Liadin Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 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.How is 20-30 years not "the past"? Everything that's already happened is in the past. Five minutes ago is the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 'The past' in a 'historical' sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadin Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 'The past' in a 'historical' sense.I'm not sure why you make that distinction, and why you draw the line where you do. Everything, once it's happened, is history. Why do you think it becomes more "historical" by virtue of more time having passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Iceman of the North Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 What is the point of the term 'historical fiction' if any novel set in our universe, but not in our future, falls into this category? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ormond Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I think in defining what is "historical fiction" it's good to look at what an academic expert on the subject says:http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org/historyic.htmThe most relevant paragraph from the above seems to me to be:I will mention that my journal, the Historical Novels Review, has a working definition, which we use for consistency purposes in deciding which books to review. To us, a “historical novel” is a novel which is set fifty or more years in the past, and one in which the author is writing from research rather than personal experience. Most autobiographical novels would not fit these criteria. Not all people agree on this definition, however, and even we occasionally break the rules. Some readers go so far as to say that a novel should only be called “historical” if the plot reflects its historical period so well that the story could not have occurred at any other time in history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nukelavee Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Liadin - Why are you splitting hairs to that point? In general, people don't consider 5 minutes ago to be "history". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargantuanjon Old Chap Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 This question has been bugging me for a while. Mostly, I'm OK with inaccurate and made up stuff in my historical fiction novels, I mean they're fiction right? But there has been a few instances lately where I really feel the author has gone too far. Conn Iggulden's Rome stuff I've gone off on on other threads but the one that has really driven me batty Lately is The Other Boelyn Girl. The worse par tot me is that the author has defended her book as being accurate, while anyone who's read more then 2 pages of English History can tell you that's absolute bullshit. Her list of sources is a joke too, mostly a secondary sources like Alison Weir and maybe a memoir or too. What do you guys think> When does historical in-accurateness in books start to bug you?Doesn't bother me at all. As far as I'm concerned, there is no "historical accuracy" at all.No one source is reliable. Sure, there are writings of some random monks that may coincide with others, but who says they are reliable too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolverine Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Doesn't bother me at all. As far as I'm concerned, there is no "historical accuracy" at all.No one source is reliable. Sure, there are writings of some random monks that may coincide with others, but who says they are reliable too?So since you can't 100% KNOW whether or not something happened you don't care about being accurate at all? I can't prove that there have never been fire breathing dragons on Earth but it would still cause me to doubt a historical story with them in it.There is still evidence that can be relied upon when writing history. I appreciate authors who can create a story that appears accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadin Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 What is the point of the term 'historical fiction' if any novel set in our universe, but not in our future, falls into this category?Er, to sort out books about historical events or societies from books that are contemporary, or dominated by speculative elements, or dominated by romance or mystery elements, or nonfiction, I suppose. Historical fiction to me is the genre of works set in the past. It might be unclear from this argument, but generally I would not include books set in the U.S. in like 2002 to be "historical fiction." They generally don't chronicle any historical events and they don't feel historical to me, in that the society they portray is extremely similar to society today. But I just accept the idea that in 200 years, people might consider said books historical fiction, and be perfectly correct.I think in defining what is "historical fiction" it's good to look at what an academic expert on the subject says:I'm not sure why I should care about "academic experts" in formulating my personal conception of a genre I enjoy. If an academic expert defines "fantasy" not to include anything sufficiently "literary," regardless of the fact that it's chock-full of fantasy elements and tropes, do you accept that? And it brings back this 50-year thing, which is just arbitrary as hell.Liadin - Why are you splitting hairs to that point? In general, people don't consider 5 minutes ago to be "history".Well, and I'm not arguing that someone who writes a book today set last year is writing something I'd consider historical fiction when it's published. I don't think I'm splitting hairs; I think people split hairs when they insist something set 51 years after it was written is historical fiction but 45 years after it was written is not. But at this point I think all my arguments have been laid out, so we can lay this discussion to rest if everyone's tired of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Bass Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 The second definition in Ormond's quote is my personal favorite definition of "Historical Fiction": fiction whose setting is instrinsically tied to a particular year or time period. That means that technically, you could do "historical fiction" set in the year 2005, but the setting in 2005 would be so similar to how things are now that most people would treat your novel as Contemporary Fiction.That does not mean that it's 100% accurate about that time period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadin Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 Right, I agree with the second part of the definition, which is more or less what I'm working with. Essentially, what I'm trying to say about "contemporary novels" is that they become more intrinsically tied to their time period as said time period moves further into the past. Right now, a novel about 2005--yeah, most of the time it could just as easily be set in 1990, or 2011, and no, I wouldn't consider it historical fiction. Most of the time the setting isn't actually an important element of these novels, or doesn't seem that way to a contemporary reader. But in 2200, when society is (presumably) totally different, something set in 2005 is likely to seem intrinsically tied to the early 21st century. As with the Jane Austen books. