|
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?
|