# Historical Fiction (any sort): What do you do when you find a mistake?



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Accuracy in historical fiction is important, right? So what do you do when you run across an historical fact that you're pretty sure is wrong?

Say an event in the book is Mount Vesuvius erupting in 306 AD/CE.*

Do you:


a) Throw the book against a wall because everyone knows the eruption took place in 79 AD and the author obviously hasn't done their research.

b) Shrug because it's fiction and the story's good, so who cares.

c) Look up the date because it conflicts with what you know to determine whether the author knows something you don't and you're open to learning new things.

In other words, how forgiving are you of facts that don't match up with what you've learned is true?

_*Regarding the example, most Americans don't realize Vesuvius has erupted nearly 50 times since the big one in 79 AD when it buried Pompeii. Does this fact come as a surprise to_ you?

I'll admit I've been guilty of (a) but I'm a research hag, so I'll usually look it up and validate I'm right before throwing the book against the wall. Which is something you don't really want to do with a Kindle. I knew there was a downside to e-readers...


----------



## Guest (Jul 29, 2011)

I think it depends on the story. A book that is telling a fictitious account of something in a time-period that very well could have happened - and there is great attention to details of the period - has a greater responsibility to get it right than someone who is clearly writing revisionist fiction where out-of-character things go on all the time.

Genre too bears on this. A good science-fiction/fantasy story should bend the facts a bit to make them more pliable for the story. But a Ken Burns-style novel on the Civil War better be johnny-on-the-spot with the fact-checking!


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

Thank you for an interesting topic -- and it happens to be a personal pet peeve. And yes I get that urge to toss the book, but now use the library to vet new historical titles, so cannot indulge in tossing the library's copy  ( and in general it would be better to toss the author than the book).

Anyway!  Here's an example: a recent, highly touted title set in ancient Rome describes young ladies of the era wearing "nail varnish".  *Huh?*  Another reader noticed that anachronism and commented on a web forum. The author posted there and simply backpedalled and said it was a "leap of faith".  *Huh?*. -- It would have taken less than 10 minutes of basic web research to ascertain that ancient Romans did not have "nail varnish".  Henna coloring, maybe. As a reader, and for other reasons with that particular book, I'm not going to be interested in purchasing any of those works. 

It seems much of the HF pumped out from the Big 6 Publishers is filled with chatty, trite dialogue and startling sex scenes, rather than being accurate or having anything enlightening to say about the era and the characters' roles in their era. Much of it could take place in Miami with little modification.  Not the sort of HF that I prefer...but it gets promoted with big ad dollars and people buy it.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

It drives me crazy.  I'd rather read through a book that had odd formatting than try to read a book with historical inaccuracies.  That being said, I do try to give the book a chance even after I've found a problem, if the book continues to have inaccuracies I'll give up on it, I can only try to suspend my belief for so long.

So, I guess that's a "C" followed by an "A".

Dawn


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

I dont read alot of historical fiction, altho I'm trying to get into the alternative history genre. But I am very into stories, even my sci-fi, being plausible (one reason I'm just not into fantasy or horror)....and so incorrect facts damage credibility for me, and are also distracting.

Of course, I'm no history scholar so it's not like I'd be dissecting the book as I go....but if it jumps out at me, it's probably egregious.


----------



## jabeard (Apr 22, 2011)

It depends. Verisimilitude is important for me in reading, but a few wrong facts here and there aren't going to bother me depending on the overall importance of the facts relative to the setting. It's all how people bring me into the story as well. In the end, after all, it is historical fiction, not historical fact so at the outset I know not everything I'm reading is 100% accurate.

The nail varnish thing, for example, wouldn't bother me in an ancient Roman book. I don't even know if I would notice unless I was in a particular sort of mood. On the other hand the presence of Chinese ambassadors at the court of Augustus would (unless it was supposed to be alternative history) would. Of course, there is a wide continuum between those kinds of details. It's also about emphasis for me as well. If a particular mistake is more integral to the plot, versus a throwaway detail, that risks pushing me out of the story.

