Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
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.
|
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?
