Newbie ?: The line between Fantasy and Historical Fiction

[WhiskeyGirl]

I saw the thread on historical fiction vs lit and although my question is very similar, I didn't want to hijack it so I started a new thread.

I'm currently working on a piece that is set in Ancient Sumer and tells the story of the real events that inspired the Epic of Gilgamesh. It has an element of mysticism, but no more than the religion of the time calls for. When I asked in the science fiction and fantasy chat, general opinion was that, like The Mists of Avalon, it would be considered fantasy however, there were dissenting voices that cited Clan of the Cave Bear as a more appropriate parallel. I thought perhaps some experts here might have some further insight.

What is the line between fantasy and historical fiction?

I've posted the first chapter in the SYW sci/fi fantasy section here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145650

but am rather afraid that as the story moves forward and no dragons appear, I'll get lynched. ;) Would it be more at home in the Historical Writing SYW forum, or should I move it to Interstices or Other?

Thank you for your time.

[Doogs]

Based on real events, lacking in magic or dragons, etc...I'd personally call that historical.

[Puma]

Hi Whiskeygirl - I wasn't able to view your post - not sure where you have it, but I don't intend to register for another page option.

From what you described it does sound more like historical than fantasy. Puma

ETA: After reading the post in sci-fi/fantasy SYW, I don't think historical is the best description. But, does anyone know, where do myths and legends fall genre wise?

[timewaster]

I think it is fantasy if there is no evidence for the belief systems the writer infers and the belief systems have a significant impact on the action in the book.The minute you go beyond the known I think you are in trouble. In some periods where there is plenty of primary resource material there is usually sufficient evidence of what people believed about the world to make inclusion in fiction justifiable - for those cultures where no one really knows and the writer starts to make it up then, I think, we are in fantasy territory. I think 'Clan of the cave bear' is fantasy too - it sure as hell isn't history as we know it.
It isn't necessarily a problem, historic fantasy is saleable.

[Puma]

Doogs - Thanks for putting up a new picture. Cute. But, what's the breed on the dog? We got a couple mutt puppies back in April that look a lot like yours. They're going to be BIG dogs but we aren't sure what kind of mix they are. Thanks for a response. Puma

[Inarticulate Babbler]

think it is fantasy if there is no evidence for the belief systems the writer infers and the belief systems have a significant impact on the action in the book.The minute you go beyond the known I think you are in trouble.

If it could have happened (as in, doesn't have magic or monsters, computers or aliens, a supernatural element), regardless of there being evidence, it's historical fiction. Clan of the Cave Bear was based on a discovery that was later disproved. So long as it's possible to have happened and in an historical environment, it's historical fiction. If there is ANY kind of speculative element, that will define the genre.

When you're working with an era/epoch/age that has about a truck's bed full of physical evidence, it's perfectly acceptable to infer possibilities. Religions included.

I think 'Clan of the cave bear' is fantasy too - it sure as hell isn't history as we know it.


Did I miss the magic, mythologyor monsters?

This discussion goes round and round: Historical is one thing Historical Fiction is another. Keep it within the historic parameters, and if you create a caveman's religion--so long as you don't show magics and miracles--it's reasonable.

[Doogs]

Doogs - Thanks for putting up a new picture. Cute. But, what's the breed on the dog? We got a couple mutt puppies back in April that look a lot like yours. They're going to be BIG dogs but we aren't sure what kind of mix they are. Thanks for a response. Puma

Thanks...that's our doofus of a yellow lab, Smith (HERE (http://www.flickr.com/photos/belisarius/tags/smith/) are a ton more pics of him, mostly sleeping in weird positions). He's actually kinda small for a lab, only about 75-80 lbs, but he was a rescue and his mom had bad milk or somesuch, so that's probably why.

I'll probably be switching up pics again sometime soon - Nolan went running in the sprinklers today and we got some really great shots.

[Puma]

Thanks for the dog info, we're figuring ours are going to go at least 70 pounds (and we'd decided to get smaller dogs so they'd be easier to lug if needed in our old age. I think we goofed.)