I have read several books where the author actively does present something that isn't strictly factual (or something that theoretically could have happened but has no real evidence to support it) but makes a point at the end of explaining their point of convergence, et cetera. I have no real issue with that either.

The more difficult case is anachronistic mindset. This can be a hard call as people the past, varied and not everyone was monolithic in how they thought.

I recently read Mistress and the Art of Death. It takes great pains to use certain historical of facts about Medieval Europe to provide a plausible setting and reasons for a female doctor-type from an Italian medical school (specifically the Schola Medica Salernitana) to be involved in investigating a blood libel accusation in England (definitely wasn't a book that shied away from Medieval antisemitism). I had no strong issue with any individual historical detail in the story (other than being somewhat dubious about the relevant level of practical pathology skilled displayed) and liked the book overall but the main character, at times, came off more like a modern scientist and basically seemed like she was reasoning out a bunch of concepts and ideas way before their time.

I can't say that it would be impossible for someone to do what she did in the book. After all, there are a lot of concepts that could have been figured out way before we actually did, especially in the medical area, and often maybe people did but people just refused to listen. Who knows?

Still it's questionable, so sometimes it made me go "I don't know about this" and pushed me out of the story.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Am I missing something about historical _fiction?_ If it's fiction by its very name and definition - why can't it contain things that didn't actually happen at a time they didn't happen?


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

DYB said:


> Am I missing something about historical _fiction?_ If it's fiction by its very name and definition - why can't it contain things that didn't actually happen at a time they didn't happen?


Because then it becomes fantasy.
Dawn


----------



## telracs (Jul 12, 2009)

1) This "American" and I'm certain many other people here no matter where they are from are aware that volcanoes erupt multiple times, so if a volcanic eruption is postulated for an active volcano, I'm not running to the internet to see if there was one the year the author is using.
2) As someone else stated, it's _fiction_, and since it's not trying to be a historical research paper, I don't really care if an author puts coloring on a Roman matriarch's nails. 
3) If I do notice a fact that I believe is incorrect, I chalk it up to either an incorrect memory on my part, different research sources on the part of the author or a deliberate bending of things for literary purposes. Or to the fact that no one currently alive really knows what happened then so anything is possible.
4) When reading, I try and relax and just enjoy stuff. I recommend it, it leads to lower blood pressure. Because, remember, "don't sweat the small stuff


Spoiler



(and it's all small stuff)


"


----------



## Lisa J. Yarde (Jul 15, 2010)

Definitely C. I write in the same genre and know that there are certain details that history never records. While I expect other hist fic authors to paint a believeable world, I would never throw my book or in most cases, Kindle, because certain details are absolutely wrong. There's a difference in details that wouldn't alter a story, like the nail varnish, vs. major details that would revise history, like Columbus having landed in South Carolina rather than the Caribbean. If it's plausible that something happened, I'd buy it for the purposes of getting through the story and then research it on my own if I wanted to know more.


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

DYB said:


> Am I missing something about historical _fiction?_ If it's fiction by its very name and definition - why can't it contain things that didn't actually happen at a time they didn't happen?


Like I said, I dont read alot of it, but isnt it that the _story _ is fiction, not the dress, technology, events, politics, society, etc etc of the times. Otherwise, why is it classified as 'historical?' If you're not going to conform to a period, then isnt it more like fantasy?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I like things to feel right to me.  The nail varnish thing wouldn't have struck me. If I do notice something egregiously wrong, especially if it doesn't serve the story in some way, it would bother me. My husband, on the other hand, is much more picky about those things.  

As to how it affects any of us, I don't think there's a right way or a wrong way to feel, there's just the way it affects us.  It's like when I taught quilting--some students are extremely picky and meticulous about getting points to match, others just wanted to get it done.  I would tell them "you know which kind you are--if you want to get things matching exactly, I'll help you, but it's most important that you enjoy the process."

I never throw things.  I have been known to contact people when things in writing are wrong.

