I learned a lot about history from the historical fiction novels I was assigned growing up. An especially prolific author I read from was G.A. Henty, who would intersperse his story formula with play-by-play accountings of historical events. While his focus was British history, he also covered adjacent periods such as the French Revolution and the American Civil War. Always prevalent was his strong sense of patriotism; some of his works featured more questionable ideology, but overall his focus was to instill the cultural values of his time into his readers while elevating their knowledge of history.
Henty’s writing followed a consistent structure; the primary character would be an honorable young man whose character conflict was external (i.e., concerning external circumstances, as opposed to personal vices). This man would not experience significant character development, but would instead serve as a point of connection for the reader’s investment in the events the character would experience. In the stories I read, this character would rarely interact with any historical figures; their presence would be referenced, and their activities would be described as the story moved forward, but they were not often directly depicted. I suspect this was a calculated safety measure for Henty; ideas presented within the story would be from the perspective of his own characters, rather than as the beliefs of real people past.
It is a risky thing to adapt the personages of history into dramatization. To do so requires that their personalities and values be depicted in a direct and personal manner. While such depiction is realistically accurate, we are rarely privileged to such an exact knowledge of a person in their absence; even more recent figures suffer some ambiguity in our reckoning. What is more, the one responsible for such adaptation must inevitably contribute their own interpretation, thereby corrupting the accuracy of the resulting depiction. If the receiver of this dramatic enhancement does not exercise due discernment, they may come to believe things about people and events of the past that are not actually true.
In most cases, the negative impact of this phenomenon is admittedly minimal. Our ideas concerning people, past or present, should not be the foundation of our worldview; at most they may contribute nuance of understanding, and more often they are themselves subject to our bias. What is more concerning is the potential misconceptions of God that can arise from flippant depictions thereof. Should dramatic adaptations of history include the ministry of Christ, we stray into the territory of potential blasphemy by interposing our own perceptions onto the Son of God. Better to hold fast to Scripture and glorify God according to His standards.
Be aware. TTT