historical fiction

    I have recently been reading a work of historical fiction by a very famous author.  I am certified to teach history in Pennsylvania's secondary schools and  I haven't read much historical fiction written for adults, because I usually read non-fiction. Historical fiction can be a good introduction to history. Many authors spend a lot of time doing research so that the historical background of their novels will be accurate. The main characters, all fictional, may mention political or religious figures who are history now. The plot of the novel may involve real historical conflicts--politics, war, religion, economics.
     But how is the reader to know if the author is an accurate historian? Authors who invent believable characters probably take the trouble to make sure that their history is also believable. The easiest way to write believable history would be to do some research. Writers of fiction do not have to cite sources, as academic writers have to do. So we don't know where they got their historical information.
     The book I've been reading recently has fictional characters meeting real figures from history, and having long conversations. These conversations can't actually be "real" history, as some of the characters are fictional. The author might have used writings of the real historical figures to make their parts of the conversations, but this would be time-consuming to check without some help from the author. I think the author just invented them, which I find a shocking notion--putting words into someone else's mouth, who can't sue because he's been dead a hundred years. Why do I believe that this particular author invented the conversations? Because he seems so unreliable in other ways--outrageous use of stereotypes, inconsistent grammar, including some errors many high-school students wouldn't have made.
   Reading is like listening to someone talk. We all know when we don't believe someone. Explaining why can be more difficult.