When is the fiction in Historical Fiction too much?

[Liadin]

RISE FROM THE GRAVE YE OLD THREAD OF MINE

Check this out. I think my IQ dropped looking at it,

It's got nothing on this one.

[Crazydog7]

RISE FROM THE GRAVE YE OLD THREAD OF MINE

Check this out. I think my IQ dropped looking at it,

I'm sorry but WTF is Clan of the Cave Bear doing on that list?

[Ouroboros]

It's got nothing on this one.

Romeo and Juliet isn't a book its a play!

At least the rest are actual novels, I hate it when people say their favourite novels are the works of Shakespeare. The man did not write books for chrissakes. May as well say your favourite book is the screenplay of Inception or something.

Just a pet peeve of mine.

[Grack21]

I'm sorry but WTF is Clan of the Cave Bear doing on that list?

Yeah, that was my point. You should of seen it before the mods started cleaning it up.

[Liadin]

I'm sorry but WTF is Clan of the Cave Bear doing on that list?

In all fairness, I don't think it's that bad (especially compared to the "best books ever" list where the Twilight books make up 4 of the top 5. That just makes me sad). The later books in the series are essentially porn and by all accounts awful by the end (I only read the first two), but the first one--which is the only one they have in the top 100--is a decent story, with very little sex and a lot of good stuff on how people might have lived in prehistoric times. One might argue that prehistoric fiction isn't "historical" fiction, but while that may be technically true I tend to lump everything set in the real-world past together in my mind, and it seems a bit silly to me to make such a technical distinction.

The thing about these lists is that people can nominate whatever they want, and then it becomes a popularity contest. So it's definitely weighted toward popular and occasionally trashy stuff, but TOBG is the only book in the top 10 that's really embarrassing, and for a Goodreads list voted on by several thousand people that's pretty good.

[Grack21]

Well I was more referring to how many books on there aren't actually historical fiction. They've been cleaning it up, but, Mists of Avalon? No sir, I don't like it.

I'm kind of surprised Twilight isn't on there. It's on every other goodresds list. :)

[Liadin]

Well I was more referring to how many books on there aren't actually historical fiction. They've been cleaning it up, but, Mists of Avalon? No sir, I don't like it.

Oh, the list definitely defines "historical fiction" broadly. Is To Kill a Mockingbird really historical fiction? Wasn't it contemporary when it was written? A lot of people don't consider a book historical fiction unless it's set at least 50 years before it was written. Which would knock A Thousand Splendid Suns right out too, since it ends in like 2002. Hell, for that matter a lot of people think anything set after WW2 isn't historical fiction, period.

But historical fantasy is another whole can of worms. What about Arthurian-based books that aren't quite so mystical? Isn't Cornwell's version usually considered historical fiction? Do you knock out a book that's set in the historical past because the author includes some minor fantasy element like having a character see visions of the future? Where do you draw the line? I can see why the mods decided to just let in everything set on Earth in the past. Much easier.

[Grack21]

I've been debating about Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles all day. It's tough to call. Heck the bookstores here can't even decide. Some have it in fiction, some in fantasy. Same with Jack Whyte. I've also haven't read Mists of Avalon in like a million years but my understanding is it isn't that historical based.

Yeah there's definitely some things on there that were written in the time thy were set that shouldn't be on there. Jane Austin pops out immediately. There's some non fiction on there too, which makes me wonder about the future of humanity.

On a random note, I really need to pick up Wolf Hall.

[Liadin]

I've been debating about Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles all day. It's tough to call. Heck the bookstores here can't even decide. Some have it in fiction, some in fantasy. Same with Jack Whyte. I've also haven't read Mists of Avalon in like a million years but my understanding is it isn't that historical based.

My question, though, is where do you draw the line? Presumably you wouldn't declare a book to be "not HF" because a minor character has a prophetic dream at some point; you have to concede that it's possible to have some speculative element and still be HF or you wind up with some really bizarre results. So, it's been ages since I've read The Mists of Avalon too (should probably re-read, I was a kid and mostly just remember the sex), and I agree that it's more fantasy than HF, but with a couple thousand books on the list it seems like it would be really hard to make that call.

Yeah there's definitely some things on there that were written in the time thy were set that shouldn't be on there. Jane Austin pops out immediately.

