the reasons why discussions like this are so valuable to me - they give me ideas of who to read and even how to figure out which authors to trust and which not to.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Hi Thimble,
I am biased because I am a fan, but you can always trust Bernard Cornwell and Robert Low.

When it comes to fiction, when I say trust though, I mean trust that they are going to be 90% or more based in truth and what isn't will be covered in an historical note.
Those are two authors I have come to trust.

I am the same as you. I read non fiction. For me if I want complete historical truth or supposition on what is and isn't truth, I reach for a non fiction.
When I read historical fiction....a lot of the toying with history I would not even notice. Because I am not paying as much attention to dates and such. :) A lot of historical inaccuracy slips passed me when it comes to historical fiction.

however, as mentioned earlier, details like clothing, food and such I will always notice. :)

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Kate wrote: "What pisses people off faster than anything is a writer claiming that THEIR version is the TRUE one. I remember the storm that went up when an anti-Anne Boleyn writer went on record with a faintly superior, "Well, my research makes it plain that Anne committed at least one murder."
..."

LOL! Oh my, Kate! :D I can just imagine the storm that went up. I think if someone spouts research like that, they should probably show it. Prove it.

[Eileen]

Philippa Gregory had an article in the Wall Street Journal last summer about historical fiction (and later a longer talk at the Historical Novel Society Conference in London in late September) about how the best historical fiction fills in the gaps left in the history books. I think that is true - it can try to answer the questions about why things happened, not just what happened. That's what her books attempt to do, as do Sharon Kay Penman's and Colleen McCullough's.

A lot of history books are poorly written, or just very dry and pedantic. They state the facts but give no explanations. I'm reading one now about an obscure period and the introduction alone involved at least a dozen words that require the reader to be sitting next to a 6 volume edition of the Oxford English Dictionary to find their definitions! When I've wondered why events occurred a certain way, it is the best historical fiction has given a plausible reason, not the history books.

But that's just me.

If you're interested I think you can still see Philippa Gregory's talk on the Historical Novel Society website: historicalnovelsociety.org
Just hunt around for it a bit. Or maybe also on youtube.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Here we are Eileen. The wall Street journal artciel you spoke of. Very interesting article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000...

September 7, 2012, 8:52 p.m. ET

Philippa Gregory, Novelist
Tales to Fill Gaps in History

The road to good historical fiction starts in the archive, where the historian falls on a document and experiences that eureka moment of discovery. Best of all is when it is a little document—short but revealing.

I started to research "The Other Boleyn Girl" because of these few words in a Tudor Navy manifest: "The Mary Boleyn, 100 tons, Wm. Symonds, capt., 79 men." This told me that Henry VIII had launched a ship and given it the name of his current mistress, Mary Boleyn. A little more research told me that she was the sister of the more famous Anne Boleyn, who would be his wife.
[image] Everett Collection

NataliePortman, left, and Scarlett Johansson in the film of 'The Other Boleyn Girl.'

"Eureka," said I, the historian: what an interesting character! Why has history never bothered with her? "Hurrah," said I, the novelist: what a story! And the idea of my novel was born.

Many great novels have started in the archive. George Eliot, writing about her own childhood landscape, went first to the library to research her home of 30 years earlier. By studying newspapers at the time of the Great Reform Bill, and the local debates about the routing of the new railway lines, Eliot explored her own past in the documents of local history and widened her childhood memories into "Middlemarch," one of the greatest novels in English literature.

After the eureka moment, the next step is more reading. I have read hundreds of books on the Tudors and their predecessors, the Plantagenets, and thousands of novels on every sort of subject.

Having studied the past and thought about what makes fiction work, I close my research files and shut the study door. The trick then is to make the historical characters come alive: talking in my imagination, living in my mind, challenging the gaps in the archive.

Many fine new books stop at the research stage and don't plunge into this act of reimagining. Some go halfway along this road and become a new form: a hybrid between history and the novel that does not quite amount to historical fiction. Kate Summerscale's new book "Mrs. Robinson's Disgrace" is a historical account based on the heroine's diary, which was both cited as evidence in court and declared to be wholly fictional. Ann Wroe's "Perkin: A Story of Deception" is the history of a pretender, and it both supports and undermines that pretense. Both books are beautifully written histories about deception.

For me, it is the gaps in the historical record that pose the most important questions. For instance, there's no record of what Elizabeth, the mother of the "princes in the tower," said to the supposedly villainous King Richard III when she heard that her sons were missing. But that conversation must have taken place, for only four or five months after her boys had disappeared while in Richard's care, she entrusted her surviving children to his care.