Betsy


----------



## Eliza Baum (Jul 16, 2011)

I'm neither a history buff nor a research hag, so small inconsistencies don't bother me--usually because I don't know any better! That said, even I know when something is far out of date/place. Dialogue is usually what gets me, with contemporary slang or terminology being inserted where it doesn't belong. I sometimes have the same sorts of issues with fantasy novels.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

In my experience, most major "mistakes" are actually purposeful changes. If I feel the author has good reason to alter something, I don't mind. Some people feel there is never a good reason to change anything but to each their own. If I wanted 100% fact, I'd stick strictly to non-fiction.

As for genuine mistakes, if it's something small and minor, I will let it go. Even the best of authors/researchers can miss a little thing here or there. Plus, I don't exactly consider myself an expert either so I probably don't even notice most minor mistakes. Personally, I think if I spend too much time nit picking and fact checking, I'm never going to enjoy the story no matter how accurate it is. I want to get lost in the story, not constantly be putting it down and going to my laptop to look something up. If it's a major mistake, I'd just mention it in my review assuming it was a genuine mistake and not a purposeful alteration. 

But in general, I'm more concerned with whether the character development is believable.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> Because then it becomes fantasy.
> Dawn


Wouldn't "fantasy" involve dragons, magicians, and/or flying carpets, among many other things. Historical fiction might involve someone in 15th Europe eating chocolate.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

9MMare said:


> Like I said, I dont read alot of it, but isnt it that the _story _ is fiction, not the dress, technology, events, politics, society, etc etc of the times. Otherwise, why is it classified as 'historical?' If you're not going to conform to a period, then isnt it more like fantasy?


But so much historical fiction uses real historical figures - doing things they never did. Look at Sharon Kay Penman or Philipa Gregory, among countless others. They can create all kinds of historically inaccurate stories about real-life figures - as long as the characters wear period appropriate clothes? The thing that immediately came to mind when I saw the thread was Peter Shaffer's "Amadeus" (and the movie version of it.) Countless people today think Salieri killed Mozart - because they saw the movie (and possibly saw or read the play.) Of course that's nonsense. But is it more appropriate for an author to ignore details of clothes, nail polish or language - or the very history of that person's life? Salieri has been accused of murder! Somehow his cape not being the right cut for the time period doesn't strike me as a big deal.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

DYB said:


> Wouldn't "fantasy" involve dragons, magicians, and/or flying carpets, among many other things. Historical fiction might involve someone in 15th Europe eating chocolate.


Change too much though and it becomes an alternate world. Going by the OP's example - if the date of a major historical event is changed and this event is crucial to the story, I would seriously consider if this was an alternate world I'm reading about.

Eating chocolate in 15th century Europe probably wouldn't make me question if it was an alternate world but it is a pretty big anachronism to me and a story, even a fictional one, has to be _believable _to be enjoyable. If it's a minor anachronism and the average reader probably wouldn't notice it, it's not a big deal to me. But something pretty well known and obvious is just carelessness and it jars the reader out of the story.



> But so much historical fiction uses real historical figures - doing things they never did. Look at Sharon Kay Penman or Philipa Gregory, among countless others. They can create all kinds of historically inaccurate stories about real-life figures - as long as the characters wear period appropriate clothes?


SKP is considered pretty historically accurate? Can you give me an example of what you're thinking about? There's only so much that even historians can know about historical figures and sometimes authors have to fill in the gaps and use what they know of the people and times to add fictional elements that make sense. I don't consider this an "inaccuracy", I consider it necessary.


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

Reading through all these comments leads me to another question opposite the one originally asked:

How much faith do you put into the details you read in historical fiction? 

For instance, if you knew nothing of the period prior to picking up/watching "Amadeus," are you likely to believe that Salieri killed Amadeus even though a work of fiction posited it? Does that "fact" then become a part of your personal database of knowledge?


----------



## Grace Elliot (Mar 14, 2011)

I have two views on this: one as a reader, one as a writer. 

As a reader, if the inconsistancy is jarring (eg mentionning washing machines when they hadnt been invented) it will pull me out of the story, remind me the book was written by someone and isnt an organic being in its own right...and the author then has to work very hard to restore the magic. 