I'll be watching for sprinkler pictures. That sounds great. Puma

[Doogs]

Thanks for the dog info, we're figuring ours are going to go at least 70 pounds (and we'd decided to get smaller dogs so they'd be easier to lug if needed in our old age. I think we goofed.)

Invest in a Halti (sometimes called a gentle leader). It'll keep your arm in its socket!

[Doogs]

This discussion goes round and round: Historical is one thing Historical Fiction is another. Keep it within the historic parameters, and if you create a caveman's religion--so long as you don't show magics and miracles--it's reasonable.

I see Historical Fantasy as the far end of the probable/plausible spectrum that was discussed frequently.

On one end we have absolute certainty - Julius Caesar being assassinated on March 15, 44 B.C., or the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.

Then there's probable events...the way things likely went down...and plausible/possible events...the way things could conceivably have gone down.

Finally there's improbable and flat-out impossible events. The aforementioned magic, monsters, and miracles. This is where Historical Fantasy lives.

Of course, there can be a fine line between what's Historical Fiction and what's Fantasy. Jack Whyte's Camulod novels leap to mind. Yes, they tell the story of the Arthurian legend, so there's that fantastic element, but everything is grounded firmly in late and immediately post-Roman Britain. Historical figures appear regularly, and Excalibur is forged through improbable, but not impossible means (metal from a meteorite). I'd still label it fantasy, but the line is very, very blurry.

[Fenika]

Did I miss the magic, mythologyor monsters?


Politely saying yes. Ayla and the medicine man traveled to the future together while halucinating. Yes, that could have just been coincidence that he saw something resembling our future, during his vision, except that he was 'magically' linked to her mind and not letting the other medicine men sense her.

But that was a very small, almost gratuitous element, with a much smaller tie-in, earlier in the book.

[Inarticulate Babbler]

Ayla and the medicine man traveled to the future together while halucinating. Yes, that could have just been coincidence that he saw something resembling our future, during his vision, except that he was 'magically' linked to her mind and not letting the other medicine men sense her.


This would not be considered fantasy in that genre. (My definitions aren't personal; the definitions I use are common to both the speculative community and historical.) Apparently, that would be considered magic realism because it would fit in with the "telepathy" concepts that thrive in society today (not ficticiously). I only care about splitting this hair when submitting manuscripts to agents and publishers--that fine line can make the difference between an acceptance of a manuscript and refusal to accept an author as a client. Strange, isn't it.

[pdr]

a row going on right now - started by me! - in the HNS editorial dovecote about what is and what is not historical fiction.

The line was blurred when the Americans took over editing the HNS Review and all of a sudden Romance novels were allowed in. Whilst this increased membership in America it caused quite a few UK members and writers to leave in high dudgeon because historical romance had not been consider pure historical fiction until the change of editors, and many of us still don't think it should be there!

Those affronted had a point. The historical romance specifications from publishers like Harlequin are not exactly in line with the definition of pure historical novels. The hea (happy ever after) ending, the obviously modern MCs, the fact that the history is a pretty setting and not an integral part of the novel, are not usual norms for historical fiction, but as one well known writer of historical romance told me, the problem is that the popular Alpha male of readers' dreams is not now found in the 21stC but back in the history books!

Soon after Romance thundered into the Review, alternate history and then historical fantasy crept in. I've started the row because the last Review reviewed a book where the main characters are vampires, oh, in an historical setting, yes, and there was also an article by one such writer who said that vampires were obviously historical.

I hope they publish my e-mail letters and you can all join in.

I'm a cynic. I can see writers eager to get their horror or fantasy genre novels in front of another audience by labelling them historical. Bigger market, more money and the HNS Review does get read by many publishers' editors so it's handy to get your novel reviewed in there.

But I don't see why we readers have to be told that our beloved historicals now include vampires and werewolves without a bloody good discussion first.

So how do you all define the historical novel?

Our OP in this thread appears to have been intending to write something about history and based in history. So, Whisky Girl, I would call that historical fiction.

