A chronicle is very different from history proper.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
We've all faced the charge that our novels are history lite, and to some extent, that's true. Yet for some, historical fiction is a way into reading history proper.
When you have a novel set in a fictional history, you still should get your history right.
I am not a fan of historical fiction that is sloppy in its research or is dishonest about the real history.
I do not judge, I only chronicle.
Historical facts are the vital framework around which non-fiction writers construct their narratives; they are, quite simply, indispensable.
History is full of really good stories. That's the main reason I got into this racket: I want to make the argument that history is interesting.
History is nothing but gossip about the past, with the hope that it might be true.
The line of demarcation between history and legend is too thin to observe while writing; the two overlap each other unconsciously and unknowingly.
I was thinking of writing a little foreword saying that history is, after all, based on people's recollections, which change with time.
Writers are historians, too. It is in literature that the greater truths about a people and their past are found.
No opposing quotes found.