As an author, it utterly mortifies me if a historical inconsistancy slips through in my work...no reader could possibly hate it more than I do myself as an author.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

DYB said:


> Wouldn't "fantasy" involve dragons, magicians, and/or flying carpets, among many other things. Historical fiction might involve someone in 15th Europe eating chocolate.


I write dark, historical fantasy. There are no dragons in my world, there are however paranormal elements set in a historical world. There are many sub-genres of fantasy, I think what you are referring to is high fantasy.

Dawn


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Grace Elliot said:


> I have two views on this: one as a reader, one as a writer.
> 
> As a reader, if the inconsistancy is jarring (eg mentionning washing machines when they hadnt been invented) it will pull me out of the story, remind me the book was written by someone and isnt an organic being in its own right...and the author then has to work very hard to restore the magic.
> 
> As an author, it utterly mortifies me if a historical inconsistancy slips through in my work...no reader could possibly hate it more than I do myself as an author.


There is artistic license, and then there's artistic license. A washing machine in Jane Austen's world would redefine so many advances in science that the books would not be historical fiction any more.

I remember when I was in high school (many moons ago) our music teacher said in class that Salieri did not kill Mozart and most of the class did not believe him. I think things that become part of our popular culture redefine and rewrite history in the minds of many - and somehow becomes a fact buried in the back of our minds. Laszlo Almazy (subject of Ondaatje's "The English Patient") was actually gay, provided information to the Germans for profit, and died in 1951 (not from burns suffered during an airplane crash either.) But Ondaatje's story (and a beautiful story it is) is the one everyone will remember.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

history_lover said:


> SKP is considered pretty historically accurate? Can you give me an example of what you're thinking about? There's only so much that even historians can know about historical figures and sometimes authors have to fill in the gaps and use what they know of the people and times to add fictional elements that make sense. I don't consider this an "inaccuracy", I consider it necessary.


No, she's not historically accurate. That's my point. But she does write "historical fiction."


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> I write dark, historical fantasy. There are no dragons in my world, there are however paranormal elements set in a historical world. There are many sub-genres of fantasy, I think what you are referring to is high fantasy.
> 
> Dawn


I said "among many other things." It was not intended to be an all-inclusive list of fantasy elements.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

DYB said:


> No, she's not historically accurate. That's my point. But she does write "historical fiction."


Could you give specific examples? I've heard her described as one of the best for research and accuracy by people I trust on the matter.

For me, it depends: nail varnish in Roman times and chocolate in the 15th century would bother me, Columbus landing in the wrong place would have me forget the book, invented minor characters or 'added' scenes that fill-up gaps in history don't bother me at all, if they are consistent (after all we don't have a 'day-by-day' record of the lives of historic characters).

To me historical fiction is a dramatization of history, it has to be true to period (known historical facts and spirit of the times) filling the gaps of records and giving us the people behind the names. If history comes poor second to the story then, please write alternative history or fantasy instead.

The only case that has me throwing a book against the wall is when an author clearly espouses the main misconceptions about an era and beats me over the head with them. _The Doomsday Book, _I'm looking at you. That has also the effect of making me avoid any other book by the same author.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

Seleya said:


> Could you give specific examples? I've heard her described as one of the best for research and accuracy by people I trust on the matter.
> 
> For me, it depends: nail varnish in Roman times and chocolate in the 15th century would bother me, Columbus landing in the wrong place would have me forget the book, invented minor characters or 'added' scenes that fill-up gaps in history don't bother me at all, if they are consistent (after all we don't have a 'day-by-day' record of the lives of historic characters).
> 
> ...


She might be meticulous in her research of clothes and customs; I wouldn't know and honestly don't care. But are the stories she tells real or fiction? Hence, historical fiction. Is it ok for Salieri to kill Mozart, as long as they're wearing proper wigs and cloaks? The history comes a very poor second when Salieri kills Mozart. None of these things bother me, incidentally. I just truly can't understand why anyone objects to complete fictions regarding people's actions, but are bothered by their nail varnish.