What happened? What was said? It was a secret meeting, and no note of it has survived. "Oh no," said I, the historian: We simply don't know what happened. "Hurrah," said I, the novelist: This is where fiction comes in—I can make it up. Indeed, I have to make it up.

With the turn to fiction, I obey some self-imposed rules. If there is a historical record, I stick to it. I never tweak the history for the sake of the story. But if there is no record, I am free to imagine what happened, though I confine myself to the most likely explanation.

As a historian, this is legitimate speculation, just as I would do for a history book. As a novelist, this is my chance to take everything I know about the characters, everything I know about the world they lived in, and make my best guess as to what they might do. I can write that with utter conviction.

After all, I am writing a novel not a textbook. I am writing something more complex and creative that thrills me. And I want it to be true, not just factually but emotionally—so true that it has the ring of history.

[Eileen]

Thanks! I wasn't sure it was still out there. Her talk at the conference, though, really elaborated on the theme in the article.

[Charlene]

Terri wrote: "Here we are Eileen. The wall Street journal artciel you spoke of. Very interesting article.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000...

September 7, 2012, 8..."

Great article. Thanks for tracking it down for us.

[Thom]

Thimble wrote: "I am new to the world of historical fiction and I appreciate the comments that have been made. If I want to know the history I will study history (or I will study it because I am forced to). I read..."
That is where the wonder of internet comes into play….. I often wonder about a name or events mentioned in an historical novel and simply look it up. Nine out of ten times you can either prove or disprove the assertion in a matter of minutes.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

You're welcome guys. It definitely links in well to our conversation here. :)

[Simona]

John wrote: "Simona wrote: "Terri wrote: "I think the authors historical note is key for me.
You know how sometimes you are reading a book and there's a battle and you think..hmm..I did not think that battle..."

Ahaha...shawls were worn on shoulders!! :)

[Thimble]

Thom wrote: "That is where the wonder of internet comes into play….. I often wonder about a name or events mentioned in an historical novel and simply look it up. Nine out of ten times you can either prove or disprove the assertion in a matter of minutes."

Well, yes and no.

If it's an historical fact like who won a battle, then yes.

But if it's a detail of everyday life, like whether shawls were worn on the shoulder, not so much. And this is why I enjoy historical fiction - if I were interested in the accuracy of verifiable historical facts, I would be reading non-fiction.

Here's an example I ran into recently. The plot of Anne of Green Gables rests on the fact that Anne was adopted. The story of her adoption describes a system that had no controls - if you wanted an orphan you just went and picked one up rather like a sack of flour. I have no reason to believe that this wasn't the way things worked in that timeframe (early 1900s) but it's so different from today that it kind of gave me a jolt. I did do a little searching to see if I could find any other commentary, but it's not something that I was able to find. (Which may reflect more on my research ability than what is actually out there.)

Anyway, this is an illustration of what I've been trying to say. I now believe, having read it in a book, that in that time period orphans were completely at the mercy of anyone who came along and wanted to take them home. But I don't have any independent verification of that, so my "instruction" depends completely on what the author wrote. Multiply that by all the little pieces that an author weaves together to make a novel, and my impression of that time period is built upon a foundation of unknown strength.

[Eileen]

Details like those about adoption procedures from even just 100 years ago are often very difficult to come by. I am inclined to believe it was that easy, though, because there had to have been terrible abuses that caused the system to become so much more involved now. Not to mention Charles Dickens' stories about it!

Another example of how good historical novelists fill in the gaps with both thoughtful reflection and research on the times they are writing about, and with their imagination.

[Thom]

I can see your point and the dilemma it might cause. Historical fiction generally takes historical facts and embellishes them by filling in gaps and sometimes adding characters. I have found that most authors stay relatively true to the times but there are always exceptions. This situation doesn’t really bother me as I look at these books as works of literature and not as reference. If I enjoy the story, I am happy. In the eighth volume of John Jake’s Kent Family Chronicles (The Americans) he added a tidbit about the Steinway Piano Company that I had never really thought of. This information didn’t add a lot to the story but I felt sure that if he added it, it would be factual (which it was).

[Richard]

There are also times when the author deliberately changes things for what I would call (rather arrogantly) "acceptable" reasons. But if you asked me what the difference was between these reasons and the ones that annoy me, I'd struggle to explain it.

