And I agree, but the problem is when the writer uses real history as compared to the "everybody knows" version. I've been repeatedly and patronizingly told to my face that the research I did a few years back on the European witch hunts was "wrong" because there's no evidence whatsoever that it was some big conspiracy to destroy European goddess worship. And the rather considerable historical evidence to the contrary? Well, of course, the Establishment is just trying to discredit its critics!

Or that, say, medieval European women were not universally or even mostly treated as mere soulless chattel -- they owned businesses, ran abbeys where they commanded male clergy and laity, ruled nations sometimes, etc. But no, 'everyone knows better'.

Heck, go and read some of Zora Neale Hurston's essays on what she referred to as "Our White Northern Friends (and yes, you can hear them use the capital letters)" and their utter dismay at finding Southern blacks living in real houses on real streets with real cars parked in front of them. Show that in a modern story and you'd probably be accused of being an apologist for racism.

Yes, you're right, but how much real history do people actually know?