Manikya’s review of Black and White and Read All Over > Likes and Comments

You've expanded on the most asked question I get: "What's real and what's made-up?" Or, "What's fiction and what's historical fact?" And then of course: "Aren't you obligated to tell us where this story sits up against pure history?" or some variation. Here's where I am with this conundrum, which is in no way rule-based. This is just my way of thinking about historical fiction. "Fiction" is the operative word. Once that's established -- and "novel" does it -- it becomes a work subject to the writer's imagination. I confess that I don't want to write pure history for that reason: that imagination is frowned on in straight history where everything has to be tied down with a footnote leading to further historical reassurances. This is no comment on the quality of writing history; Rick Atkinson's American Revolution books are stunning narratives of what happened -- actually. But I admit there were times and characters where I wondered if he'd wanted to have gone deeper in an attempt at finding a more profound truth, using speculation and ... his obviously fecund imagination. I must also admit that I take on a subject in order to tell a story, as completely as I can, and believe that pure history can only do that so far. I may give the reader indications of my historical research (which I do in this book in the notes on Sources), but as a story-teller and fiction writer, I don't feel obliged to explain the history of the story and must hope the reader can go with the fiction of it, hoping the more complete truth gets through.