Historical Accuracy in Historical Fiction
It’s one of the most common questions I get asked: how historically accurate is [insert statement, book, TV series or film]? But it’s also the question that elicits the biggest response from my fellow historical fiction writers. Historical accuracy is a hotly debated topic in this corner of fiction.
Generally, there are two camps: the purists and the indifferent. The purists argue that historical fiction should replicate history as closely as possible. Nothing should be made up to explain gaps. To them, accuracy is paramount; it comes before story. Then there are the indifferent, who believe that accuracy and fiction aren’t really that compatible. For them, the story matters more than the accuracy.
But is one better than the other? And is it even possible to write historically accurate fiction even possible? Let’s find out.
Is true historical accuracy even possible?
I don’t think so. Not even in non-fiction. That’s because we can’t ever fully understand or recreate history. Even the best, most respected historians have to make educated guesses to explain gaps in the historical record because there is no way for us to know everything about history, no matter how hard we try.
Does that mean we should throw caution to the wind and write whatever we want, like the indifferent? I suppose that depends on what you want to be known for and what your audience wants. There have certainly been books, films and TV stories that have played fast and loose with historical facts and found a lot of success. Just think of Bridgerton’s popularity.
Is there a problem with bending the facts to create a better story? Again, it depends. Making something up to explain a gap, creating characters through which you can tell a story and playing about with timelines to improve pacing don’t often rouse much criticism from readers. Perhaps, it’s the intentionality of the changes that makes it feel less important. It indicates that the writer is aware of the history they’re telling but also of the way they’re telling the story. Somethings may need to change to tell a good story. Afterall, real life very rarely mimics the story structure we know and expect.
Why historical accuracy matters
But bending history to tell a better story can be problematic. Take The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas, for example. Despite selling around 11 million copies, it has been roundly criticised for its inaccuracies. The Auschwitz Memorial and Museum, UCL Centre for Holocaust Education and the Holocaust Centre North recommend avoiding the book because it
Promotes harmful stereotypes: Schmuel portrays Jewish victims as passive and unresisting, which was not the experience of all Jews in concentration camps.
Contributes to misconceptions: The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas perpetuates the myth that ordinary Germans knew nothing of the Holocaust, when evidence overwhelming proves most people did.
Misplaces sympathy: By centring the story on Bruno, the son of the concentration camp commander, the emotional centres on the Nazi family and not on the millions of Jews who lost their lives.
Trivialises the truth: The lack of care about characterisation and accuracy and the promotion of this book as a tool to teach the Holocaust to children obscures the true horror of the Holocaust.
A good story should never come at the expense of the people who identify with a culture or identify. And many organisations linked to Holocaust education have talked about the harm this type of fiction causes their communities. Yet people continue to create and promote fiction that takes accuracy as an optional element.
Own voices
So, do we say that people should only write about their own experiences? This was a trend around 10 years ago. The own voices movement, as this became known, championed books written by authors who share the same marginalised identities as their main characters. While I don’t completely subscribe to own voices because I don’t think it leads to better representation, I do think writers have a duty to approach cultures and identities they are not a part of with incredible care and sensitivity. Fiction should never harm its audience.
Final thoughts
Historical accuracy is something that all writers of historical fiction should strive for, but there are instances where writers need to bend the facts to tell a story. When this happens, the writer should take care to ensure that not only does their changes feel believable to our readers but also doesn’t harm the communities we are talking about. The latter is the bare minimum.
As for the line between accuracy and creativity. I think that’s a very personal decision that will change and adapt depending on the scenario. If we think of it as a spectrum with accuracy at one end and creativity at the other, I sit somewhere in the middle.
I want my stories to be as accurate as possible, but because I write about underrepresented and lesser-known history, I generally have less information from sources, so I have to make more up. But I always make sure that my made-up scenes feel like they could have happened. So maybe we need to talk more about historical believability rather than just accuracy.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on the debate about accuracy, believability and creativity. Leave them in the comments below.