----------



## Dawn McCullough White (Feb 24, 2010)

DYB said:


> I just truly can't understand why anyone objects to complete fictions regarding people's actions, but are bothered by their nail varnish.


I suspect it's for the same reasons that poor formatting drives some people bananas, or books without plots. People are driven crazy by different things. Poor formatting doesn't annoy me in the slightest, and I enjoy books with interesting characters... I don't really even care if their isn't a plot if I enjoy the characters, but if the framework of the story is incorrect... like Abe Lincoln is giving a speech in polyester pants I'm totally thrown.

If a book is set in the 18th century, I want to really believe it is. It would be even better if I learned a little tidbit about history while reading the fiction. I guess it's because I love history, and learning about history. It's annoying to read something "historically" based and discover you know more about it than the author does. It's more like reading fan-fiction then. I want someone to really know the world they're telling me the story in, because I want to be fully immersed in the tale.

I guess that's why. For me anyhow.
Dawn


----------



## Lursa (aka 9MMare) (Jun 23, 2011)

DYB said:


> But so much historical fiction uses real historical figures - doing things they never did. Look at Sharon Kay Penman or Philipa Gregory, among countless others. They can create all kinds of historically inaccurate stories about real-life figures - as long as the characters wear period appropriate clothes? The thing that immediately came to mind when I saw the thread was Peter Shaffer's "Amadeus" (and the movie version of it.) Countless people today think Salieri killed Mozart - because they saw the movie (and possibly saw or read the play.) Of course that's nonsense. But is it more appropriate for an author to ignore details of clothes, nail polish or language - or the very history of that person's life? Salieri has been accused of murder! Somehow his cape not being the right cut for the time period doesn't strike me as a big deal.


Altering or inventing the life of a _real life _ person is to me....the same as changing other *important* details. OTOH, if the book states that upfront...that it's an alternative or proposed 'story' for that person, then I also dont have a problem with it. Because the book's premise is of a fiction, a premise fleshed out, about that person. It immediately sets the expectation.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

DYB said:


> No, she's not historically accurate.


Sorry but I think you're vastly in the minority with that belief. Everything I've read from or about SKP says that her work is very historically accurate. I don't know where you've gotten this idea and despite being asked twice by two different people, you have failed produce an example of how she is not historically accurate.



DYB said:


> She might be meticulous in her research of clothes and customs; I wouldn't know and honestly don't care. But are the stories she tells real or fiction? Hence, historical fiction.


The stories SKP tells are based on fact - the plot, the character assessments, the events, etc are all VERY historically accurate. As I've said, there will be gaps in what is known about the history and this is where authors have to use knowledge of the times and people to fill things in. Dialogue, for example, is mostly all fictional... but that doesn't mean the story isn't accurate.



> Is it ok for Salieri to kill Mozart, as long as they're wearing proper wigs and cloaks?


I don't think anyone said it was ok. In fact, most people have been saying that major diversions like that are unacceptable... some people simply ALSO feel that getting the minor details right is important as well, not instead of. You're hammering on about this particular Mozart point like everyone is disagreeing with you but I don't see anyone disagreeing with you....

I've even specifically said that I don't mind inaccurate minor details as much - we just seem to have a different idea of what is "minor" versus "major". I think eating chocolate in 15th century Europe is a major error. You think it's minor. To each their own.


----------



## Seleya (Feb 25, 2011)

I like 'Amadeus' by the way. One thing people seem to miss about the movie is that the story is told by Salieri's point of view and at the time_ he is in an asylum_ (he had dementia at the end of his life), that makes him an unreliable witness in my book. Is he telling what happened, what he thinks happened, what he is feeling guilty for having wished?

BTW there has been a legend of Salieri poisononing Mozart for centuries, the movie tells one way the legend could have originated (since it is known that Salieri didn't).


