Migration Bot
Started the club
Welcome to the Readers Book Club. This is an informal group for like-minded people, where you can discuss books, share and recommend, track your reading progress, and lots more. Discuss Books — all about books. Discuss a particular book or genre, share your favourite quotes. Book Reviews — loved a book and highly recommend it? Or was it just average? Share your review and discuss with fellow readers. (May contain spoilers.) Group Reads — what is a book club without a group read! Buddy Reads — planning to read a book and looking for someone to read it with? Post in the Buddy Read request thread, find a reading buddy, and start discussing.
We have discussed about memoirs being "spiced up" to be more saleable. And if truth is indeed such a grey concept. What about historical fiction?
Does historical fiction have an obligation to be factually accurate? It is "fiction" after all. Does it need to be true to its place & time, or is it okay to take a few creative liberties? What are your thoughts on this?
My personal belief: It should be factually correct to be labelled as "historical" fiction. The author may take liberties with what he thinks transpired in the form of conversations or the aspects that we don't know much about. But since he categorises it as "historical", the space and time and events must comply with what is in the known history. Else it no more remains historical.
I look at it differently. Historical -so key core facts would remain but the fiction part- Yes that is fiction so one does not have to stick to facts
Factually historical fiction should be correct. Historical facts should not be distorted
I agree. Why call it a "historical" if it is not factually correct. Similar to myth fics, the author can take creative liberties to fictionalize interactions and thought processes.
The word fiction means author can take creative liberty with the subject, so its not necessary to be completely correct. But yes major facts should be stuck at and not to be tampered with, that way it lends far more authenticity to the whole thing
Tough one! I can see both sides of the spectrum, but given that we are talking about fiction, I have to come down on the side that allows liberties to be taken. To me historic fiction merely means that it's set some time in the past. Now as to how far back it has to be, is subjective. If some one writes a story set in the 1800s or before, it meets my criteria for historical fiction. The 20th century ... perhaps anything set a hundred years or more ago would classify as "historic"? That would make it a sliding window. So at the time that Conan Doyle wrote the Holmes stories they would have been contemporary, but today they would be historic!
Historical fiction strictly speaking has not to be an absolute truth.. The fiction genre gives enough space for the author to take some liberties with the facts.. Though it is desirable that basic theme should not be distorted and liberties can be taken with finer details.
it has to be factual for actual events. Author can take the liberty to put his imagination in screenplay or script.
Accrding to me , hiostorical facts should not be distorted. The major characters in the historical fiction books are mostly fictitious...so the author has a large playground anyway. Even if the characters are hostorical, one should take liberty with the conversations not with facts.