Where To Draw the Accuracy Line

My reprint of my article "Word Rivets" inspired a little discussion of how petty people can be about the authenticity of historical fiction. My particular point was that insisting on the use of one modern English word ober another in "translating" words someone in Anglo Saxon England said was to get into some absurd nuances.

There is a limit to how accurate an author can be and still communicate to modern readers. I ultimately prefer to err on the side of good storytelling. As I think about this topic, however, I realize there is a line I draw, but have not yet articulated where that line is and how it comes to be there.

I would like your opinion in the Comments section of this post.

I will offer a few examples of books that I just couldn't read because they were so over the line.

Sea of Trolls lost me in the first few pages when the eighth century Anglo Saxon children included a girl named Lucy who wanted a knight in armor to come and take her away to his castle. Why does that bug me? This one I might be able to answer. I like Anglo Saxon England the way it was. Sans knights, sans castles. I stopped reading if only because I could not trust the book to follow Anglo Saxon history and culture. I can't remember anything about another book I started to read and hit the stop button after the two 12th century knights started picking up steins and talking about chastity belts. I guess I just don't care for that image of the middle ages, the chastity belt business -- though I know a great joke about one.

Of course the Great Bugaboo of medieval historical fiction is the book and movie Braveheart. I think there are many things historical fiction devotees can point to about this movie, but the two that get me personally are related to Edward II and his wife Isabella. It was bad enough that they had Daddy Longshanks throwing Edward's boyfriend, Peter, out the window, but having the queen.. no, I mean the wife of the king.. having sex with and conceiving Edward III with William Wallace was enough to make me shriek aloud. I don't like real people so thoroughly moved around in history and acting out of character... I guess. I like Edward II. I don't want to see him, rewritten that thoroughly... I guess.

The question I am asking here is not what bugs us individually but where to draw the line. In some cases the facts are known, so it is easy enough to point to fiction being no more than changing facts. That's not what I think fiction is. To me fiction is interpreting and amplifying on facts. I would say that if the author explains himself or herself, as I did with my entirely fictional kingdom in An Involuntary Kingdom, but Randall Wallace does this in Braveheart. He says he communed with William Wallace in the porch of a church overlooking where Wallace was executed and he said OK to the changes. He wishes. Now it's my task to decide why what I did was OK, but not what Randall Wallace did. Have any thoughts on that?

Let's take it from there. I could go on with other reasons people change history in their novels and movies, but let's consider just this one for now. Why was it Randall Wallace's altering history was over the line, but my whole cloth creation of a kingdom was not? Or was it?