What's more important to you--strict adherence to historical facts, or a good story? Are you willing to cut authors some slack with the facts if it improves the story?
Here's our responses:
Nanette: I think it depends. When it comes to well-known figures or events, major historical inaccuracies can ruin a book (or a movie) for me. However, I do enjoy reading books set in eras or settings that are less familiar to me, so ignorance is bliss, I suppose.
Marg: I am not a real stickler for absolute historical accuracy but having said that if you moved major events or married off characters to someone other than who they were actually married to as examples, I would definitely want to see an author note that explains how you changed it and why!
Julie: I agree with Marg, but I do quite like the concept of speculative historical fiction. Where authors could explore the what if factor.
What if Captain Cook had not been the explorer to raise the flag in Australia. The French explorer Parous had been in the area. What if he had stopped rather than sailing by thinking it was not possible to create a settlement.
Ana: I also agree with Marg. I would rather have the true historical facts and if they are changed I want to know that the author did it on purpose (and not because of lack of research) and why.
What do you think? Let us know in the comments!