Do you agree that history and fiction should not be confused with one another. Is your understanding of history altered by your reading of fiction?

Charles - I majored in history and enjoy reading the "straight" stuff if it's well written. However, in the 40+ years since I graduated, I think I've learned more history by reading historical fiction than I did in college. The trick is to find authors who have done their research. Many authors, like Bernard Cornwell, put a historical note at the end of the book telling what was real, what was pure fiction, and what facts they may have altered slightly for dramatic purposes. I often also go to Wikipedia and look for additional information. I do that when I'm watching historical TV series (Tudors, Versailles, Reign, etc.), too. I also made it a practice when reading historical fiction to have an atlas handy, and so learned a lot of geography was well.

Bernard Cornwell has written dozens of books, including his Saxon series (around the time of Alfred the Great and later), Warlord series (King Arthur in a historically accurate setting), Sharpe series (mostly Napoleonic War), Grail Quest series (100 Years War), Starbuck Chronicles (American Civil War), a couple standalone novels - The Fort and Redcoat, set during the American Revolution, and the standalone Agincourt. Cornwell's descriptions of battles and weapons are accurate; you get a real sense of the carnage. This is the kind of thing that you don't learn in history class. 

Another historical fiction writer I admired for his research accuracy was Michener (Centennial, Poland, The Covenant, The Source, Hawaii, etc.).  Mary Stewart's historical novels written in the 70s and 80s, featuring Merlin and Arthur, are not as historically accurate as Cornwell's, give a good picture of life in post-Roman Britain. Plus, they're beautifully written. 

Good question.  I think historical fiction make me want to study the facts a bit more, I also agree when you have an author who really values research and tells you what they speculation on, it just opens a door for you to research what interests you.

I think that our exceptionally good HF writers are that good because they can take the facts and write about them in a way that adds more interest to our reading. Personally, I enjoy reading both history and HF. If I have a question about something I've read in HF, it's a great excuse to look it up, research it my- self and thereby increase my knowledge.

I love history, and also really enjoy historical fiction, especially naval fiction. But, I would like to see the author place historical notes either in the front or back of the novel explaining where they took license. Too many people read a novel and think it is an accurate tale of what happened, not so much the characters themselves, but often the background "history" the author incorporates into the novel. 

I am a Civil War living historian---the Florida Humanities Council pays me to lead battlefield tours and to write articles on the Civil War in Florida, plus I do activities in other areas---and the biggest problem I have is people, even history teachers, telling me what happened in a novel.  For example, people will pass on "facts" from the movie Gettysburg as history. So I have to tell them it is a Hollywood movie, and Hollywood is known for taking extreme license with history. Plus, the movie is based on a novel and the author also took license. Civil War historians often claim the worst thing which ever happened to Civil War history was the movie Gone With the Wind.

I initially enjoyed a series by Susan MacNeal featuring an American woman named "Maggie Hope," and her activities in Britain during early World War II. MacNeal makes a big deal about researching the history for her book. But in the last few novels in the series she makes so many historical mistakes, I begin to wonder if she really does any such research. I've stated such in my reviews of her books on this site. I think I list some in the thread in the History forum "Historians who make stupid mistakes." I'll have to check to be sure.

(Just checked... I do have a link in that thread to one her books, but if you want to read my reviews of her other books you'll have to do a "Book Browser" search of her books.)

Plus, MacNeal is on a PC kick in her last few books in the Maggie Hope series. Did sexism exist during WW II? Absolutely. Do I want to have it thrown in my face every other page? No. Plus, the book I'm reading now---The Queen's Accomplice---seems to be heavily slanted to sex and sexual murder, with only a WW II background. It will probably be the last one I read in this series, simply because I have it. I'll pass on any of her remaining or new books in this series.