Real People in Historical Fiction Discussion Post

[tarigwaemir]

For those of you who still haven't posted yet for this round of bibliophages, you have until Friday! Even if you haven't finished a book from the list you were assigned, you can always post your thoughts on what you've read so far.

In the meantime, some thoughts to kickstart a general discussion on this round's theme: real people in historical fiction.

Comments

[worldserpent]

I think language also has something to do with how convincing an author is. If the author is anachronistic in their dialogue, that does bother me, unless it's done very deliberately, like John Fowles in The French Lieutenant's Woman. Also what you mentioned above.

As for accuracy: on an aesthetic level, good enough to fool me. XD Also, if the historical fact is more interesting, then use it! I think one valuable thing about historical fiction is that because it's based on real events, it has the ability to thus, possibly, go against our "preconceived narratives," because reality is more unbelievable than fantasy.

I think it's harder to write about a historical person who's well known. Same principle as to why shows that have complex, good characterization are often the ones people don't write fanfic for!

repost

[sub_divided]

But if figures are well known, then the author is released from the burden of portraying them accurately, because if the reader doesn't like the "characterization" he or she can just read another book. Also because the reader can be expected to know (or to be able to figure out later) which parts are "real" and which are made up just for fun

[qem_chibati]

3. How accurate should a historical novel be