Thread: Historical fiction - how factual?
View Single Post
Old 12-13-2010, 03:13 PM   #39
mgscarsbrook
Connoisseur
mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.mgscarsbrook seems famous, but is in fact legendary.
 
mgscarsbrook's Avatar
 
Posts: 70
Karma: 75000
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Southern California
Device: Sony EReader
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.
mgscarsbrook is offline   Reply With Quote