There's an interesting half step in literature where there's both fiction and facts woven together. Then there's some authors who can tell history like it's a story. I think any author, who can get you to visualize a time period through words, is a good author
I am thinking that when you say "facts" you are refering to some idea of "reality", as oppose to "fiction" that include non-historical or some sort of fantastic element (magic, monsters)? I think this again is rather subjective and genre based and that there is no simple binary.
Generally every single movie is a work of fiction and everything else is a documentary (historical, biographical). There might be some literature/films that are "based on a true story" that stretches or dramatizes, but one would still put that under biopics (such as Oppheimer or Darkest Hour) versus documentary. I am guessing you're also refering to biopics? The biopic involves dramatic interpretation instead whereas a documentary/history books only presents and stitches together recorded evidence such as letters/photographs/video clips (but may use reenactment scenes for -illustrative- purposes). There are great historical documentaries/book that are just as thrilling and interesting to watch because of sequencing, editorial choices, narration, etc. If it is a legitament documentary or history book there ideally should be no "fiction. To be even more technical and annoying, history books can also be one-sided records/intrepation (history is written by the victor). There are such things as historic peer-reviewed journals where researchers try to systematically get to the "facts" of events which the work of any serious historian worth their salt, as oppose to one person's unchallenged interpretation of events. There's nothing natural or normal about this effort of "cateloging" human linear time and the particular method of
historism to produce
historicty is readily challenged. When does a rather banal object become an object of history? Another way to think about is our collective understanding of any "thing" (people, place, events) is as a result of these collected "histories" which are fundamentally selective interpretation, and many more people's untold stories or factual events are erased or untold. Traditional historiography requires a periodization, which is in someways abitrary categories that put the objects of time in neat containers rooted in postivist science. But "history" can be cut up and divided in all sorts of ways and manners that lead to dramatically different readings and collective conciousness.
Thie history (myth) of Christopher Columbus "discovering" the "New World" is an example, rooted in lots of interpretations such as perodizing a time negatvely (Dark Ages) against an "Enligthened" era. But I'm going off tanget!
The work of fiction need not be totally devoid of "truth". How do we know a fictional story and the range of experiences and emotions didn't actually happen to someone, somewhere, sometime? Does it matter that it's elves and hobbits if their journey and experiences are very much relatable and even familiar?
"Of course it is happening inside
your head,
Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?" - Dumbledore