bell notificationshomepageloginNewPostedit profile

Topic : Re: How acceptable is "alternate history" in writing (nowadays)? On another site, I wrote a critical review of a book that featured a "King Frederic II" of France who reigned between 1777-1819. I - selfpublishingguru.com

10% popularity

I started with this as a comment but it's not really a comment. It's also not much of an answer.

Historical fiction and alternative history are separate genres in my understanding. I would expect historical fiction to be accurate and minor characters can be fictitious. A commoner living through the Black Plague should experience it correctly but need not have actually ever been a real person... But documented facts must be accurate.

I would also expect in historical fiction that the parts of history that are in focus (documented history) will remain so. The parts we don't know ( greater than 99.9% of actual history) have a lot of wiggle room.

My answer: Don't confuse Historical Fiction with Alternate History.

In alternate history, be clear up front that it is alternate.

(Even the alternate universes in Star Trek take heat from time to time for not following the 'real' history - a spore drive in Kirk's time? I don't think so!)


Load Full (0)

Login to follow topic

More posts by @LarsenBagley300

0 Comments

Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best

Back to top