Writing Tips: Historical Fiction 

Historical fiction writer here! I'm so glad you mentioned "is fiction" I think many persons don't really understand what historical fiction means

I write historical fiction and I have been a history teacher (35 years). I have never used historical fiction to teach history, and I would never consider it-and I would be shocked if any teacher ever did. However, if I was teaching D Day and showed Private Ryan movie, perhaps with discussion we could talk about how the invasion played out--what happened on the beach, as the movie captures an essence that might be considered very accurate. (possibly the same with a book).

In regards to accuracy, I think it depends the story and setting. For example, in something like a WW2 based book, you are creating a fictional character and telling the events from their eyes. So, if you're writing through the perspective of a soldier you have to know all of the details about what battle group they're a part of, what battles that group fought in and you can add stuff like if they were transferred to other units, which you have to know dates and information so that you're not creating a situation where the person could never have fought in battle X if they were fighting in battle Y. To me personally, historical fiction is about creating a fictional scenario in a historically accurate setting. Using WW2 as an example again, a historical fiction scenario could be that maybe an American woman managed to get into the ranks of combat and you're telling the war from her eyes, what that woman's reactions and emotions might be witnessing those events, and so on, while still being accurate to those events.

The Killer Angels ?

I would disagree about teaching history. When John Jakes started writing novels, he stated his goal was to help people get interested in history. And he achieved his goals. When he wrote his Revolutionary War novels(The Bastard, Rebel, etc.) They were HUGE successes and got many more people interested in studying and learning more about the war. (this was in the 1970s and 80s, long before your time). Plenty of historical fiction writers go to great lengths to get history right, and some only take liberties with dialogue or by inserting their fictional characters with real-life individuals. Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in non-fiction. But after researching a novel for two years, I find that PLENTY of original source documents from the 1700s, 1800s, and 1900s have PLENTY of errors, and many writers then and now had their own opinions and bias, and sometimes it's hard to discern truth from fiction. Remember, history is only written by the victors. Dead people don't talk, so the winners always write history. However biased, those were the stories left to us. There's falsehood in a lot of written history. When you're a meticulous researcher you quickly discover how easily people made errors(and lots of them) Historical fiction is fun when real life was too boring. But I appreciate the non-fiction.

How far can you stretch the liberties though? For example, Quentin Tarantino’s ‘Inglorious Basterds’ is a fantastic WW2 story with great characters, tension, drama and quite a lot of realistic touches. However, he completely re-writes history in the climax. Is this something that would be generally frowned upon by publishers of historical fiction?

I agree with the not teaching fictional history. Its is okay to teach it, but not as history.