I am not a Historian
After the events of Anachrocon passed (and truth be told, once I managed to stop long enough to think), I started pondering the place of history within my profession. Sharing panels with a handful of historians will do that to you.
And getting into that, I realized that a big part of what engages me about alternate history as opposed to "pure" history is the emphasis on "what if?" as opposed to "what was?" I honestly think being a historian would frustrate the hell out of me, with so much that's not able to be known until another puzzle piece shows up this dig site or that library or some other private collection. And even then, what really occurred will never be known, only what evidence is left behind to indicate.
As for how this relates to my work, I'll take a perennial example of pissing off historians: Braveheart.
As a history buff (remember, not a fucking Historian) I will readily agree that in a historical sense, the film is ridiculous. The Battle of Sterling Bridge takes place with nary a bridge in sight. Not even one of those little ornamental ones you get free when you buy a deluxe gazebo from a landscaper. Robert the Bruce not only showing up at the battle of Falkirk, but betraying Wallace in the process (for you Americans, this is the equivalent of Stonewall Jackson appearing at Chickamauga and betraying the Confederacy.) And last but not least, Wallace somehow acquiring the powers of both teleportation and time travel, because that's the only explanation I have for him somehow managing to meet, fall for and knock up a princess that was both A) living in France full-time and B) ten years old when he died!
I could go on, but there's already vast chunks of the internet dedicated to it. The point in my eyes, however, is that absolutely none of those ridiculous inaccuracies mean jack or shit. Why? Because the story and performance are awesome.
Does accuracy make a difference? Yes. How much of one? Your mileage may vary. But ultimately, I'm a storyteller. If historical fact is going to drag my story down from where it could be, that fact is going to go away. I'm far less interested in what's accurate to history as I am in what's accurate to this story. I could give two shits about what really was, because "what if?" lets me do so much more.
And getting into that, I realized that a big part of what engages me about alternate history as opposed to "pure" history is the emphasis on "what if?" as opposed to "what was?" I honestly think being a historian would frustrate the hell out of me, with so much that's not able to be known until another puzzle piece shows up this dig site or that library or some other private collection. And even then, what really occurred will never be known, only what evidence is left behind to indicate.
As for how this relates to my work, I'll take a perennial example of pissing off historians: Braveheart.
As a history buff (remember, not a fucking Historian) I will readily agree that in a historical sense, the film is ridiculous. The Battle of Sterling Bridge takes place with nary a bridge in sight. Not even one of those little ornamental ones you get free when you buy a deluxe gazebo from a landscaper. Robert the Bruce not only showing up at the battle of Falkirk, but betraying Wallace in the process (for you Americans, this is the equivalent of Stonewall Jackson appearing at Chickamauga and betraying the Confederacy.) And last but not least, Wallace somehow acquiring the powers of both teleportation and time travel, because that's the only explanation I have for him somehow managing to meet, fall for and knock up a princess that was both A) living in France full-time and B) ten years old when he died!
I could go on, but there's already vast chunks of the internet dedicated to it. The point in my eyes, however, is that absolutely none of those ridiculous inaccuracies mean jack or shit. Why? Because the story and performance are awesome.
Does accuracy make a difference? Yes. How much of one? Your mileage may vary. But ultimately, I'm a storyteller. If historical fact is going to drag my story down from where it could be, that fact is going to go away. I'm far less interested in what's accurate to history as I am in what's accurate to this story. I could give two shits about what really was, because "what if?" lets me do so much more.
