I disagree with this statement ‘Historical Fiction is just Fictional History - its not real’ as

history itself is not entirely real meaning that history as a whole is not real.The term ‘history’
is used to define a set of events that have already happened further in the past than current
day. ‘History’ is seen as factual by many and people have been finding evidence of these
events to of actually happened in the past.But then the term ‘historical fiction’ came in this is
where there was when a debate between weather historical fiction novels were more
historically accurate than members uncovering history’s past.

Historical fiction could be more accurately put into being real than any other piece of history
as Haydon White states from his novel ‘Tropics of discourse’ p.50, “history mediates
between what is and what men think ought to be with truly humanising effect”. This quote
states that historians often have holes within their evidence and thus make up new evidence
to patch the holes but these holes are patched up with their own beliefs on what actually
happened but it is infact the complete opposite meaning history is more of an art than an
actual science.

‘Historical Fiction’ has shown to have authors collecting more data to write a story about the
events that happened within that era than historians. Some can argue that they both are the
same and research the same amount but i disagree with this phrase. People have given off
more evidence supporting that authors go to greater lengths than any other historian to
create an accurate setting for their stories as shown by Katherine Paterson ( 1994 ), "If you
want to understand a period of history, don't read the contemporary fiction written during that
period, but the historical fiction".