Like pdurrant, I can't abide "historical" fiction that's so hopelessly inaccurate when it comes to its depiction of the era (and place) it portrays.

Sent from the chair in my office.

I never really understood why some hold "historical" fiction to a higher accuracy standard in how it portrays "the way things were", than say how (in)accurately contemporary fiction might represent "the way things ARE."

If it's just an "I'm infinitely familiar that subject and the liberties taken and/or anachronisms bug me" kind-of thing; then that's one thing. But I get the distinct impression that many seem to believe that fiction set in it the past shouldn't be able to take the same liberties with "reality" as say fiction set in the present (or future) gets to.

Annoyance, basically. In novels set in 18th century Scotland, I expect Scottish geography to have some correspondence with reality, and characters to behave and speak in a manner appropriate to the 18th century. Neither is the case in "Outlander". To me that shows that the author just couldn't be bothered to do her research into the subject matter she's writing about.

What about present day fiction that takes geographical liberties with reality? Or characters that don't behave or speak in ways congruent with today's social norms? Same standard?

Depends on the circumstances, DD. As a reader of fantasy and SF I have absolutely no objection to the depiction of a world that differs from our own. But when a book is described as historical fiction, I have a not unreasonable (IMHO) expectation that the "history" part of it will have at least a tenuous connection to actual history. When I read, say, Hilary Mantel's "Wolf Hall", I am reading a believable depiction of life in the court of Henry VIII. When I read Outlander, I'm reading something that presents a completely inaccurate picture of 18th century Scotland. Mantel did her research; Gabaldon patently did not.

I read Outlander. I didn't like it all that much. I read it because a then GF read it and liked it. But I found it to be chick-lit and not even good chick-lit at that.

See, I DO see that expectation as being a tad unreasonable. You're getting hung up on the word "historical" in the two-word descriptive label and thinking it needs to be "immune" from the second word to be considered a competent work. Why? People don't (typically) hold the "history" portion of "Alternate History" to such a high standard.

I simply don't understand why anyone would expect ANY fiction to be more nonfictional than any other. Nor do I understand having rules about which portions of fiction are not allowed to be as fictional as the other parts.

Maybe there should be a separate "Historical Nearly Non-Fiction" subgenre for clarity? :D

To clarify: I have no problem with someone preferring their "historical fiction" to be carefully researched and as historically accurate as possible. I just don't think all works in the entire (sub)genre need to live up to those exacting standards to be considered worthy of the title.

That's OK. I'm explaining why these books don't appeal to me personally, not demanding that all books are written to my personal specification :). I don't expect you or anyone else to share my standards of judging books.

I hope you managed to listen to Ronald D. Moore's podcasts too. :D

This raises an interesting question. As a reader if I find a book not worth finishing it is rare for me to read anything else by that author, at least knowingly. But of course writers change and hopefully develop with subsequent works. Do you think it is a case that the Author simply got better with subsequent books? Should people having trouble with the first one read a later one, with the help of spoilers or a plot summary of the earlier book or books? Also, having read some of the later, possibly better written books in the series, do you think such a reader might then come back and actually read and enjoy the earlier book or books in the series?

Like probably most of us, I tend to do most of my reading in a few genres, of which historical fiction is not one. However, I do not of course confine myself only to those genres. I tend to agree with Harry. If something is described as historical fiction I expect that at least some effort will have been made to make the book reasonably authentic. It is not that I could not potentially enjoy a work which did not. It is simply that I would not usually choose to read such a work. I loved Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series, which was extensively researched. It brought Rome alive to me in a way that classes at School never did. It made me wonder if even an historian specialising in Rome would not learn from such fiction and enjoy it, not only in picking out things the writer did get wrong or the validity or otherwise of her extrapolations of unknown events, but for seeing the attempt to put real personalities into the Society.

When younger I read a lot of Leon Uris's fiction, most of which was set in more recent history and revolved around historical events, often in the middle east. Exodus dealt with the founding of the state of Israel. Mila 18 dealt with the Warsaw ghetto and was harrowing reading indeed. These books also involved significant research, though not to the extent of Colleen McCullough's books. The books were hardly balanced, and had little positive to say about the Arab world, but nevertheless were compelling reading and I think gave some valuable insights into the politics and events concerned.

Books which make no effort at historical accuracy are disappointing to those who believe that this is an essential element of the genre. Books not doing this may still be enjoyable as fantasy, though perhaps not be chosen. Having picked them expecting such accuracy, it would be hard not to be disappointed.

Thankfully, we are all different. I now know that I don't intend to read Outlander, though I nevertheless acknowledge that if I did I may well enjoy it. Perhaps starting with Book 2?

Yes, that's exactly my view of the matter, too. I have an expectation (however unreasonable some may consider that to be!) that historical fiction will accurately reflect the historical period in which it's set.

I think this is probably true of many authors* and I would say it is the case with the Outlander series. There are a few errors that I noticed, but anyone not familiar with Scottish customs/traditions would be unaware and it doesn't spoil the story for me.

(Spoiler: Stovies are not, and never have been, small dumplings! )

In later books the author acknowledges people who assisted with some details so it's not all her fault. It happens with film and tv as well as books - people with a deeper knowledge of medicine, police work, handcrafts, hunting - any subject really - will pick up mistakes.

And for a series that begins with a 1940s nurse travelling back in time 200 years ... well, at least the author got those details right ;)


*even the great Terry Pratchett didn't think Colour of Magic was as good as his later Discworld books.

I tried, but for the second season, he seemed to be just chatty and didn't talk about the show at all and I gave up about halfway through the season. I guess I thought it would be more of a commentary on the episodes than the conversations that it turned out to be. I plan to try again when I re-watch the season later, as long as they are included on the discs.