I have an affiliate relationship with Bookshop.org and Malaprop's Bookstore in beautiful Asheville, NC. I will earn a small commission at no additional cost to you if you purchase merchandise through links on my site. Read more on my affiliate page.
Given the choice, which do you prefer? Real history? Or historical fiction? (Assume, for the purposes of this discussion that they are equally well-written and engaging.)
I’m a dedicated fiction reader, so it’s almost impossible for me to get past my belief that non-fiction is dry and boring. So, in all reality, I’m going to go for the historical fiction every time.
But if I had two books on the same topic in front of me, and someone I trusted swore to me that they were both equally readable, I would actually go for the real history. I have a feeling I’ve picked up a lot of incorrect history over the years from reading historical fiction because it’s never easy to know which parts are “historical” and which parts are “fiction.” I’d rather have the facts straight in my head.
Which one would you pick up? You can share your answers here and at Booking Through Thursday.