There are blendings of fictional lines, I know, but we used to be satisfied to call it slipstream or cross genre which is fairer, I think, than, for example, calling a novel set in Victorian London with vampires as MCs an historical novel!

[cherubsmummy]

I would also vote for historical fiction. Religious beliefs are part of the history of a culture and perfectly appropriate to include. But I draw the line at vampires.

Emma

[Sirius]

a row going on right now - started by me! - in the HNS editorial dovecote about what is and what is not historical fiction.


But I don't see why we readers have to be told that our beloved historicals now include vampires and werewolves without a bloody good discussion first.

So how do you all define the historical novel?

Our OP in this thread appears to have been intending to write something about history and based in history. So, Whisky Girl, I would call that historical fiction.

There are blendings of fictional lines, I know, but we used to be satisfied to call it slipstream or cross genre which is fairer, I think, than, for example, calling a novel set in Victorian London with vampires as MCs an historical novel!

That's interesting, because it's directly relevant to my novel which I describe as a detective thriller in the spirit of Wilkie Collins. It's set in 1863, just about the time when the Victorians were going through that great collective crisis of faith, with the impact of Darwin, Huxley et al on the one side, and the impact of materialism on another; the Tubingen theology tradition starting to revolutionise how textual studies of the Bible were undertaken and then the Oxford Movement and the Evangelical Movements polarising the Cof E. And that seems to stir up a whole lot of fringe beliefs such as Roscruicianism and Theosophy and intense interest in spiritualism and so forth.

And if you look at contemporary novelists of that era it's surprising how often you find an unexplained paranormal or mystic thread bobbing up, from Jane Eyre and Rochester's calling to Jane when he's injured, telling her that she has to come to him, to the various prophetic dream sequences in Collins - Armadale springs most vividly to mind.

And that gets more and more intense as the century wears on, so that by the 1890s and early 1900s you have MR James and Sheridan le Fanu and Bram Stoker producing stuff which is unquestionably about the supernatural, but you've also got Buchan and Saki and Wilde either throwing in paranormal stories in among their other work or introducing paranormal threads in "mainstream" work, and no-one raising eyebrows about how to classify them.

So, given I'm writing in tight third, I don't have a lot of qualms about putting in a few ghostly manifestations here and there; most of my characters undoubtedly believe in ghosts and most of the supernatural stuff is based on "real-life" accounts of similar stuff occurring in the relevant area. I would be much more qualm-prone about describing it as historical if it stepped across the border into vampires or were-wolves and, more to the point, if I wasn't presenting pov characters who believe they are seeing ghosts (there was one night in a 17th century hotel outside York when I'd be prepared to swear I heard one myself - even more interestingly, another member of the party staying in another part of the room also felt the same way about the place) but pov characters who both believed they were vampires or werewolves and behaved accordingly. One of my objections to Laurie R. King's Sherlockian pastiche Monstrous Regiment of Women is that an aspect of the plot depends on one of the supporting characters actually bringing off - leviation, I think it is - which is not presented with any plausible alternative explanation for the reader.

[Puma]

I'm with you, pdr. I don't feel historical romance, paranormal historical, alternative historical, historical myth, or period pieces belong in the same category as traditional historical fiction which focuses on an historical event but with fictional main characters. The problem is - where do you put them? They certainly don't fit other genres.

The second problem is - where do you draw the line between historical and not acceptable in each of the questionable categories?

I'd be curious - what was the HNS definition of historical back in about 1960/1970 and where (genre) were novels in the categories I mentioned in the first paragraph placed? I suspect part of the problem may be too that every one is much more hung up on genre assignment these days. Puma

[WhiskeyGirl]

Thank you all so much for your time and help. I'm considerably less confused about where the line is now, which should help me stay firmly on one side. As I said, my main concern at this point is with which SYW forum to place it in and you've answered that question for me very clearly.

Thanks again.

[Doogs]

I'm with you, pdr. I don't feel historical romance, paranormal historical, alternative historical, historical myth, or period pieces belong in the same category as traditional historical fiction which focuses on an historical event but with fictional main characters. The problem is - where do you put them? They certainly don't fit other genres.

