This particular movie alleges a love affair that may never have occurred, depicts certain events that simply did not happen, and generally compresses events that did. As I watched one scene after another, I gave voice to my inner historian’s indignation, saying aloud (to the annoyance of everyone else in the room), “But that didn’t happen!” Yet, at the conclusion of the movie I felt that the movie somehow captured the essence of the Hawaiian Revolution. (Hawaiian history buffs may feel differently.)

The novelist, happily, has a broader canvas to work with than a ninety-minute movie, but the question remains: how much history do you put in your fiction, or vice versa? In my own novel on the Hawaiian Revolution, I used Herman Wouk’s Pug Henry as a model for the fictional character who I could conveniently place wherever I wanted him to be. That allows me to leave history as it is, requiring the fictional character to make all the necessary concessions. That strikes me as less of an abuse of history.

So, what do you look for in historical fiction, a good story or good history?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kurt