The interesting thing is that as a novelist you can be more accurate to history by not following the facts (at times). As a fiction writer, your job is to reveal emotional truths about people and events, and if it is more effective to alter historical facts to uncover what happened to a character emotionally/psychologically, to emphasis this to a reader, then so be it. Facts only provide a (supposedly) objective account of history - but a novelist dwells in the realm of the subjective, the interior state of things, not the exterior. It is historical fiction, not fictional history...
M. G. Scarsbrook
[Promotion deleted -MODERAT0R]
Last edited by Dr. Drib; 12-13-2012 at 03:58 PM.