Reading different NON-FICTION works can paint very different pictures of historical figures, from Biblical figures to modern prime ministers and military leaders. Why should that difference of opinion and interpretation be disallowed for fiction writers? Which of the historical accounts an author accepts as the most reliable source may not be the same for another, so it doesn’t necessarily follow that the author is intentionally defaming someone or being deceitful, particularly when several centuries removed from the character in question! It may be true that they are taking liberties for a juicy story, but on the other hand they may simply disagree as to which interpretation is correct.

Works of literature dealing with historical figures usually differ from each other and the non-fiction accounts. (Try Shakespeare for several terrific examples.) If someone dislikes the writer’s interpretation, fine, object, please….but be honest about why, and don’t quickly accuse others of laziness, lying, etc. without offering specifics. To me, doing one without the other is also lazy and disrespectful. (I am NOT referring to anyone here, but to some very emotional comments and screed directed at others in various places.)

What bugs me the most about HF is when a character will do or say something totally modern.

Melissa’s last blog post..Tagged!

I expect there to be some liberties taken and I’m alright with that. I agree about the modern glimpses. I sometimes find the stronger female characters feeling very out of place.

Carrie K.’s last blog post..The Sunday Salon – February 22 (The “bucket-loads of guilt” edition)

I have that book, but I haven’t read it yet. If you spent that much time researching it, it must be good. I’m bumping it up in my list.

Lorin’s last blog post..Friday Update

That’s a great point, Lorin. There is definitely a difference between authors who take creative license with history and those who don’t bother to do a basic Google or Wikipedia search beforehand. If the author can’t be bothered to do the research, why should I be bothered to read it?

Shana @ Literarily’s last blog post..Tuesday Thingers

Daphne’s last blog post..Monday Mosaic

That is a good point, Daphne. I hadn’t thought about it like that, but who wants to read the same novel about [fill in the blank] over and over again?

Lisamm’s last blog post..Teaser Tuesdays 2-17-09

Fiction and history are different ways of knowing–”non-overlapping magisteria” per Stephen Jay Gould?–and both contribute to how we imagine the past. I’m bothered when a history/biography tries to express the inner thoughts of a historical figure (De Rosa’s “Rebels: The Irish Rising of 1916″ did this a lot, and I had to stop reading), less bothered when a novel plays a little loose with the facts in the interest of exploring the unrecordable facts (so long as no major plot point hinges on an anachronism).

Fiction that explores the gaps in history can be really enlightening, and lead to a richer understanding of the past. I recommend Emma Donoghue’s “The Woman Who Gave Birth to Rabbits,” a collection of short stories that explores some little-known corners of women’s history in the UK, for an example of how history and fiction can work together. Nathaniel Hawthorne did similar things with his short stories exploring the “moral history” of New England.

In any case, an author who gets historical fiction right in a way that works as both fiction and history has pulled off something incredibly difficult; the historian’s work of providing evidence and verifying facts is almost simple compared to the work involved in making the past live.

Michael Hartford’s last blog post..gallery shadows 2

Michael, thank you so much for stopping by. I’m glad you find this discussion as interesting as I do.

I have not heard of Emma Donoghue’s collection. It’s definitely going on my list of books to get my hands on. Thanks so much for the recommendation!

But the bottom line is fiction is fiction, whether it’s “science”, “historical”, or otherwise. Some authors may do better research than others, but the finished product is not a factual account of events in any case. No one can control the thoughts and reactions of a reader, although one would hope that most people know the difference between a biography and a novel. But I’m sticking with the side of encouraging imagination, creativity, book writing, and book reading.

Well said, Jen! This may not be something that happens as often with science, but there are differing interpretations of history, so what one person might see as a blatant assault on history may be what those on the other side of the fence think. In the end, I fully agree with what you said in closing: “I’m sticking with the side of encouraging imagination, creativity, book writing, and book reading.” Whatever the outcome, I say Amen.