If you're trying to get children to read and learn, why on earth would you run the risk of losing credibility by teaching them something that is 10% inaccurate?  Why not 20% or even 50%?  I would think that the goal should be to get it right, not just get it published.  Perfect example is Eckert's description of how Blue Jacket killed his white brother in battle.  That inaccuracy has tainted ALL of his work.  

Sunshine49 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  My view [and I've had two novels of historical fiction published, one 
of which attracted the attention of the BBC] is that getting people, 
and esp. children, to read and learn something about history in this 
day and age is important, even if it might be only 90% accurate. 
Better they learn that 90%, than nothing at all. And who knows, it 
might open the door for a few young minds to investigate history 
more. I like the concepts for your books, that's a great idea, and 
would engage kids' imaginations, which is wonderful.

Nancy

-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.

--Daniel Boone



On Feb 11, 2007, at 10:14 PM, Douglas Deal wrote:

> Anne:
>
> I see your point... I had misunderstood the basic "format" of the 
> book. But there is still the question of verisimilitude. What is it 
> that you want readers of your book to discover or understand about 
> early Jamestown and the native inhabitants of the area? What sort 
> of historical accuracy is necessary? What sort is unimportant?
>
> Doug
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the 
> instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html