Historical Fiction

An exploration of a contradictory genre.

As I sit down to write another historical fiction novel loosely based on actual historical events, I get the wave of apprehension I always do when I set to writing one of these novels. It’s not the research (that’s my favorite part!), the time, or even the writing itself. It’s the knowledge that someone, at some point, will make snide comments about the historical accuracy.

Few things irritate me as much as when people imply that proper research was not done for one of my stories.

But before I dive in, let me give you some backstory. After letting English/Language Arts dominate my academic life for years, I ended up switching my major at the last minute and adding two years to my undergraduate career to pursue a BA in History. Why? Because I fucking love history, that’s why. Although I didn’t end up in any career related to it (I once dreamed of being a teacher), studying history will always be one of my favorite pastimes. And no, I don’t mean just swiping through pages on Wikipedia (though the Internet can be a treasure trove of information if you practice discernment); I love to explore historical places, take pictures, gather evidence, find primary sources, peruse libraries, talk to historians, attend tours, and print out articles I find on JSTOR so I can highlight things like a nerd.

Every time I dive down the research rabbit hole, I do it 110%. Why? Again, because I love it. 

So, when I get an idea for a story, I naturally research extensively. Then, I choose what I will distort to flow with the story materializing in my head. Sometimes, I shift timelines a year or so to line things up, or I take a bit of creative license when I write about the character of actual historical figures (often, this comes with a name change). But no matter what, I try to keep things as believable as possible. To me, this is the essence of writing historical fiction. I find a lot of joy in bending and twisting things to make things fit in plausible ways. But even then, I’m still open to (and often receive) nasty critiques. 

Browse the Internet for a few moments, and you will see hundreds of arguments about this topic. Authors argue that, as writers, we don’t have the responsibility to teach the reader history; fiction should be allowed to be fictional. But some readers argue that since the fiction is labeled “historical,” not “fantasy,” it should be accurate. And if it isn’t, there should be some warning for the reader. I can understand this; thinking you’re going to dive into your favorite era and then getting jolted out of the narrative with blaring inconsistencies will even have me adding to my DNF pile. 

I think we can all agree there is a point where things can get a bit too distorted for anyone’s comfort. Characters saying “what’s up” in Victorian times. An iPhone in 1980. Electricity lighting up a medieval castle. Blatant white-washing.

This is where I believe a kind of “uncanny valley” effect occurs. 

If a fictionalized story is completely wild—think Abraham Lincoln and Vampires—we can accept it. If it’s slightly altered—think HBO’s The Gilded Age using the fictionalized Russell Family as a stand-in for the very real Vanderbilts—it is accepted. But at some point, the history gets too twisted for the reader’s comfort. It reaches an uncanny valley. The problem is the valley is too broad to predict when it will occur in the average reader. Writers have to hope for the best. 

But the biggest issue for me goes a bit deeper. You see, history isn’t the objective truth people think it is. It’s in a constant state of evolution, changing according to the new information that comes to light. We also consider history differently according to how we perceive the world today.

One of the assignments I had as an undergrad was to compile what is known as a historiography. 

historiography (noun) his·​to·​ri·​og·​ra·​phy hi-ˌstȯr-ē-ˈä-grə-fē 

1. a: the writing of history, especially the writing of history based on the critical examination of sources, the selection of particulars from the authentic materials, and the synthesis of particulars into a narrative that will stand the test of critical methods

b: the principles, theory, and history of historical writing

2. the product of historical writing; a body of historical literature 

Simply put, it requires examining a source (say, an academic journal article) and comparing it to other articles written on the topic, understanding the bias of each historian, and applying a modern perspective to the account. You can either assert that the article is factually sound or argue against it in your own paper. After studying the study of history for long enough, you soon realize that history itself is fluid. It can only be as factual as the current time and evidence allows. At some point, humans truly believed that the earth was flat. I mean, some still do, but that’s another topic.

Seriously, think about how many facts have been changed as new information/evidence came to light. A few hundred years ago, doctors believed bad blood was the root of physical ailments until bacteria was discovered. They genuinely thought leeching was a good idea—or belladonna treatments for alcoholism. The list goes on and on. 

So, if history itself is fluid, what does this mean for those trying to respect actual history while writing fiction?

Richard Lee, the founder of the Historical Novel Society, expanded on this topic during his speech at the Romantic Novelists’ Association Conference (2000). He points out that “all art…especially fiction, is about contradiction. We [as authors] create illusions, but the illusions must be accurate and convincing, or they mean nothing.” He quotes from an article written by Andrew Graham-Dixon for the Telegraph journal:

“The historical novel has always been a literary form at war with itself. The very term, implying a fiction somehow grounded in fact—a lie with obscure obligations to the truth—is suggestive of the contradictions of the genre.”

If you want to read more of his speech, here is the link:

The question again becomes: what are historical fiction authors to do? If the very genre we write in is contradictory, then how can we possibly hope to do it justice in our writing? Is there anything that can be done?

At the risk of sounding pessimistic, I don’t think there is. People struggle to self-examine, let alone understand the complexities of certain topics. Especially ones they don’t have a vested interest in. It’s much easier to make snide remarks than to consider something thoughtfully. People will always find something to complain about, and anyone in the entertainment industry has to take things with a grain of salt. 

That being said, I will continue to add disclaimers to my books that what they are about to read is historical fiction, but perhaps I will make it an author’s note to bring it to the forefront. I also hope that my readers will understand that I’m inspired by, not recording, actual historical events and perhaps be inspired to research more about the topics. I intentionally wrote about different world mythologies in The Ancient Ones to encourage others to learn about them and discover the cool connecting threads I found. 

But I understand that this doesn’t provide a solution. So I ask of my readership and fellow authors: is there anything that can be done? I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments. 

---