----------



## JRTomlin (Jan 18, 2011)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Accuracy in historical fiction is important, right? So what do you do when you run across an historical fact that you're pretty sure is wrong?
> 
> Say an event in the book is Mount Vesuvius erupting in 306 AD/CE.*
> 
> ...


Sloppiness in historical research absolutely infuriates me. I will certainly not buy another novel by an author who is guilty of it.

Now I will give an author a LITTLE wiggle room. Changing the date of a minor event by a few years (especially if the author says they are doing so in a historical note) I can accept. I certainly don't mind fictional characters.

But changing the acts of major historical characters is inexcusable in opinion. There are a lot of things that are debatable, so those are in a different category. It's interesting to bring a new INTERPRETATION of known characters as Hilary Mantel did in Wolf Hall which I enjoyed in spite of my general loathing for Tudor fiction.

But if you write historical fiction, for heaven's sake, learn your history.

My own pet peeves that I have run into by authors who should have known better? There were no spinning wheels in 13th century England. Knights did NOT casually ride destriers down the road. There were no potatoes in medieval Ireland--Please. There WAS a potato famine in 19th century Scotland. Being a king's illegitimate daughter did NOT make you a princess or even a lady. 13th century Scotland was not at war with England (until the least 4 years of the century) and was most certainly not ruled by the English. And half of the population of England weren't dukes and earls.

*sigh*

It's hard to say which annoy me more the minor sins that show that the author didn't bother or the major sins that show that the author has no respect for history or the genre. Either will make sure that my money goes elsewhere the next time I buy a novel.

Edit: You think 'Amadeus' is bad? You don't even WANT to get me started on 'Braveheart'. *grinds teeth*


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

> And half of the population of England weren't dukes and earls.


I giggled reading that. But really, are half the murderers out there serial killers? Some leeway for conventions, perhaps?


----------



## ciscokid (Oct 10, 2010)

Mistakes like that drive me crazy and tend to make me not want to read another book by that author.  I know its not historical fiction, but when I was in my Danielle Steele stage(that I thankfully outgrew 20 years ago....what was I thinking??) I was reading one of her books and she mentioned "the snowcapped mountains of Kentucky".  There are no mountains in Ky to speak of....especially ones that would have been snowcapped at any time except in the middle of a snowstorm.  Unfortunatley the time of year the story was set in was not winter.  I haven't read a book of hers in years.  That one did it for me....oh, and that all her books are pretty much the same.


----------



## WriterCTaylor (Jul 11, 2011)

B. If the story is engaging and you know it's fiction, what's the problem? If you want historical fact, read non fiction


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Yeah agree WriterCTaylor, fiction is fiction to me. I know to separate the two. Fiction and non fiction that is. Now I do like a believable portrait of the past. I do like to see the effort of the research. But again, I do not ever take fiction as 100% fact. If I really want to make totally sure, I'll research myself. 

But I read fiction to be entertained. Some novels have more historical themes in than others. Many times I got interested enough in either characters, places and events that after reading a Historical fiction, I went on a search for more. 

To me believable portrait of the past does not include things like modern technology, or glaring mistakes. The Chocolate would be one of those. But I can gloss over that if I like the story in itself. 

Some authors do more research than others and with reviews and reading, one can get an idea what one gets. I like it either way. I just love anything Historical.


----------



## Doug DePew (Mar 26, 2011)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> b) Shrug because it's fiction and the story's good, so who cares.


That's me.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Historical fiction should be a story that could have plausibly taken place in a given time period. Anachronisms undermine the plausibility, and thus make it less historical. Deliberately altering the reality of that time period moves it into the realm of alternative reality.

There are other things that undermine the plausibility of a historical fiction story. Characters knowing things that someone of the time could not have known is one. Characters who have attitudes that are too modern can be tricky to pull off well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 1, 2011)

DYB said:


> Wouldn't "fantasy" involve dragons, magicians, and/or flying carpets, among many other things. Historical fiction might involve someone in 15th Europe eating chocolate.


Please please please stop assuming that fantasy means dragons, magic, et cetera! Fantasy is a very broad genre and is so much more than HP or LotR.

