The other day I read an interesting article on the BBC titled, A point of view: When historical fiction is more truthful than historical fact.
The article pointed to the fact that history is recorded, but often the humanization of history or the feelings being experienced in the past are unable to be relayed thereby creating a disconnect between the past and the present.
The example initially brought up in the article by Lisa Jardine included the fact that she had been researching World War Two through non-fiction resources. She explained she had been looking into the lives of scientists who had been researching the atomic bomb that this devastating weapon being created was done for a reason, but her research didn't give her an adequate explanation.
The missing part of this research being the emotions and convictions driving the scientists' work forward. Almost hindered by the scholarly need of the non-fiction works she was relying on, Jardine turned to fiction, something she decided could be beneficial stating, "I eventually decided to turn from fact to fiction. If historians could not fill the gaps in the record that made the knowledge I was after so elusive, perhaps storytellers less shackled by documented evidence might do so."
Therefore, fictional writings about the historical event could allow for emotions to be identified with and related to, unlike the rigid conforms of a non-fiction piece. It allows the reader to be drawn into the world the author creates and although only based on an event it provides an important piece of the puzzle in understanding decisions made throughout history.
A few years ago my sister read, The Book of Negroes. She reads non-fiction novels, true stories, and was telling me of the book. She had very much enjoyed it, had followed the story of the young girl, and was amazed at what this young girl went through. Believing it was based on one girl's actual journey my sister thought it odd when I explained it wasn't just one girls story.
The account was historical fiction based on the happenings of the slave trade and the time period, but it was an account that held feeling and emotion. She became slightly disillusioned with the novel as I had cracked the world the novel had created by seemingly discrediting it.
I had to explain that I wasn't discrediting what the author wrote or saying the happenings in the book never happened. I explained the novel was following a narrative which could have and for some would have occurred.
The author uses fact and history, such as the historic document actually titled "Book of Negroes," which recorded freed African American slaves evacuated by British ships to Nova Scotia as free.
The novel ultimately follows a journey of numerous African people captured and transported by slave ship across the ocean, providing historical fact and developing human emotion to better understand what people went through in coming to North America. From here it follows approximately 3,000 African Americans who were part of the migration to Nova Scotia during the American Revolution.
The narrative continues following the main character's journey back to Africa, which only one third of those who were taken to Nova Scotia chose to do. I explained that although the novel was historical fiction it was still a true story in the sense it encompassed a narrative of more than just one person. Although the story doesn't follow the majority's story, it is an account of history following a path which some did take during this time.
Being quite fond of history and understanding the past, these sorts of works are beneficial. I don't think my sister would ever pick up a history textbook to read, but the novel provided her with a historical retelling while creating emotion which for many people is much more than simply knowing the facts.
I don't know if I would overall agree with the title of the BBC article stating historical fiction is more truthful, but I would say it is beneficial to the holistic understanding of the past and why people made the choices they did.
