Authors, Writers, Publishers, and Book Readers
How accurate does historical fiction need to be?
So if you're writing historical fiction, how accurate do you think you need to be?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Callie Leah on
-
Well, it does require some research. I mean, you don't want to write a book about the civil war and mention the main character meeting George Washington! (For example, a common mistake that most people make- not that it's their fault- is that accused witches were burned in Salem. That's not the slightest bit true. 18 people were hung, and one was crushed by the weight of stone. Only people in Europe burned 'witches') Not only does it make you look stupid, but it makes you look insensitive and not interested. I mean, if you're going to write a book that you don't care a bout, then who on earth is going to read that? And it may offend some people who have a strong connection with that event, like a family member dying or something like that. However, it's not like you need to spend months on research, but you don't need to spend just seconds on it either. :)
-
Permalink Reply by scribbler on
-
You can also look at it from this side. If a history buff and lover of that particular era buys your book and finds it riddled with inaccuracies, they'll never read your books again. I think you have to be VERY accurate and that it does take months of research to get it right. Where the fiction side comes in should relate more to characters than the setting for example imho.
Callie Leah said:Well, it does require some research. I mean, you don't want to write a book about the civil war and mention the main character meeting George Washington! (For example, a common mistake that most people make- not that it's their fault- is that accused witches were burned in Salem. That's not the slightest bit true. 18 people were hung, and one was crushed by the weight of stone. Only people in Europe burned 'witches') Not only does it make you look stupid, but it makes you look insensitive and not interested. I mean, if you're going to write a book that you don't care a bout, then who on earth is going to read that? And it may offend some people who have a strong connection with that event, like a family member dying or something like that. However, it's not like you need to spend months on research, but you don't need to spend just seconds on it either. :)
-
-
Exactly! I mean, people like that get really excited for books like that that they're interested in, and they hate being disappointed by books. Books are a symbol of light in a dim world, and when the light isn't coming from the sun, then it's going to go out. :)
scribbler said:You can also look at it from this side. If a history buff and lover of that particular era buys your book and finds it riddled with inaccuracies, they'll never read your books again. I think you have to be VERY accurate and that it does take months of research to get it right. Where the fiction side comes in should relate more to characters than the setting for example imho.
Callie Leah said:Well, it does require some research. I mean, you don't want to write a book about the civil war and mention the main character meeting George Washington! (For example, a common mistake that most people make- not that it's their fault- is that accused witches were burned in Salem. That's not the slightest bit true. 18 people were hung, and one was crushed by the weight of stone. Only people in Europe burned 'witches') Not only does it make you look stupid, but it makes you look insensitive and not interested. I mean, if you're going to write a book that you don't care a bout, then who on earth is going to read that? And it may offend some people who have a strong connection with that event, like a family member dying or something like that. However, it's not like you need to spend months on research, but you don't need to spend just seconds on it either. :)
-
Permalink Reply by Marti Melville on
-
I have to disagree with you (a little bit) about accuracy in historical fiction. There is a tremendous amount of history that introduces an amazing story with very little factual detail provided. In my opinion, the fiction allows for interpretation of what may have happened. The history provides the names, locations and some event (if available). I guess it depends on how far back in history the story takes place and what information is available to research.
Maybe there needs to be a new classification of historical fiction called "historical interpretation". What do you think?
PS - can we get a discussion group for historical fiction writers?
-
Permalink Reply by Robert L. Allen on
-
A few years ago, a couple of big name writers came to the Mall of America for questions and book signing. That question was asked and the answer was very accurate. They spent nearly as much time researching as writing.
-
-
And we'll need to agree to disagree on that need for accuracy. :) When you suggest historical interpretation, do you mean that classification would be an additonal one that tells us the tale is more historically factual than the other, historical fiction?
I think if you send the Authors.com handle a PM about the Group that would be the quickest way to get their attention. :)
Marti Melville said:
I have to disagree with you (a little bit) about accuracy in historical fiction. There is a tremendous amount of history that introduces an amazing story with very little factual detail provided. In my opinion, the fiction allows for interpretation of what may have happened. The history provides the names, locations and some event (if available). I guess it depends on how far back in history the story takes place and what information is available to research.
Maybe there needs to be a new classification of historical fiction called "historical interpretation". What do you think?
PS - can we get a discussion group for historical fiction writers?
-
-
Thanks for the info, Robert. I would have thought that would be the case. Otherwise is it not just fiction really?
Robert Allen said:
A few years ago, a couple of big name writers came to the Mall of America for questions and book signing. That question was asked and the answer was very accurate. They spent nearly as much time researching as writing.
-
-
Fair enough! Actually, I was considering just the opposite: historical fiction is more factual than historical interpretation (which is as varied as each author's perception).
scribbler said:And we'll need to agree to disagree on that need for accuracy. :) When you suggest historical interpretation, do you mean that classification would be an additonal one that tells us the tale is more historically factual than the other, historical fiction?
I think if you send the Authors.com handle a PM about the Group that would be the quickest way to get their attention. :)
Marti Melville said:
I have to disagree with you (a little bit) about accuracy in historical fiction. There is a tremendous amount of history that introduces an amazing story with very little factual detail provided. In my opinion, the fiction allows for interpretation of what may have happened. The history provides the names, locations and some event (if available). I guess it depends on how far back in history the story takes place and what information is available to research.
Maybe there needs to be a new classification of historical fiction called "historical interpretation". What do you think?
PS - can we get a discussion group for historical fiction writers?
-
Permalink Reply by 2 Moon Press Publishing on
-
Historical Fiction can be tricky, as there is a need for balance. After all, if you write about WWII and lets say, you write about Germany invading England. Yes this if fiction, and you have wide latitude for creativity... However also you have a need to make other aspects very accurate.
Reason being, is that "someone" is going to be attracted to your book, and these people will most likely be those that have a passion, or interest in that era you are writing within. Saying that, if you are not accurate within the era then you will turn your readers off.
The exception to this rule in my opinion is if you preface the book with an explanation, or information that clarifies to the reader that this is not meant to accurately portray the era in question.
However, in the end if you are accurate, or at least pepper the storyline with detail that is accurate, then you are setting the book up with enough "hmmmmm?" To make it interesting.
Marti Melville said:
Fair enough! Actually, I was considering just the opposite: historical fiction is more factual than historical interpretation (which is as varied as each author's perception).
scribbler said:And we'll need to agree to disagree on that need for accuracy. :) When you suggest historical interpretation, do you mean that classification would be an additonal one that tells us the tale is more historically factual than the other, historical fiction?
I think if you send the Authors.com handle a PM about the Group that would be the quickest way to get their attention. :)
Marti Melville said:
I have to disagree with you (a little bit) about accuracy in historical fiction. There is a tremendous amount of history that introduces an amazing story with very little factual detail provided. In my opinion, the fiction allows for interpretation of what may have happened. The history provides the names, locations and some event (if available). I guess it depends on how far back in history the story takes place and what information is available to research.
Maybe there needs to be a new classification of historical fiction called "historical interpretation". What do you think?
PS - can we get a discussion group for historical fiction writers?
Sponsored Links
Most Active Members
Publishers Weekly
NPR Books
NY Times Book Reviews
© 2024 Created by Authors.com.
Powered by
