Historical Fiction versus Fictitious History

The other day I had to be brow beaten into beginning a book I've been told was wonderful by dozens of students and dozens of other aquaintances, Ron Carter's Our Sacred Honor. I had feared that it would be like so much fiction that is set in History - more fiction than history. Then, too, it is LDS literature which is something that has sometimes embarrassed me in the past with its not-quite-polished feel.

But this book seems to avoid both those pitfalls. So far, at least, his History is right on. Indeed, he seems to know the eighteenth century better than I do. There are instances when people use l anguage which I know they would never have used then, and it does bother me some, but generally, the story is quite believable. This is because it is true, except for about half the major characters.

Only once has he committed the faux pas of calling a musket a rifle. Once. I guess I can let that slide. When he gets to the battles of the Revolution, he'd better know the difference. After all, one is useful at forty yards and deadly at 100. The other allows you to "reach out and touch someone" much further away and with much more certainty of a hit. It took generals a long time to learn that, too, which is why such shootouts as Crimea, the American Civil War, and the First World War were so unnecessarily horrific.

The quality of the story-telling itself, together with an easy way with English has also won me over. If this keeps up, I'll probably have to read all the sequels.