After I finished reading King Arthur’s Bones (a post on this book to follow) I wanted to read more about King Arthur and I remembered I still have Relics of the Dead by Ariana Franklin to read. This too is about the discovery of the alleged remains of King Arthur.
I hadn’t got very far into it – pages 39-40 – when I came across this sentence that made me pause:
The pilgrims would loyally accompany their new friend, Emma, Lady Wolvercote, on her diversion to the judicial battleground at the Buckinghamshire county town of Aylesbury.
I lived for over 20 years near Aylesbury, which is indeed the county town – now. But in 1176, when this event took place, it wasn’t the county town. Maybe I only know this because I’m interested in the history of places where I’ve lived, or even because I used to work in the Buckinghamshire County Record Office, but it still irks me. How difficult is it to check this fact I wondered? Not difficult at all – Wikipedia has some details – Buckingham was the county town until the 16th century.
How much influence should this have over my reading? Well, it may not be an important part of the story, but it has influenced me enough to make me put the book to one side for a while until I’ve got over it.
BooksPlease 
This is what makes writing good historical fiction so very difficult. I don’t know much about the medieval period so I came to Ariana Franklin’s books with an open mind and enjoyed them. I do think the first book in the series was slightly better than those that followed, but the county town information error is the sort of information I would have thought a good editor would have spotted.
LikeLike
Given that its fiction, I’m not so worried as long as I don’t know! If like you I knew a fact to be wrong, I’d be a bit concerned and that would put me off the book…
LikeLike
Margaret, I can see why this would be disconcerting to you. I will admit that I don’t normally notice that much but this is a different case because you have specific knowledge of this fact. I guess you’ll just have to let it sit for a bit and see if you can bring yourself to come back to the book or if it off your list. :-)
LikeLike
Margaret – I like those details to be accurate, too. To me, that’s one thing that separates really good historical fiction from the rest. It’s important that the author “do the homework.” As Kay says, one individual might not notice something, but if there is an inaccuracy, it’s got a way of jarring readers who do.
LikeLike
Unless I knew (like you) the facts , well I’d be unaware of the mistake but if like you I saw the error I think I would wonder about the rest of the book. Amazed it got through the proof reading.
LikeLike
If you are too lazy to at least check wikipedia, you should not write historical fiction at all. I really assume that writers of historical fiction make an effort.
LikeLike
Hi Margaret, I have the ‘newbooks’ magazine too. I’m considering sending for ‘The Taste of Sorrow’ by Jude Morgan. ‘The Quickening Maze’ sounds interesting too, a novel of John Clare, I remember reading some of his poetry years ago.Decisions, decisions.
LikeLike
I want accuracy in historical fiction. I believe that the story can work within the facts as known, bring them to life, illuminate them and their importance for the present, everything that is wanted in historical fiction. If it isn’t accurate, it loses me.
LikeLike
I completely agree… historical fiction books must be accurate. I think that is why I loved Robert Fripp’s book, “Power of a Woman: Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitain” I found the book to be well researched, and extremely entertaining. Those are the qualities that I look for in a great historical fiction!
LikeLike
Historical Accuracy in Historical Fiction? This title, posted by Margaret in the form of a question, looks like a paradox. It’s not. Historical fiction should be as accurate as possible. I usually answer this question by suggesting a simile with a connect-the-dots children’s game. Police, lawyers and juries must connect the dots all the time; so do doctors, psychologists €“ in fact, everyone who needs to see the ‘whole picture’ before making sense of a situation. Often, too many of the dots are missing, making the task harder.
Crafting a book in historical fiction should go like this: Having connected the known dots as far as possible (this is the history component), an author may go on to elaborate, enhancing the whole, (which is where the great value of fiction comes in).
Here’s a sample of what I mean. Scholars of Eleanor of Aquitaine have known for a long time that news of her son Young Henry’s death came to her in a vision. So, when the ‘archdeacon of Wells’ brought her that message, she already knew why he had come, and it was she who comforted him. Many modern authors mention this mysterious ‘archdeacon of Wells’ without giving a name. In ‘Power of a Woman. Memoirs of a turbulent life: Eleanor of Aquitaine’, I give credit in an endnote to a generous lady at the Somerset Archive and Record Service who took the time to answer my query by looking into twelfth century records and retrieving a name: Thomas of Earley. This allowed Eleanor, in conversation, to fill in factual details about a leading Anglo-Norman family of her time. One fact can generate many stories.
Books in this genre cannot be ‘Made in Hollywood’. The moment a significant number of authors working in historical fiction decide to keep only the name of their title character and invent the rest of the book, then this genre will deservedly die.
LikeLike