Storytelling, lies, truth distortion, stretching it a bit,
what is historical fiction? I just finished reading two books, one a modern day
western, with historical flashbacks, and the other from the genre of historical
fiction. In many cases I can’t tell the difference between westerns and
historical fiction.
I often read through various online review sites and found some
interesting reviews of the two books. Below is a summary of what I found – just
the bad stuff.
1.
People complain that it doesn’t tell the whole
story (It’s not a history book)
2.
It didn’t really happen that way (fiction)
3.
Plays too much with the facts (?)
4.
Varies from history (yep)
5.
Spelling and grammar errors (This should be fixed, but I did not notice much in my
reading – might be some readers are looking for errors and not the story)
6.
Not enough research (This
is what makes historical fiction great, an author can do as much or as little
research as they want. Then run with their version of the story)
My point to this post is simple, it’s historical FICTION, not nonfiction. My Idea, at
least what I like to read, of historical fiction is this – a story based on
something real, a historical event. After that it’s up to the author. I am not
crazy about mixed up time periods in historical fiction, but other than that I
like every good story.
What
about fiction or westerns with no, real, to them, love them. Sometimes truth is
better than fiction, but I can get completely lost in a great story. In the end
it is still all about the story!
A notch in the Haystack Mountains of the Laramie Range Wyoming - This could be the basis for a good western story. |
2 comments:
I agree with you, Neil. Historical fiction is what you make of it.
I like the fact that it is such a broad avenue to write.
Post a Comment