If we accept the purpose of historical fiction is to entertain, it’s likely any such product could succeed on the meanest allusion to accurate history.
I’d then posit it is encumbent upon the author to holdfast to documented history if, in fact, accuracy is essential to their process. It’s possible the reader will be oblivious either way in search of a good yarn.
At what point does something cease to be historical fiction?
If the rule of thumb is that historical fiction paints a picture consistent with documented history and fills in the unknown with a contrived but plausible fiction, then the job of the author is well done.
However, if a story takes place in the past but ignores the historical stratum of the location and people then, arguably, it’s then a work of simple fiction.
Are historical fiction authors the gatekeepers of history for the masses? I believe that would have to be charged to your personal ethics. I would suggest the consumer is broadly indifferent.
If we accept the purpose of historical fiction is to entertain, it’s likely any such product could succeed on the meanest allusion to accurate history.
I’d then posit it is encumbent upon the author to holdfast to documented history if, in fact, accuracy is essential to their process. It’s possible the reader will be oblivious either way in search of a good yarn.
At what point does something cease to be historical fiction?
If the rule of thumb is that historical fiction paints a picture consistent with documented history and fills in the unknown with a contrived but plausible fiction, then the job of the author is well done.
However, if a story takes place in the past but ignores the historical stratum of the location and people then, arguably, it’s then a work of simple fiction.
Are historical fiction authors the gatekeepers of history for the masses? I believe that would have to be charged to your personal ethics. I would suggest the consumer is broadly indifferent.