Asklemmy

44934 readers

1661 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
[email protected]: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Should historical fiction keep to the facts? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 3 years ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 years ago* (last edited 3 years ago)

What was long time thought as "historical" facts often turned out to be nonsense and there is a lot of historical revisionism happening all the time.

I think if you write a historical fiction it is a moral obligation to add quite a bit of editorial context as a foreword or addendum to allow the reader to differentiate between unknowns, artistic freedom, historical interpretations and actual archeological evidence.

Edit: if you want to write "alternative history" fiction, it is probably best to also slightly alter names and geographies so that it is absolutely clear to the reader that this is a purely fictional account.