And historical fiction by its definition is fantasy - as in it does not exist in reality.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

****_references to books you've written, are writing, or are thinking about writing are considered self-promotion and not allowed in the Book Corner. Such posts will be edited or deleted._****


----------



## PhoenixS (Apr 5, 2011)

> ****references to books you've written, are writing, or are thinking about writing are considered self-promotion and not allowed in the Book Corner. Such posts will be edited or deleted.****


Hi Ann: Is the above just a general reminder? I don't see anything in this thread that steps outside the rules. The original example is merely hypothetical and was chosen carefully to be so, just as some of the other examples here not from named books are general in nature. Is there something specifically that concerns you? Thanks!


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Phoenix Sullivan said:


> Hi Ann: Is the above just a general reminder? I don't see anything in this thread that steps outside the rules. The original example is merely hypothetical and was chosen carefully to be so, just as some of the other examples here not from named books are general in nature. Is there something specifically that concerns you? Thanks!


Consider it a reminder. . . . .and it's possible that some posts have been edited or removed.  Remember, if you're an author, your books are in your signature -- we know you write, there's no need to remind us.  

As to Historical fiction: I read one once that was set in an English fishing village in the 17th century. The writing wasn't great but the story was moderately intriguing. But when the main character, a 12 year old son of a fisherman, ruminated on something being just like in the books he'd read as a kid, I had to stop. It was beyond my ability to suspend disbelief that a fisherman's son in 16xx something would have even been able to read, let alone had read fiction or fairy tales! My response was to give up on it and delete it from my Kindle.


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> it's possible that some posts have been edited or removed.


Then isn't it just the person whose post you removed the one that needs reminding? It just always seems odd to the rest of us when you seemingly give out these reminders randomly. I have come to assume it means you deleted someone's post but since I didn't see it, your reminders just seem random and unnecessary - and I think some authors may also be left wondering if you're indirectly talking to them or if they accidentally did something wrong.



> Remember, if you're an author, your books are in your signature -- we know you write, there's no need to remind us.


Equally, there's no need to remind everyone of the rules on self promotion when only a minority have broken them. I heartily appreciate your dedication to keeping the Book Corner "spam-free" but I'm just not sure this is necessary.


----------



## KelbyOuchley (Jul 23, 2011)

I like to read and write historical fiction.  Personally, when I come across a blatant historical inaccuracy it detracts from the story and from the credibility of the author.  My biases probably originate in my training/work in a scientific field where accuracy is highly valued.  Nothing, however, worries me more that letting a historical inaccuracy slip by in my own writing.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2011)

history_lover said:


> Then isn't it just the person whose post you removed the one that needs reminding? It just always seems odd to the rest of us when you seemingly give out these reminders randomly. I have come to assume it means you deleted someone's post but since I didn't see it, your reminders just seem random and unnecessary - and I think some authors may also be left wondering if you're indirectly talking to them or if they accidentally did something wrong.
> 
> Equally, there's no need to remind everyone of the rules on self promotion when only a minority have broken them. I heartily appreciate your dedication to keeping the Book Corner "spam-free" but I'm just not sure this is necessary.


Unfortunately, as I've learned the hard way, there is no wiggle room on this issue with the mods. I mentioned my book in a post just to make a broad point and it got removed as spamming. I wasn't doing it to promote my book, but used it as an example since it is a story I'm familiar with. Doesn't matter. And according to the forum rules, the mods do not believe that free speech trumps all other considerations; it's literally their way or the highway on this point. (Although I do believe it's more than a little Draconian. A PM to the offender would be better - along with an opportunity to let the OP edit accordingly.)


----------



## history_lover (Aug 9, 2010)

Z.D. Robinson said:


> Unfortunately, as I've learned the hard way, there is no wiggle room on this issue with the mods. I mentioned my book in a post just to make a broad point and it got removed as spamming. I wasn't doing it to promote my book, but used it as an example since it is a story I'm familiar with. Doesn't matter. And according to the forum rules, the mods do not believe that free speech trumps all other considerations; it's literally their way or the highway on this point. (Although I do believe it's more than a little Draconian. A PM to the offender would be better - along with an opportunity to let the OP edit accordingly.)


