There are elements of fiction in any retrospective narrative, actually, whether it proclaims itself to be creative or historical - if the past is unknowable anyway, what's wrong with people doing as they like with it? At least fiction-writers generally admit that's what they're doing, whereas soi-disant historians are just as likely to be driven by personal agendas.

And what does it really matter, even if novels and plays ARE what shape people's ideas most? I myself have read plenty of "real" history too, but that's because I very much enjoy it and have some pretty amazing libraries at my disposal, not out of a belief that it's superior to creative work. I really find it quite hard to see why you're bothered about what people in general read or believe: you always have the option of sticking exclusively to academic history, or even of going back to the primary sources, so why do you care if other people prefer a mixture, or in some cases simply want to read fiction?