So I tend to define genres much more broadly than a lot of people, and I guess I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on this. It seems silly to me to determine whether or not a book belongs in a genre not based on any part of the text but rather the year in which it was written. I definitely think A Thousand Splendid Suns is HF even though the setting is recent; the entire story is so shaped by historical events (Russia's attempted invasion of Afghanistan, the rise of the Taliban, and finally the US invasion) that not calling it HF seems entirely arbitrary. Basically the same with TKAM: not HF since it was written 25 years after it was set, but would be if 50 years had passed? That doesn't make much sense.

I am stuck on the Jane Austen though. On the one hand, it's certainly historical now, and gives us a window into a historical culture. On the other, she was clearly writing for contemporary readers and doesn't attempt to give any kind of history lesson (it took ages before I realized all those soldiers trooping around were connected to the Napoleonic Wars!). But then, I'm not sure "extent to which the author is obviously trying to teach a history lesson" is a good measure of what's HF either.

If I were a mod on there, honestly I'd probably just let in anything that is set a) on earth and b ) in the past. Twilight would get deleted though. :)

[The Iceman of the North]

RISE FROM THE GRAVE YE OLD THREAD OF MINE

Check this out. I think my IQ dropped looking at it,

To Kill a Mockingbird? Les Misérables? The Grapes of Wrath? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? A Thousand Splendid Suns? The Count of Monte Cristo?

For a literary list, people seems to have a low literacy level.

[Grack21]

To Kill a Mockingbird? Les Misérables? The Grapes of Wrath? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? A Thousand Splendid Suns? The Count of Monte Cristo?

For a literary list, people seems to have a low literacy level.

Haha yeah. Generally speaking, if the author experienced the period he/she is writing about I dont believe its considered historical fiction. That's how I define it too.

[SerArthurHeath]

When the author's made up character starts out performing or proves to be the 'real' source behind someones famous deed. It doesn't even have to be a strictly fictional character, just a player in a historical event whose role is greatly expanded beyond the reality of the historical events. Outside of parody it really is quite naseauting.

Usually I'd agree, but then Gaiman did it in one of the issues of Sandman with Morpheus and the fall of the Roman Empire. I think a good author can pull it off. Though this was a fantasy story so obviously suspension of disbelief is necessary anyway. And Gaiman, so it was easy

[AverageGuy]

I am stuck on the Jane Austen though. On the one hand, it's certainly historical now, and gives us a window into a historical culture. On the other, she was clearly writing for contemporary readers and doesn't attempt to give any kind of history lesson (it took ages before I realized all those soldiers trooping around were connected to the Napoleonic Wars!). But then, I'm not sure "extent to which the author is obviously trying to teach a history lesson" is a good measure of what's HF either.

I agree with Grack about the author experiencing the period. IMO if you're going to classify "historical now" as historical fiction, pretty much every non-genre book written will eventually become historical fiction, and that just seems too potentially broad.

[Liadin]

To Kill a Mockingbird? Les Misérables? The Grapes of Wrath? The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? A Thousand Splendid Suns? The Count of Monte Cristo?

For a literary list, people seems to have a low literacy level.

Haha yeah. Generally speaking, if the author experienced the period he/she is writing about I dont believe its considered historical fiction. That's how I define it too.

So, if a 90-year-old writes a book today about life during WW2, you wouldn't call it historical fiction, but if a 40-year-old does the same thing, or for that matter if a 20-year-old writes a book about life in Russia in the 80s, you would? The problem with all these bright-line rules is that they're so arbitrary and illogical, and it's rather mean-spirited to snark about people's literacy because they don't have the same conception of the genre as you do.

I agree with Grack about the author experiencing the period. IMO if you're going to classify "historical now" as historical fiction, pretty much every non-genre book written will eventually become historical fiction, and that just seems too potentially broad.

Well, that's the counterargument. It doesn't seem much more logical for novels to change genre as they age as for a novel's genre to depend on how long the author waited to write it, or how old the author was at the time of writing. So I really don't know where I stand on stuff like Jane Austen's books, although I don't object if people want to list them among their HF favorites. I definitely classify books like A Thousand Splendid Suns as HF though: they chronicle a historical period that's in the past, and that's what HF is all about.

