How do you qualify Historical Fiction?

[Jon_B]

Today I saw a discussion on Twitter, which I thought was interesting, and I wanted to raise this question here and see what folks here at the Book Clubs thought.  And thanks to Bethanne and @LitChat on Twitter for inspiring this question!

That question is: how do you qualify Historical Fiction? 

According to the Historical Novel Society, a historical novel "must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."

Personally, I tend to disagree with this definition as it seems rather limiting.  If a current author wrote something like, say, a romantic novel about lovers in Berlin in the 80's, one on either side of the Wall - I'd certainly call that historical fiction.  In fact I'd consider anything with a setting up until this year to be "historical" fiction so long as that setting played an important role in the book.

But that's just me, and maybe my definition is too broad.  The Society certainly acknowledge that everyone seems to have their own definition, and offer some interesting essays explaining the reasons behind them.

But what do you think?  Where does "contemporary" end and "historical" begin? 

[Melissa_W Moderator]

I tend to peg "contemporaneous" as something written concurrently and doesn't pin the setting to an actual year or event.  "Historical" gets a bit harder but if you have to do research on the subject to get the setting, events, and characters all right and correct (especially if the author wasn't right in the middle of the event), then it could probably considered historical fiction.

For example, I was alive and aware of grunge when it became cool in the 1990s but I would need to do research on it because I have pretty much no personal experience I could draw on for a novel.  Aside from buying Nirvana CDs. 

---

Jon_B wrote:

Today I saw a discussion on Twitter, which I thought was interesting, and I wanted to raise this question here and see what folks here at the Book Clubs thought.  And thanks to Bethanne and @LitChat on Twitter for inspiring this question!

That question is: how do you qualify Historical Fiction? 

According to the Historical Novel Society, a historical novel "must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."

Personally, I tend to disagree with this definition as it seems rather limiting.  If a current author wrote something like, say, a romantic novel about lovers in Berlin in the 80's, one on either side of the Wall - I'd certainly call that historical fiction.  In fact I'd consider anything with a setting up until this year to be "historical" fiction so long as that setting played an important role in the book.

But that's just me, and maybe my definition is too broad.  The Society certainly acknowledge that everyone seems to have their own definition, and offer some interesting essays explaining the reasons behind them.

But what do you think?  Where does "contemporary" end and "historical" begin? 

---

[Stephanie]

---

Jon_B wrote:

Today I saw a discussion on Twitter, which I thought was interesting, and I wanted to raise this question here and see what folks here at the Book Clubs thought.  And thanks to Bethanne and @LitChat on Twitter for inspiring this question!

That question is: how do you qualify Historical Fiction? 

According to the Historical Novel Society, a historical novel "must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."

But what do you think?  Where does "contemporary" end and "historical" begin? 

---

So, if an old soldier wants to write a tale about the Korean War, and he was there, even though it's more than 50 years ago, it's not historical fiction?  Hmmm.  I agree with you Jon, this definition is too limiting.

[Taylor-Marie]

I agree too, that definition doesn't cut it.

I count anything about historic events as a historical fiction, whether it's about some king from Europe to someone writing about their trips to the Middle East because they're in the military.

[KathyS]

---

Stephanie wrote:

---

Jon_B wrote:

Today I saw a discussion on Twitter, which I thought was interesting, and I wanted to raise this question here and see what folks here at the Book Clubs thought.  And thanks to Bethanne and @LitChat on Twitter for inspiring this question!

That question is: how do you qualify Historical Fiction? 

According to the Historical Novel Society, a historical novel "must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."

But what do you think?  Where does "contemporary" end and "historical" begin? 

---

So, if an old soldier wants to write a tale about the Korean War, and he was there, even though it's more than 50 years ago, it's not historical fiction?  Hmmm.  I agree with you Jon, this definition is too limiting.

---

For the most part, it's like trying to define the difference between a collectable and an antique.  Fifty years makes it an antique.  I guess that's me!

Most historical fiction readers [as far as I've heard] who tout themselves as purests, tend to want history depicted as 'accurately' as possible in their novels.   They tend to get nasty if even one fact is inaccurate.  

Facts and dates tend to smooth themselves out over time, fifty years seems to do it, this given more time for historians to discuss  facts in the interim, amongst people who actually write history.  And it's up to the novelist to find out what those facts are.

If someone lives those times, and wants to use those events to write about, no matter the date; yesterday, last year, or fifty years ago, I guess you could call it historical fiction, if you wanted to, whether old or not.  Now the definition is: Is it history, or just old news?

As for me, I like events in history to be close enough to the story, to give it belieability, and over fifty years - but a novel is a novel = a novel.

[utopian]

---

Jon_B wrote:

Today I saw a discussion on Twitter, which I thought was interesting, and I wanted to raise this question here and see what folks here at the Book Clubs thought.  And thanks to Bethanne and @LitChat on Twitter for inspiring this question!

That question is: how do you qualify Historical Fiction? 

According to the Historical Novel Society, a historical novel "must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research)."

Personally, I tend to disagree with this definition as it seems rather limiting.  If a current author wrote something like, say, a romantic novel about lovers in Berlin in the 80's, one on either side of the Wall - I'd certainly call that historical fiction.  In fact I'd consider anything with a setting up until this year to be "historical" fiction so long as that setting played an important role in the book.

But that's just me, and maybe my definition is too broad.  The Society certainly acknowledge that everyone seems to have their own definition, and offer some interesting essays explaining the reasons behind them.

But what do you think?  Where does "contemporary" end and "historical" begin? 

 

 

 

This is a great question.  I once saw "The Grapes of Wrath" on the historical fiction table at B & N.  This was a shock and started a debate with a friend which led to days of research.   She felt strongly that "Grapes" was NOT historical fiction.  I think, in the end, we could not find a solid definition.  

---