There's a scene in A Bridge Too Far where a chaplain rows across a river to pick up wounded soldiers. The river was being heavily shelled by the Germans at the time. I've read somewhere (probably on the internet, so it must be true) that the chaplain in real life actually made the trip twice. In the film he goes once, because William Goldman ironically thought that people would never believe that anyone would be brave enough to do that twice. That seems OK to me. We can still watch the film and know that the guy was a hero.

On the other hand, I always feel sorry for the alcoholic chaplain in Zulu who does a runner with his daughter before the Zulus arrive. In real life he was a devout man who had to be forced to leave for his own safety because he was determined to stay and help the doctor.

[Kate]

What people find acceptable in HF also depends largely on our own level of historical knowledge. If you know too much about a historical period, small errors ping and irritate in a way that they don't if you read similar errors about a historical era you know less about. That's why Tudorphiles were throwing things at the TV screen howling, "Oh, for God's sake, his sister married the king of FRANCE not PORTUGAL!" as our poor friends are saying, "Who cares? It's still entertaining, right?" Both points of view are right; it's just a matter of what you already know.

[Darcy]

I know it has been discussed elsewhere, mostly in terms of the use of swear words, but language and knowledge of trades need to have some element of truth to them.

For example, I'm currently reading a book set in the very early stages of European expansion into North America and there are terms in other languages that bother me. English isn't my first language, and I'm familiar with a few other, especially in areas of swearing, location names and tucking children into bed. All of these seem incongruous but oddly, they tend to appear in stories a lot. They are also areas where people tend to revert to their natural/preferred tongue.
So when I see an incorrect use or spelling of a French/Hebrew/Swedish/Gaelic, steam flows out of my ears. It's as though a translating program was used -for example, they type in "Christ's Blood" into a translator and get "Sang de Dieu!" and use that. No French person I know, no historical documentation etc, would support this. Perhaps someone did say it once...who knows, but I expect a connection to known expression. I'd even accept a clever invention, but not this.

Also, if when the author has a character visiting/patronising or doing a particular task, they should know the proper words. I'm currently reading a book where they go to a milliner's for a suit. Milliners make hats, NOT suits, tailors makes suits. This isn't even something difficult to look up as tailors still exist, as do milliners.

As for everything else, I agree with most that authors' notes are essential to explain inaccuracies just in case the reader has some knowledge about the topic, or even the inspiration for that 'unbelievable' thing that might pop up, as noted by Philippa Gregory's article.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

D wrote: "I know it has been discussed elsewhere, mostly in terms of the use of swear words, but language and knowledge of trades need to have some element of truth to them.
..."

This is important to me too. I can cope with one or two questionable terms or wording in a historical fiction. You have to forgive authors a little of that I guess. :] But if it rears its head too many times then it points more towards the author not doing
a) enough research about the culture, their research is mainly focused on dates, times, locations, costume.
or b) (which is also tied to a) they don't know their era or the country well enough.

If someone from America or India, for example, wrote a historical fiction set in Australia, they will be more likely to not get the historical language or culture or colloquialisms right.
Whereas, this being my country and myself having grown up with our history and cultures would have a better chance of getting it right.
This is a danger when writing outside our own culture and country.
I think an Italian might be a better judge of how a Roman soldier might talk and react. And a Canadian might have a better understanding of how a French immigrant family might talk and react.

There is a whole world of anthropology that is overlooked by many historical fiction authors. If one is writing outside of their ethnicity, culture, country...researching social sciences and cultural anthropology is hugely important, and hugely ignored.

[Bryn]

As Kate says: with cultures I know about, I'm terribly fussy. Mostly spoils the experience for me -- I can't switch off and enjoy the yarn. It's never dates and details that bother me, it's culture/society/how people behave.

But I'm ashamed to admit how little I care when it's a time and place I have no expertise in.

[Kate]

A friend of mine went to the Historical Novel Society Conference in London a few years back and met Bernard Cornwell there. (!) She said he had an absolutely priceless line that brought down the house in his keynote speech - the observation that when an editor or agent raves about "such accurately researched historical fiction!" it means that your Viking hero wasn't caught chugging a Diet Coke in the second chapter.

[Mark]

Kate wrote: "A friend of mine went to the Historical Novel Society Conference in London a few years back and met Bernard Cornwell there. (!) She said he had an absolutely priceless line that brought down the ..."

Lol.

[John]

Richard wrote: "There are also times when the author deliberately changes things for what I would call (rather arrogantly) "acceptable" reasons. But if you asked me what the difference was between these reasons an..." Also Private Hook was portrayed as a big drinker, in fact he was a tea-totaller, don't care though, great film.