[Liadin]

DP

[wolverine]

I've been debating about Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles all day. It's tough to call. Heck the bookstores here can't even decide. S

I would label it HF. I think he is portraying the time period in a way that he believes is accurate. People really did have the religious beliefs in the books. I don't recall anything magic actually happening that would remove it from HF. People proclaim to do magic but pretty much all of it is explained as not magic at some point. The only part may be Merlin quasi-resurrection.

[Grack21]

So, if a 90-year-old writes a book today about life during WW2, you wouldn't call it historical fiction, but if a 40-year-old does the same thing, or for that matter if a 20-year-old writes a book about life in Russia in the 80s, you would? The problem with all these bright-line rules is that they're so arbitrary and illogical, and it's rather mean-spirited to snark about people's literacy because they don't have the same conception of the genre as you do.

Well, that's the counterargument. It doesn't seem much more logical for novels to change genre as they age as for a novel's genre to depend on how long the author waited to write it, or how old the author was at the time of writing. So I really don't know where I stand on stuff like Jane Austen's books, although I don't object if people want to list them among their HF favorites. I definitely classify books like A Thousand Splendid Suns as HF though: they chronicle a historical period that's in the past, and that's what HF is all about.

It's hard. A Thousand Splendid Suns seems like it should be HF to me, but somehow Jane Austin doesn't. Mists of Avalon I just can't see as HF at all. It's blurry line. I'm just going to blame goodreads.

[lifefullofwords]

Well, that's the counterargument. It doesn't seem much more logical for novels to change genre as they age as for a novel's genre to depend on how long the author waited to write it, or how old the author was at the time of writing. So I really don't know where I stand on stuff like Jane Austen's books, although I don't object if people want to list them among their HF favorites. I definitely classify books like A Thousand Splendid Suns as HF though: they chronicle a historical period that's in the past, and that's what HF is all about.

Austen is not historical fiction, for one very simple reason: she wrote about her own time period. I think readers see her in particular as HF because many people think the Regency period was just like a Jane Austen novel. Austen wasn't even attempting to give the reader a broad picture of Regency society anyway, her scope is very limited. If you are going to call Austen HF then you can call any non-contemporary realist fiction HF.

Oh, the list definitely defines "historical fiction" broadly. Is To Kill a Mockingbird really historical fiction? Wasn't it contemporary when it was written? A lot of people don't consider a book historical fiction unless it's set at least 50 years before it was written. Which would knock A Thousand Splendid Suns right out too, since it ends in like 2002. Hell, for that matter a lot of people think anything set after WW2 isn't historical fiction, period.

Actually, To Kill a Mockingbird was published in 1960 and takes place during the Great Depression so technically it is historical fiction, albeit fiction about recent history. That said, I'm sure it was included on that list because it's about the past since that seemed to be the only trait unifying all of those books.

Mark Twain's Adventures of Huckleberry Finn might be a good example on how to avoid the "anachronistic gut feeling that X is wrong" situation. If I recall correctly, Huck's conscience - his "gut" - tells him he needs to turn in Jim the runaway slave, but he refuses to do it. Having a character find their way to a better moral position from our standpoint in an older setting makes for very good stories.

I know somebody said this like a month ago but I just wanted to mention that this is NOT a good example of an "anachronistic gut feeling". Mark Twain published The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn in the 1880s, several decades after the Civil War ended slavery in the US. The book is, like To Kill a Mockingbird, historical fiction about recent history, in this case the antebellum period. Even if it had been written during the antebellum period it wouldn't have been an anachronistic feeling though since the anti-slavery movement dates back to the 18th century.

[Liadin]

Right, I guess ultimately I just don't see any point in classifying books set in the past as "not historical fiction." True, Jane Austen doesn't try to give a view of the whole society, but not all undisputably HF books do either. There are plenty of modern books about the British monarchs that just focus on noble classes, often through just one or two characters, and nobody considers them "not HF" for that reason. And surely we don't think it's better to read books about a period that were written much later, rather than written contemporaneously or soon after. So I'm not sure what's gained by excluding books written at the time.

[The Iceman of the North]

To me HF is fiction set in the past by the author. Two or three decades hardly counts as 'the past'. I'd say 50 years is a good cut off rate, but whether the author was alive or not during the period should be irrelevant.