I'm not asking that they relax the rules and I don't feel my freedom of speech is impaired here... I'm just suggesting that those who haven't broken the rules don't need constant reminders about them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 3, 2011)

history_lover said:


> I'm not asking that they relax the rules and I don't feel my freedom of speech is impaired here... I'm just suggesting that those who haven't broken the rules don't need constant reminders about them.


Sorry for misunderstanding you. I think the mods sending the offender a PM to make the necessary edit would be less intrusive on the rest of us.


----------



## KBoards Admin (Nov 27, 2007)

Z.D. Robinson said:


> Unfortunately, as I've learned the hard way, there is no wiggle room on this issue with the mods. I mentioned my book in a post just to make a broad point and it got removed as spamming. I wasn't doing it to promote my book, but used it as an example since it is a story I'm familiar with. Doesn't matter. And according to the forum rules, the mods do not believe that free speech trumps all other considerations; it's literally their way or the highway on this point. (Although I do believe it's more than a little Draconian. A PM to the offender would be better - along with an opportunity to let the OP edit accordingly.)


Well, let me defend our mod team and explain why we manage things this way. We enforce that self-promo rule for two reasons:

1. It keeps the discussion threads (outside of the Book Bazaar) free of self-promo, which - believe me - can quickly run rampant if not kept in check. Some of the old-timers on this board will remember when our rules were a little looser, and most discussion threads would get bombarded with creative references from authors about their work. It detracted from the genuine conversations that are so important in a discussion board like this.

2. It keeps the playing ground as level as possible for all authors. In fact, when authors do post self-promo references to their work outside the Book Bazaar, it is often other authors that report the thread to us.

Take advantage of what we do allow for self-promo, in your BB thread - - and when you're posting outside of that thread, rely on the presence of your books in your signature area as a more subtle form of getting the word out about your books. And understand that it's not a question of us being draconian - the rules are there so that this place is as fair as possible, and as enjoyable as possible, for all.


----------



## Tara Maya (Nov 4, 2010)

Dawn McCullough White said:


> It drives me crazy. I'd rather read through a book that had odd formatting than try to read a book with historical inaccuracies. That being said, I do try to give the book a chance even after I've found a problem, if the book continues to have inaccuracies I'll give up on it, I can only try to suspend my belief for so long.
> 
> So, I guess that's a "C" followed by an "A"


Ditto everything Dawn said.


----------



## BRONZEAGE (Jun 25, 2011)

QuantumIguana said:


> Historical fiction should be a story that could have plausibly taken place in a given time period. Anachronisms undermine the plausibility, and thus make it less historical. Deliberately altering the reality of that time period moves it into the realm of alternative reality.
> 
> There are other things that undermine the plausibility of a historical fiction story. Characters knowing things that someone of the time could not have known is one. Characters who have attitudes that are too modern can be tricky to pull off well.


Precisely, QuantumIguana.

The novel referred to earlier with the nail varnish anachronism also had other issues, eg: a raft of female characters who spoke Valley Girl ( or maybe north New Jersey idioms) and who were undereducated for their alleged station in Roman sociey and spent their days buffing and primping -- but somehow became omniscient re: affairs of state when the very loose plot called for it.

Never finished that title, gave up after first chapter or two and would not touch another one by that author. But the "series" has Big Publisher advertising dollars behind it. Written for those who wish to be entertained.


----------



## Joseph Robert Lewis (Oct 31, 2010)

I'm a pretty forgiving soul, so if I find what looks to be a historical error, then I give the author the benefit of the doubt that the change was made on purpose for the sake of the fiction part of the story.


----------



## ginaf20697 (Jan 31, 2009)

OMG I'm reading the recent freebie Legacy and the complete botching of Edward I's history is driving me totally insane. I know it's an historical romance but at least TRY to make things fit into the actual timeline. A little fudging I can deal with but it's just totally out of whack here.


----------

