"Literature vs. History" Topic

When studying a new period what percentage of your reading is literature (fictional or non-historical nonfiction) and what percentage straight history?

For me it really depends on the time period. Anything in the 19th century will typically see me reading about two pieces of literature of the period for every book about the period.

17th century is about even in history vs. literature.

Obviously some periods are harder to read much literature. I've read a lot more history books about Greece than I've read or seen Greek plays or poems.

I've read a lot more 20th century literature than read history books about the 20th century.

When studying a new period what percentage of your reading is literature (fictional or non-historical nonfiction) and what percentage straight history?

Mostly straight history, unless there is a good series of historical fiction available relating to the period.

100% history- I gave all my fiction to charity to free up space some years ago – the odd novel survives in the loft but I don't read them – I find actual events far more edifying…

History for me too, fiction is only useful for getting the feel of a period IMHO.

Fiction has often inspired me to research an historical period in order to wargame it. I have created the odd game to recreate incidents in a novel, such as Magwitch in Great Expectations trying to elude pursuing soldiers as he escapes from the hulk.

Contemporary fiction might be useful in researching a period but modern writers can't really get the right perspective on a period. There is usually an overlay of 'modern' values that clash with period values or the author simply hasn't researched well enough and makes glaring errors.

Ficton is for fun not research.

GildaFacit, I tend to agree with you, but even a poorly researched and inaccurate novel with little sense of period may bring an interesting new period or scenario to one's attention.

The anachronistic 'modern' values will often not matter, unless the fiction is being used to create a roleplaying game, as they will play little part in creating the game.

"Ficton is for fun not research."

This is clearly not true. How could you understand a period without seeing what the people living in it thought.

Also I'm not really talking about modern historical fiction of a period, but the literature written during the period you are studying.

To try to understand what the British were doing in various places around the world in 1850 without reading anything written by people in 1850 seems a little unbalanced.

I mostly read history but have read fiction in periods I very interested in

Dear pictors studio.

We are in agreement

If you want to understand a period and what the people living in it thought, then read THEIR literature, THEIR writings, and listen to THEIR music, THEIR art, not what some modern hack writes. If the words are difficult, the concepts difficult, the virtues alien to you, then work till you get it and understand it.

The term "historical fiction" means fiction written about the past by todays writers. That's different from "Victorian Fiction" or "French Fiction of the 18th century etc.-- that is, the fiction of the time.

100% history

Non-fiction for research but sometimes fiction for inspiration. For example, the Hornblower stories have provided a good few naval scenarios over the years and the Sir Robert Carey stories by PF Chisholm have recently got me to dig out my unpainted Border Reivers and start painting.

Totally history…it's THE reason I play wargames.

For those of you who read 100% history, do you feel as though you understand the period without reading writing from people in the period?

Pictor….I'll read first person accounts from the period, but I don't think fiction really adds much to it UNLESS the author was actually involved in the events. Then you might get additional understanding.

My problem with the fiction side is the author will often impose his/her perceptions on what he/she thinks it might have been like on the battlefield without ever having seen a bullet fired in anger. At the same time fiction authors (like movies) have to take a stand on an event that is questionable but, because it's fiction, the author can't take the time to evaluate each theory for the reader.

In the end, fiction (like a movie) is about entertainment and not history.

This is clearly not true. How could you understand a period without seeing what the people living in it thought.

You won't find out how people thought from fiction unless it was written at the time the story is set.

Later writers will put their own interpretation on events. Come to think of it, so do some historians.