Sunday, October 2, 2011

Should Children Read Inaccurate Historical Fiction?

I was hooked on historical fiction novels starting with the American Girl books. My parents had me start reading the Molly American Girl books because she grew up during World War II, the same time period as my grandparents. I believe that is one reasons that I enjoy historical fiction; I was taught at an early age to personally relate to historical fiction. I not only enjoyed the plot but also enjoyed learning about the time period that the stories took place in. Historical fiction books also gave me a greater love of history because I could relate what I was reading to what I was learning in class.

I have since read many different historical fiction books including many Dear America books and many by the author Ann Rinaldi and never once have I thought about the accuracy of the books. While I was more focused on the plot lines than on the specific historical details, I still picked up on a lot of historical information. Having inaccurate historical information can be harmful to students who will then have misrepresentations of the time period or historical event (The Joys of Children’s Literature, 215).

When historical fiction novels include people of races and cultures different from that of the author, it is especially important to analyze the text for accuracy. Despite research on the subject they are writing on, many authors and illustrators still do not accurately portray their subject. This not only gives readers an inaccurate representation of that culture but may be offensive for members of that culture (The Joys of Children’s Literature, 217).

Should historical fiction be carefully analyzed before allowing children to read it or should we allow some historical inaccuracies through if plot is exciting? Could inaccurate historical fiction be used to develop student’s critical thinking?

1 comment:

  1. I think that a little bit of inaccuracy concerning historical fiction is okay, but there comes a point where it takes away from the story and becomes confusing to the reader. Also, it can be detrimental to them as they learn history further down the road. I know that I self-taught myself a lot of history in elementary school, and felt I was prepared to go into higher level history classes because I felt I knew a lot. However, some books that I read to help me learn about history fudged the facts for the sake of keeping the story interesting, and therefore, I became confused because what I thought I knew was different from the actual facts I needed to know. In cases like that, it's better to stick to the straight facts (while still remaining interesting to the reader) rather than making things up to make the plot go smoother. I feel like this: if a story makes mention of something that isn't quite right, like a character briefly using slang that was from a different era, but doesn't harm the story or confuse the facts, then you can let it slide. If a book about the Depression mentions that most people are well off financially, and the Depression only affected certain people, well, obviously you have to step back and decide whether or not this is a worthwhile historical fiction book.

    ReplyDelete