Historical fiction can certainly include historical main characters. Historical vs fictional MCs seems to me a matter of personal taste.

As for where to put historical fantasy, alt history, etc, 95% of bookstores I've ever been in put straight historical fiction in the general fiction section. Historical fantasy and alternate history, meanwhile, almost always end up in the sci-fi/fantasy section.

[BAY]

I think historical characters or characters in historical time periods can believe in supernatural things, but characters in historical fiction can't be supernatural like vampires, surely that is fantasy. Until I came to this forum I thought historical romance was just another category under Romance. It's a shame too, because all types of writing has a fan core, but now fans can't find them on the bookshelves anymore.

[firedrake]

I'm with you, pdr. I don't feel historical romance, paranormal historical, alternative historical, historical myth, or period pieces belong in the same category as traditional historical fiction which focuses on an historical event but with fictional main characters. The problem is - where do you put them? They certainly don't fit other genres.

The second problem is - where do you draw the line between historical and not acceptable in each of the questionable categories?

I'd be curious - what was the HNS definition of historical back in about 1960/1970 and where (genre) were novels in the categories I mentioned in the first paragraph placed? I suspect part of the problem may be too that every one is much more hung up on genre assignment these days. Puma

I wish I knew the difference between Historical fiction and Historical romance. I'm querying Kestrel as a Historical Romance,mainly because the heart of the story is the MC coming to terms with losing her first love and then falling in love with someone else. It's all done against a well-researched backdrop of WW2 but, I'm guessing because it's all about the love, with a few air-raids, battles, etc. thrown in, it's a romance.

I'm just confoozed.

[san_remo_ave]

I wish I knew the difference between Historical fiction and Historical romance. I'm querying Kestrel as a Historical Romance,mainly because the heart of the story is the MC coming to terms with losing her first love and then falling in love with someone else. It's all done against a well-researched backdrop of WW2 but, I'm guessing because it's all about the love, with a few air-raids, battles, etc. thrown in, it's a romance.

I'm just confoozed.

Sounds like it to me. The importance for categorization as a romance (as opposed to having romantic elements) is based upon what the story is about. If the relationship of the h/h is the central story and they live (or are likely to) happily ever after, it's a romance.

You describe your story as a couple falling in love during WW2, so that sounds like a romance. If it was about the D-Day beach invasion and how the Allies were successful and there just happened to be a couple that fell for each other during the story, that would not be a romance. It's all about the plot.

While I certainly would agree that historical works that contain elements that are implausible for the era (vampires, ware-whatevers, faeries, ray-guns or flying machines not yet invented) they shouldn't qualify as historical. If the story has fangs, it should be considered fantasy. If it contains changes to history (i.e. Queen Elizabeth I married Emperor Ferdinand and had 14 children), it should be considered alt history. And if the story has giant mechanical spider machines in a western setting (a la Wild Wild West) then it's steampunk (I have been reading more about this genre recently) which is certainly considered somewhere between fantasy and sci-fi.

The qualifier in my mind is if the story is accurate to the era.

But if historical fiction falls into the qualification of the 'historical genre', why not historical romance (again, so long as it's historically accurate)? We can have make-believe people but not make-believe people who we watch fall in love? Srsly?

[firedrake]

Sounds like it to me. The importance for categorization as a romance (as opposed to having romantic elements) is based upon what the story is about. If the relationship of the h/h is the central story and they live (or are likely to) happily ever after, it's a romance.

You describe your story as a couple falling in love during WW2, so that sounds like a romance. If it was about the D-Day beach invasion and how the Allies were successful and there just happened to be a couple that fell for each other during the story, that would not be a romance. It's all about the plot.

While I certainly would agree that historical works that contain elements that are implausible for the era (vampires, ware-whatevers, faeries, ray-guns or flying machines not yet invented) they shouldn't qualify as historical. If the story has fangs, it should be considered fantasy. If it contains changes to history (i.e. Queen Elizabeth I married Emperor Ferdinand and had 14 children), it should be considered alt history. And if the story has giant mechanical spider machines in a western setting (a la Wild Wild West) then it's steampunk (I have been reading more about this genre recently) which is certainly considered somewhere between fantasy and sci-fi.