[John]

I wish someone would write accurate love scenes in their books.
''She slowly unlaced her bodice''
'' oops, l am so sorry, got a lot of stress at work, perhaps we can try again later after the football?''

[Eileen]

Richard wrote: "There are also times when the author deliberately changes things for what I would call (rather arrogantly) "acceptable" reasons."

In one of the books being read this month, Mercenaries, the author compressed events that would have occurred over at least 10 years into, I guess, about 4-5 years for dramatic purposes. He acknowledges this at the end of the book, and I am sort of ok with it. He knew what he was doing, and deliberately did not list years that things happened in the story, leaving the reader vague on dates.

Other books that I have read, though, just grab some names, dates, and events and put them into a book, with little research into the culture they are writing about. That does annoy me a lot!

[Betty]

Good historical fiction most always sends me to the history section of the library (or sometimes the Internet) to learn more - about the person, main event(s) or period in general.

[Terri, Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Jaq raises a good point.
A couple fellow members have mentioned here that some readers don't know the period and they don't care that the facts aren't straight because they don't notice.
There are definitely some periods where this is me. Don't know, so don't notice.
There are also fellow members who have mentioned this HF genre is new to them and they are still learning, so they would not notice historical inaccuracies either.

In my opinion, those readers who are learning the genre, look a year or two down the track and you will be lounge chair experts like the rest of us. :)
Especially those of you who read things in a HF and then reach for a non fiction or for the Google machine to look into the history further.
You guys are only a hop, skip and a jump away from knowing it when you hit a bad bit of research or a manipulation of facts to benefit a story. Some of them will work, some of them will not.
What they do not notice now, they may come to notice in time as they become more familiar with the histories they enjoy the most.
There will always be a percentage who don't know the historical era or don't know much about history in general, who will not notice historical accuracies and could not care less if there were any.
But that is only a certain percentage of HF readers.
The rest have their favoured periods of history and they look for HF in that period. Gross historical inaccuracy, especially when it comes to social or culture eg dialogue or clothes, are going to propel that reader out of the story.

[Serena]

History is by and large a matter of your opinion, sure enough there are the ruins and bones of it (the dates and names one might note) but what it really is is a story. At the end of the book - was it good for you? Did you taste a bit of their pleasures and pains? Did you see them as a people - a person - one among many? How well did you relate to it or was it something stunning and a alien way of thinking new to you utterly?

It has to be a good story that fits the puzzle pieces of what you want and what the book is about.

[Thom]

Something for everyone…. I have started rereading James A. Michener’s Centennial and true to style he begins at the beginning; literally. His epic story begins with the geological formation of the plains and mountains. The shifting glaciers leave marks that are still visible today, making this area unique unto itself. There has been much written about periods. Michener has surpassed this by incorporating all periods into most of his works. What Michener had pioneered, Edward Rutherfurd has enhanced and extended. His novels London and Russka trace their given areas through time. In my opinion, both of these authors stay relative true to facts as they weave their unforgettable tales. Everyone seems to agree that enjoyment outweighs historical accuracy (within certain limits) and thankfully we are blessed with multitude of books to choose from.

[Jane]

Marina wrote: "Nice article.
For me historical fiction book/film has to be a combination of the following: (A)accurate, (P)plausible, (F)fun.
The best combinations are A+F or P+F. And while F on his own is fine, ..."

I like your A/P/F scale. I do like an author's note at the end of a book and short bibliography so you can read more on the historical period.

[Kate]

Especially considering that historical "facts" change all the time with new discoveries - look at how much Ricardian history is being rewritten right now as a result of the archaological dig finding Richard III's body.

It can be quite irritating as a writer if someone insists in a review that you're wrong, when you know you're not.

[Linda]

Betty wrote: "Good historical fiction most always sends me to the history section of the library (or sometimes the Internet) to learn more - about the person, main event(s) or period in general."

I do the same. It is easier to read hf when I know a little h.

[happy]

Here is an article my William Dietrich, author of the Ethan Gage series, on historical fiction, that I found interesting and touches on the topic at hand (I think)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william...

[Bryn]

happy wrote: "Here is an article my William Dietrich..."

Liked the article, might have to give his Attila a spin.

So I wonder what he makes Napoleon: hero/villain/in between? The most famous can put a slant on their hf: to me the Napoleon in 'War and Peace' is a comic-strip villain.

[Ben]

Very interesting topic - thanks for all of your posts.

Kate: "It can be quite irritating as a writer if someone insists in a review that you're wrong, when you know you're not." - I SOOOO know what you mean with that one! :-)