How accurate do you like your historical fiction to be?

I think historical fiction should always include the truth if it is known through research. However, the "fiction" part does allow an author to write what might have been as long as they use reasonable situations that could indeed have happened. I agree that huge leaps are not helpful in depicting history.

Sometime's I don't like it to be accurate at all. An example: "Fanny" by Erica Jong. I couldn't deal with the English/Cockney contractions. I'd much rather she coloquialized the dialog.

I do like to see that the writer has done some research and knows dates, locations and even some trivia.

I like, for example, the way Mitchner writers his novels, as well as Gore Vidal.

It, however, can get in the way when you are doing a Revolutionary War novel and refer to them as Lef Tenent instead of Lieutenant.

I liked, for example, J.F. Lawton's verbal use in "Under Siege" the term Folksil (spelling error here so I did it phonetically), while at the same time on screen you saw the area and it was written as FORE CASTLE. That made me understand the defintion of the word and it also made me understand why they called it that, because it was the very front of the ship or the Before Castle or Before Fortress area.

Now you know it's probably a foreign or obsolete term for the front defense area (or FORE or BEFORE ( or IN FRONT OF ) CASTLE) but it's pronounced FOLK SIL.

You actually learned something valuable if you paid attention to that one!

And It showed that J.F. Lawton was pretty sharp as a writer, as was the Director for doing it that way.

The Dante club and The Poe Shadow by employing Matthew Pearl lady With a Pearl Earring, Burning brilliant, and the female and the Unicorn by employing Tracy Chevalier Blood secret and previous the Burning Time by employing Kathryn Lasky The Witch of Cologne by employing Tobsha Learner The Witch of Blackbird Pond by employing Elizabeth George Speare

I try to keep within the realistic realms which govern mine.

However, there are some example of past writings, which I've altered the concept of reality and thus added a twist to something which has never occurred before--only because I wanted to see what would happen if events went in a completely different direction.

I hate it when the author tries too hard in making the book accurate that it becomes fiction! I would like them to be accurate enough so that if I met one of the characters, his/her summary would be the same as the one I looked up on Amazon.com

Enough to make it believable and makes me want to check the facts on how correct the author of a piece of historical drama can be.

Pretty accurate, although it depends on how well I know about the time period. Sometimes I barely notice mistakes, because I don't know much about the time period in which it's supposed to take place, or the real history. If a mistake is so glaringly obvious that even I spot it, then it's not good enough for me.

Oh my god......i really would like it if the historical novels i read could be more accurate. I completely know how you feel. I like search about the topic after i finish reading a novel just to know what is a fact. LOL

as accurate as possible. I'm a history buff, I've been known to read ahead in school just for fun... and gotten in trouble! (Wasn't history class I was caught in) But yeah, I've subscribed to Smithsonian Magazine, watch the History Channel... I can't get enough. My friends think I was born in the wrong century.

It cannot have any glaring errors. For instance, if it revolves around a military action/war, it had better get the facts correect (units, locations, commanders, outcomes) but when it comes to the minutia I can live with whatever needs to be written to get the story across.