ABSTRACT
This paper considers whether the way we engage with the history plays should differ from the way in which we engage with the tragedies, comedies, or romances. An argument for thinking that the way we engage should not differ is that, as the history plays are not completely faithful to the historical record, they are fictional and hence on a par with the others. That argument is rejected. An argument for thinking the way we engage should differ is that the history plays, unlike the others, are non-fictional. That argument is also rejected. The paper then examines the theories of Kendall Walton, Gregory Currie, Kathleen Stock, and Derek Matravers and concludes that none are helpful in illuminating the issue. Finally, it is argued that central to the motivation of our engaging with narrative is our being entertained. This raises the issue of why anyone writes non-fiction; if the purpose is to entertain, why be constrained by fidelity to fact? It is concluded that fidelity to fact has an epistemic and non-epistemic role; to convey belief, but also to provide a particular sort of entertainment. Fidelity to fact is, if you like, a convention of the non-fiction genre. An advantage of this claim is that it readily explains the historical mutability of the rules governing the production of non-fictions.
