And I would say too, there's a vast difference between a) writing a novel after loads of research and trying to make the representation of a real-person character as close to what we know about his life – and b) making something up about the real-person which you know or guess to be untrue in order to further your plot.

Really, Sharyn? Lol…! Maybe that's the ultimate accolade for the writers/director/actors? I must admit I have been taken aback by people who think that the moment you use first person narrative, you the author are the character.

Is that why two of my first person narrators have been tall athletic types with great hairdos? Not.

Sigh.

I agree though, authors should either strive for the same level of accuracy that historians aspire to, or make it very clear that they're presenting a fictional account. It's fairly standard these days for historical fiction to have an acknowledgements page that lists the author's sources and explains any deviations that they may have made.

I don't mind watching movies based on history but I get angry when they depart from the known facts:-(

If I was writing a historical novel, I would – at least on some level – people it with persons once living.

Where I agree with Kay is that this involves some responsibility. Jo mentioned Heyer, who wrote books – fiction – which sometimes gave quite large roles to people like the Duke of Wellington or other real personages. She put speech into their mouths. BUT whatever they said was absolutely in character with what we know about them, through their writings, their deeds or what observers saw or heard.

What Kay objects to, and I do to, is using these people as PoV characters, as if we are inside their heads, thinking their thoughts…becoming intimate with them as if we were them. Well, we aren't. And we shouldn't imply that we have this inner knowledge when we don't, even if the book is fiction.

You are absolutely right, Hendo – history changes depending on what sources we have and who is viewing them. To me, that is all the more reason why we shouldn't pretend we are the historical personage, knowing what went on in their heads. It implies an intimacy that never existed.

Cultural appropriation is something that arouses deep passions. My personal feeling? If I want to use another culture, and call it by its true name, or imply that it is true representation, then it had better be damn accurate.

If I appropriate it and call it something else, then it is mine to do what I like with – as long as I make it clear it is not real.

Writing alternate history is something else again, but at least everyone knows that this is not a true representation, any more than there are really fairies at the bottom of my garden.

I guess it all boils down to being honest.