More and more as I make the rounds in various historical/period piece groups on social media, I’m starting to see some passionate divisions on people’s feelings on historical fiction. Some, especially in the academic community are hard against it. Academics tend to dislike even commercial history (non-fiction you find at the bookstore versus something that is published by a university— think Oxford, Cambridge, so forth) so the idea that someone is creating a novel with loose facts and conjectural narratives is a hard pass.

However, there’s also another faction starting to pop up in historical fiction groups- the purists. I find it most with Tudor obsessed history lovers, the purists love to vitriolicly attack others for enjoying story lines that have been embellished, costumes that aren’t 100% up to code or perhaps a more imaginative version than what really happened. They LOVE to point out that Anne Boleyn didn’t do X or Catherine Parr never said Y. They’ll critique the creativity of authors such as Philipa Gregory and attack them as “historians” when they don’t claim to be. They’re writers.

As a historian I’m always confused by these attitudes towards historical fiction. I taught history for 14 years and am now in the process of getting a PhD- I LOVE me some historical fiction! Even the crazier things like a very attractive and black haired Henry VIII- anyone who stepped into a school knows that’s fictional, so why do people go so hard? Truth is I don’t know! I understand the argument that the times we live in people rely on historical fiction for their 100% truths and that’s obviously bad. Hopefully we know that the dialogue of The Crown is a creation, just as the narrative and inner thoughts in a Philipa Gregory novel are just a creative expression. However, the facts that they used for the skeletal outline are real. Last week I published a post on the real stories behind The Crown and I’ll continue to do so to provide context on what you’re seeing. That being said though, a lot of what was seen on the show did happen in terms of the people, places and moments. Shame Judi Dench had to come out and plead with people not to believe The Crown. Again I understand, but Peter Morgan did base the episodes and topics on things that did happen. The conjecture is in the moments we weren’t there. Yet, from a philosophical idea of the human experience and emotions, I thinks it’s fair to say the dialogue and emotions that were purely scripted wouldn’t be that far fetched.

My opinion is historical fiction is a brilliant tool. It helps people who may not be interested in history in general, or a certain time period to gain an interest and a perspective. However, we need to make sure that we are also doing our diligence and fact checking a bit. People hate when I say this, but start with Wikipedia and if you want more, go to the bookstore! I view historical fiction as a gateway to people educating themselves and enjoying history. Keep watching The Crown, binge The Tudors and enjoy the time traveling madness in Outlander. Just make sure you pick up a copy of a legit non-fiction source to compare.

Share your thoughts on historical fiction below. What are some of your favorite novels, shows or films?