Odd thoughts on historical fiction.

 This forms part of a section I am going to call thoughts and ramblings, they are not necessarily entirely worked through and most people may even disagree but nonetheless, here they reside. 

 My wife and I were chatting a while ago, this is not the only time and we have talked since, about how difficult it can be to write historical fiction, the minefield of mixing facts with fiction and the research that has to go into every detail to make sure you are true to the time you set the work. Many books have an astonishing detail, the research is second to none and the world comes alive, the reader is sucked in... fair play My simple question is this; if you present a story as a work of fiction and the timeline is wrong but the world feels authentic and the characters alive does this devalue the story?

 You base a story in, say 1960 and they pull their brand new Cherry Red Ford Cortina up onto the drive, twelfth off the production line, amazing. They roll to a gentle stop, turn the ignition off, the car sits proud and silent save for the engine that clicks and chinks as it cools from the journey they could never forget. 

Does it matter that the car wasn't manufactured for another two or three years? Is that a standard Ford colour?

 Can you see the the car, the colour, can you hear the clinking of the engine? Are the feelings there? This is clearly a simplified example, you can easily research the facts, maybe change the dates but I'm pretty sure it doesn't change the idea.

 So slightly more tricky, if you bring to life and a cuckoo clock 50 years before it is mentioned in history, does it make the clock any less.real? Most people know the clock and probably would not notice if incorrectly placed, but they know the clock, I guess what I'm trying to ask is at what point does a work of fiction become less about the story and more about the wonder at the depth of research. Not all battles and pivotal moments in history fall in convenient chronological order, sometimes it helps to give "truth scope" as they say, sure that's a film quote, I'll see if I can find it.** 

 Clearly I'm just lazy and don't want to put the work in so I construct an argument as an excuse and maybe that's true, not totally sure that's the case but even so, am I incorrect? For the record I would quite willingly put the work in for something I believed in.

 This is for another time, but following on, if history is only ever written by the victor...what is the truth in history anyway.....

ramblings over.

Steve xx

 ** the film was The Knights Tale, a quote from Chaucer (Paul Bettany) he did quite well after this.