Historical in incident or merely in time?

no, not at all. It's historical fiction. Many of us like to base our novels on real events, but as long as you put it in a time period that's considered "history", your novel is historical fiction.

And welcome to the board!

Hi still alive,

Welcome to AW!

No, it doesn't take you out of the historical genre, as long as you are true to the historical period detail.

My story is set in ancient Sparta, and all of my characters are completely fictional. I may mention a historical event such as a battle, but the story is mainly about the every day lives of average people, with careful attention to accurate historical detail in the setting, social mores and such.

c.e.

Agreed...and also, I can't spell either. Sometimes.

Currently...

and more with American writers than UK/Commonwealth - this comment from my reading only and thus personal! - the trend for writers of historical novels is to take a known character and/or historical episode and create a 'new' story.

There is, however, a long established tradition of historical novel writing as c.e. discussed. You write in a certain historical period but your characters and their story are all your own. Naturally you'd refer to certain known historical events if they affect your people, but otherwise you are enchanting your readers with a taste of another time through the eyes of characters like themselves.

and sometimes...

the fiction becomes accepted as history, at least until someone fixes wikipedia

still alive said:

Richard, this may get me thrown off this forum, but it's not just Wikipedia. It's the history taught in schools and on TV.

Look at me as just the messenger here, please. But Lincoln did not free the slaves.

Proof: The Emancipation Proclamation, itself. People just keep repeating what's easy without reading it. In it, Lincoln freed the slaves in the states in rebellion where he had no authority--BUT where he did--the slaves remained slaves. The parishes of Louisiana and counties of other states are listed by name as being exempt.

I stumbled on this while researching something else, when I found mention of a US Rep. from a LA parish who had stayed in Washington and kept his seat [and become called a Loyal Unionist] because he was engaged to marry a girl from there! It was in a letter from one sister to the other talking about a party she'd gone to where they were also guests.

I checked further, and sure enough---

I'll leave quietly if shooting down a favorited historical fairytale necessitates it.
SA

Click to expand...

Hi, still_alive; don't worry about offending anyone around here with historical truth. More likely, you'll be called out by one of the very knowledgable people around here. It's not a bad thing, though, because they're usually right.

Just so you know, Richard was referring to an incident about a week ago where someone on Wikipedia lifted names and characters out of his fictional blog and put them on Wikipedia as fact. There's a thread about it a little below here.

I did indeed know that about the Emancipation Proclamation. I learned about that in 11th grade AP US History, and again in a college class, but I also knew about it beforehand. The EP was effectively useless, yes, but it was the first federal legislation banning slavery and was very significant symbolically. Of course the 13th Amendment actually ended slavery (and the 14th and 15th gave citizenship and the vote to black Americans], but I think the slight misconception persists because of confusion/laziness about the details. I think it's easier and more effective to teach children that the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, despite that being technically untrue. Besides, it's semantics; the slaves were freed under Lincoln one way or the other (the 13th amendment was passed before Lincoln's death and ratified a few months after it). But anyway, this is a digression.

ETA: Don't worry; we never stop grousing about idiot t.v. shows and teachers here.

still alive said:

Sorry, Angeliz, but Blacks were not given the right to vote by either the 14 or 15th amendments....Black MEN were given the right to vote.

Black women like white ones had to wait until 1919! I'm not sure of the Amendment number.

I don't want to be argumentive. I like this forum, but don't you think teaching children what's easiest is wrong? What about the kids who live in the places that were exempted? Shouldn't they know their own real history?
SA

Click to expand...

'Course. I figured the "male" part to be assumed since women couldn't really vote anywhere at that time.

Of course lazy teaching is the wrong way to do it. Children everywhere should know the truth; the Emancipation Proclamation is part of every American's history. Most people are woefully ignorant about history, children and adults alike. Knowing in particular about the Civil War and the aftermath is crucial to understanding how American became the country it is today. Sadly, many people have a very limited understanding of that history.

You're not being argumentative at all. Like I said, we don't bite. We won't throw you out of here unless you, I don't know, streak through the forum and scream, "History sucks!"

My Dad had a favorite saying ...

Them that can, do.
Them that can't, teach.
Them that can't teach, teach teachers.

He was a teacher, by the way, a college professor. Puma

I've always thought that what made something historical was the time frame. This doesn't necessarily make it a decent historical novel, but there ya go.

OpheliaRevived said:

I've always thought that what made something historical was the time frame. This doesn't necessarily make it a decent historical novel, but there ya go.

Click to expand...

Huh?

still alive said:

After reading several posts, I got kinda worried--not much, but kinda

My novel is set in an historical time frame, but I avoided any historical incidents or at any rate, no more than a peripheral swipe at them.

Does that take it out of the Historical genre?
SA

Click to expand...

Both period novels and historicals seemed to be lumped together now. It used to be that a novel was called a period novel if it was set in a particular historical time but didn't contain any historical incidents or characters. Historicals were about historical figures and historical incidents. Now they're both simply called historicals.

Thanks for saying that, Ishtar'sgate. That was also my thought - that period pieces had not always been considered historical fiction. I just didn't have the strength of my convictions to mention it. Glad you did. Puma

You know...

I thought period novels were something quite different. Maybe we call 'em differently in the UK/Commonwealth?

I haven't often heard the term period novel, but for some odd reason I assumed it referred to the 18th century onwards.

I'm supposing, since AW doesn't have a separate category for the period novel, the lines have blurred. Whichever way you look at it, the writer of either novel is giving us his own interpretation of the characters and events anyway. It's fiction after all.

Personally, as a reader I prefer broadly defined genres where I can plunge in and be surprised by what I find.