3 ms·

> As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that. Good historical fiction goes deeper than good, sourced, "factual" history. Proper history d

> As in it is supposed to be made up and readers are aware of that. Good historical fiction goes deeper than good, sourced, "factual" history. Proper history depends on written records; but those records were made exclusively by people who are literate (obviously), which for most of history was a tiny minority. A lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff, based on a conventional version of history, telling tales we all (think we) know. The good stuff is made-up too, of course; but it's heavily researched, and informative. I'm thinking of stuff like Ken Follet's The Pillars of the Earth.

hef19898 3y ago
One falsehood is that people through out history were illiterate. The second is to see historical fiction as anything ddifferent from fantasy, science fiction or other forms of entertainment. History =|= historical story telling Ken Follet wrote a novel about building a cathedral, he didn'r write a book about medival cathedral building. Very important difference.
watwut 3y ago
> lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff All of it is made up. That is why it is called fiction. Authors are pretty open about that fact. It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history - because it uses sourced history as its only source of information about past. Historical fiction writers read a lot of sourced history and then combine, modify, remove and add to make compeling story that would satisfy the audience.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history Honestly, I think that's wrong. "Proper" historians make up a lot of stuff; they tell stories, because otherwise their work would simply be lists of citations. What they do is called history, because they are professional acaemic historians. But professional story-tellers can make up stories based on the same citations. > It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history. OK, well I think "factual history" is a dodgy concept. "Facts" about the past change every decade or so. The past becomes foggy immediately, then it turns into legend, then into myth.
  - watwut 3y ago
    This is really not true. It is not even true that historical books would actually write stories. Nor is it true that historical fiction would be limited to what was true about history. They literally intentionally make stuff up. That is what they are even expected to do.

hef19898 3y ago

One falsehood is that people through out history were illiterate. The second is to see historical fiction as anything ddifferent from fantasy, science fiction or other forms of entertainment. History =|= historical story telling Ken Follet wrote a novel about building a cathedral, he didn'r write a book about medival cathedral building. Very important difference.

watwut 3y ago

> lot of historical fiction is indeed made-up stuff All of it is made up. That is why it is called fiction. Authors are pretty open about that fact. It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history - because it uses sourced history as its only source of information about past. Historical fiction writers read a lot of sourced history and then combine, modify, remove and add to make compeling story that would satisfy the audience.

denton-scratch 3y ago
> It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history Honestly, I think that's wrong. "Proper" historians make up a lot of stuff; they tell stories, because otherwise their work would simply be lists of citations. What they do is called history, because they are professional acaemic historians. But professional story-tellers can make up stories based on the same citations. > It can not possibly "go deeper" then sourced factual history. OK, well I think "factual history" is a dodgy concept. "Facts" about the past change every decade or so. The past becomes foggy immediately, then it turns into legend, then into myth.
- watwut 3y ago
  This is really not true. It is not even true that historical books would actually write stories. Nor is it true that historical fiction would be limited to what was true about history. They literally intentionally make stuff up. That is what they are even expected to do.