Accuracy in Historical Fiction

As a historian, I have a love/hate relationship with historical fiction, in both movies and books. When done correctly, there's nothing I love more than picking up a novel set in the Middle Ages (either about commoners, such as The Pillars of the Earth, or about royalty, a la Jean Plaidy and Sharon Kay Penman). When done badly, though, I tend to completely reject its existence (little known fact - there was no Oscar for Best Picture in 1996 because Braveheart was never made).

From the time when I was eleven and saw Titanic and Anastasia, I've been critiquing the historical accuracy of books and movies. I used to think that describing the correct years, names, places, actions, or consequences was all that contributed to a text's historical accuracy; however, in the past year I've begun to realize that a second aspect can undermine it completely. A historical novel can contain engaging plots with themes that resonate with modern society, but it would completely fail as historical fiction if the characters are not believable in their setting. If an author or screenwriter isn't going to take the time to thoroughly research a time period, why bother basing an entire story around it?

I've noticed that many authors employ the same formula of an "enlightened protagonist" clashing with the "ignorant/racist/etc" supporting characters who are actually more representative of the time period. I can think of two reasons for this trend. Either the author picked the historical setting exclusively to point out the flaws in past cultures, or the author mistakenly believes that an audience can only relate to a story where the protagonist shares its views on women, slavery, religion, etc.

For example, if a novel or movie is going to be  set in the United States in the early nineteenth century, then slavery is obviously a topic that the author must address as some point. More often than not, though, the protagonist just happens to be the one person in the family who believes that slavery is wrong...even if the family owns slaves! Watching the protagonist interact with slaves, struggling with his belief system, and eventually form his own opinions instead of relying upon society is one thing; in such cases, the story is very emotionally compelling. But casually writing a scene in order to acknowledge that the protagonist is aware of slavery, yet not supportive, just seems lazy.

I'm half-way through World Without End, the sequel to The Pillars of the Earth, and as much as historians (including myself) love to pick on Ken Follett for his artistic license, I've realized that he does understand the medieval mindset and creates appropriate characters. Some bishops and monks are earnestly religious while others are ambitious; the nobility change frequently allegiances in their efforts to gain more land and power; and the working class struggle from year to year in order to put food on the table. Each character's actions come from believable motivations, and never once have I felt like Follett was using his text to preach to me.