Why Authors Don't Have to Be Fully Accurate with Historical Fiction

Back on January 29, I made a post on what my preferences are for historical fiction. You can see the post linked here: What I Consider "Historical Fiction." Today's post is something I hinted at in that post: why authors don't have to be fully accurate with historical fiction.

Today's post is going to elaborate on the following comment I made in the post from January 29:

There is nothing wrong with an author wanting to be accurate with the historical fiction book they're writing. However, historical fiction is fiction for a reason. If an author wants to be completely accurate to the history they're writing, they should just write a history nonfiction book.

You can see the post I linked above for what I look in a historical fiction novel. One big think I'm not looking for - along with many others - in historical fiction is historical accuracy.

As I mentioned in the quote above, historical fiction is fiction for a reason. Whether you're reading historical fiction or fiction under another genre (such as fantasy), you're usually looking to escape the real world and what's happened in it. It's nice to have accurate homages in a historical fiction book, but they have to be small and not overwhelming the book.