Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I agree of course that there is a difference between historical fiction and fantasy, and that historical fiction should be set in a recognisable world. However, I don't think that minor changes to historical reality rule something out as being historical fiction. One example of this is that in the first Poldark novel, a woman asks Poldark to help her unbutton the back of her dress. In the 18th century, women's dresses actually fastened at the front, not the back.
|
If inaccuracies in the story would rule it out as being historical fiction, then basically every book or movie in the genre that I've read or seen would immediately be relegated to the fantasy genre.
The Last Samurai for example:
Quote:
|
The film was based on the stories of Jules Brunet, a French army captain who fought alongside Enomoto Takeaki in the earlier Boshin War and Frederick Townsend Ward, an American mercenary who helped Westernize the Chinese army by forming the Ever Victorious Army. The historical roles of the British Empire, the Netherlands and France in Japanese westernization are largely attributed to the United States in the film, for American audiences.
|
The Last Samurai is clearly based on multiple, real events and people, but it is so wildly inaccurate that it can be considered to be completely made up. However, it can easily be imagined to have happened as portrayed, in Japan of +/- 1868, so therefore I still consider it to be historical fiction.