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spring Bass Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 I agree.What interests me is that we're getting far enough away from the 1980s and 1990s for historical fiction to be written that isn't more or less the same as Contemporary Fiction right now. Some of the films and novels from the 1980s have already achieved "period piece" status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargantuanjon Old Chap Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 double post, please delete (sorry!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargantuanjon Old Chap Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 So since you can't 100% KNOW whether or not something happened you don't care about being accurate at all? I can't prove that there have never been fire breathing dragons on Earth but it would still cause me to doubt a historical story with them in it.There is still evidence that can be relied upon when writing history. I appreciate authors who can create a story that appears accurate.Let's not get into extremes. I don't think the authors who add dragons into historical fiction are typically criticized for not being historically accurate enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 As a historian, I'd argue that yes, when a novel is written is really important for if it's considered historical fiction or not.Namely: In historical fiction the author has no direct access to the time-period in question, he or she has to rely (as historians do, although obviously authors of fiction are free to just make shit up) on the historical record.Someone writing a contemporary novel has all sorts of access to information that isn't "historical". That creates a totally different playing field. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 19, 2011 Author Share Posted May 19, 2011 Doesn't bother me at all. As far as I'm concerned, there is no "historical accuracy" at all.No one source is reliable. Sure, there are writings of some random monks that may coincide with others, but who says they are reliable too? So if I wrote a Historical Novel about Hitler being misunderstood and the holocaust being an elaborate joke staged by the Russian mob....that's OK? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liadin Posted May 19, 2011 Share Posted May 19, 2011 As a historian, I'd argue that yes, when a novel is written is really important for if it's considered historical fiction or not.Namely: In historical fiction the author has no direct access to the time-period in question, he or she has to rely (as historians do, although obviously authors of fiction are free to just make shit up) on the historical record.Someone writing a contemporary novel has all sorts of access to information that isn't "historical". That creates a totally different playing field.Sure, but why does it matter that the playing field's uneven? An author with military experience has a major leg up on writing about anything to do with the military or war, but we don't consider those books less military--quite the opposite. Do you think it's better if a book relies on more academic research rather than personal experience/interviews/whatever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 Sure, but why does it matter that the playing field's uneven? Because the conditions are different. Writing a work about a contemporary event is different from writing one about a historical event becuase the nature of the sources are different, the nature of the reaction to the event (eg. hindsight) are different, and so on and so forth.Someone writing a contemporary novel has no idea how the historical events they are involved in are going to unfold. Someone writing a historical novel has the benefit of hindsight in that case, but also suffers from different problems. Historical writing just isn't like contemporary writing for the same reason ice-cream isn't like waffles. Do you think it's better if a book relies on more academic research rather than personal experience/interviews/whatever?No, why would it be? It's different though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gargantuanjon Old Chap Posted May 20, 2011 Share Posted May 20, 2011 So if I wrote a Historical Novel about Hitler being misunderstood and the holocaust being an elaborate joke staged by the Russian mob....that's OK?I think you are free to write whatever the heck you want, as long as it's not illegal (is anything illegal to write in the US? is it just the hate stuff?).How seriously you will be taken is another story.What bothers me about criticism of historical novels is mostly the anal nitpicking. "Oh this prince couldn't be gay" or "oh, he couldn't have said this to his wife, monk X specifically recorded that he said Y".Once again, let's not get into extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grack21 Posted May 20, 2011 Author Share Posted May 20, 2011 I think you are free to write whatever the heck you want, as long as it's not illegal (is anything illegal to write in the US? is it just the hate stuff?).How seriously you will be taken is another story.What bothers me about criticism of historical novels is mostly the anal nitpicking. "Oh this prince couldn't be gay" or "oh, he couldn't have said this to his wife, monk X specifically recorded that he said Y".Once again, let's not get into extremes. Painting a non gay historical figure as gay or vice versa is pretty extreme. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.