I haven't found so much in my published works, but with my old works that I posted on such places as Wattpad and Worthy of Publishing, I found there to be a lot of stigma surrounding historical inaccuracies. Some severely detest them, but what if they are the creation of the writer's mind in order to benefit the story? When do they become hindering components?
First of all, I am no expert whatsoever in this field and I tried my absolute hardest to stick by the book with the creation of my Greek mythological characters in my Poseidon's Girls trilogy. The downside to this is that it can make a novel difficult to write and I really struggled with Ice. I'm pretty sure my struggles came through in the writing as opposed to the consequential second and third instalments when looking into some of the negative feedback. I realise that Ice in particular wasn't my finest hour and I am going to go back over the work and try and fix these areas when I look into creating paperbacks.
Yet, is it the best thing to stick by the book and make sure that every single historical aspect is accurate? I think not. This is my own personal thought on the issue, not a solution.
Historical inaccuracy is often seen as something that can make or break a novel. If it doesn't go by the book, it isn't going to make it. I absolutely detest this stigma. I prefer to take historical facts and modify them to my own liking. Sometimes I completely rewrite historical texts, play around with mythology and laws. It makes writing fun. It makes writing unique.
Do you find that you enjoy a little bit of historical inaccuracy? What about in books you've read? Do you completely detest it or do you enjoy a little bit of give and take? Let me know your thoughts in the comments!