The qualifier in my mind is if the story is accurate to the era.

But if historical fiction falls into the qualification of the 'historical genre', why not historical romance (again, so long as it's historically accurate)? We can have make-believe people but not make-believe people who we watch fall in love? Srsly?

Amen.

[Puma]

In my mind there's an easy distinction: If the history is the major idea of the novel, it's historical; if the romance is the major idea, it's historical romance.

But by history, I don't mean just time period and setting - there has to be something of historical significance or importance that happens during the story to make it truly historical and not just a period piece (not dismissing period pieces, they have their worth.) Puma

[san_remo_ave]

In my mind there's an easy distinction: If the history is the major idea of the novel, it's historical; if the romance is the major idea, it's historical romance.

But by history, I don't mean just time period and setting - there has to be something of historical significance or importance that happens during the story to make it truly historical and not just a period piece (not dismissing period pieces, they have their worth.) Puma

So then a story of King Edward VIII that centers on his relationship with Wallis Simpson wouldn't qualify as historical?

Or is it really the fictional part that's objectionable? Perhaps then a historical mystery that centers on the 'Princes in the Tower' and offers a fictional account of what happened to them (say, how they really lived to be happy old men in Hampshire) should be excluded as not historical, too?

IMO, it seems that if fiction is allowed into the category of historical at all, then all types of fiction should be included as long as they are historically plausible.

[firedrake]

perhaps it's just my current frame of mind, but I sometimes get the vibe that 'historical romance' is regarded as the proverbial red-haired stepchild.

The truth of the matter is, if I bust my butt and do my research so that everything in my love story, set in the past, is accurate, why can't it be given the same intellectual regard as a straightforward 'historical'. After all, my characters are affected by major, actual events, which I researched to the nth degree.

[Puma]

Honestly, firedrake, I think you're marginal on calling Kestrel a historical romance. It's in one of those on the line spots where it could fall either way. Sort of like Gone with the Wind. Doesn't make it easy for querying does it? Puma

[Puma]

San Remo Ave - Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were history - any way you cut it. Change the name of the characters, and you're probably looking at historical romance. Puma

[firedrake]

Honestly, firedrake, I think you're marginal on calling Kestrel a historical romance. It's in one of those on the line spots where it could fall either way. Sort of like Gone with the Wind. Doesn't make it easy for querying does it? Puma

No! It sodding doesn't!!!:Headbang:

[Doogs]

But if historical fiction falls into the qualification of the 'historical genre', why not historical romance (again, so long as it's historically accurate)? We can have make-believe people but not make-believe people who we watch fall in love? Srsly?

I'm in complete agreement. One of my favorite historical novels - Sharon Key Penman's "There Be Dragons" - is historically rigorous, but at its heart it is a love story.

perhaps it's just my current frame of mind, but I sometimes get the vibe that 'historical romance' is regarded as the proverbial red-haired stepchild.

The truth of the matter is, if I bust my butt and do my research so that everything in my love story, set in the past, is accurate, why can't it be given the same intellectual regard as a straightforward 'historical'. After all, my characters are affected by major, actual events, which I researched to the nth degree.

I think that vibe stems from so many historical romances basically being modern, formulaic romance novels with different costumes. In a lot of ways, I think it's similar to way comic book movies were pretty much disregarded until the past few years.

The fact that those formulaic novels sell, and that a good number of agents who list "historical fiction" are in fact interested in historical romance, can be a source of bitterness for those trying to submit your typical, highly researched, accurate historical fiction.

[san_remo_ave]

Honestly, firedrake, I think you're marginal on calling Kestrel a historical romance. It's in one of those on the line spots where it could fall either way. Sort of like Gone with the Wind.

For what it's worth, GWTW is not a romance. It is historical fiction with a romantic subplot. It's about Scarlett, plain and simple, and how she deals with adversity and the changing landscape of the old South. Yes, Rhett is part of the story, but the plot is not about their relationship, so it is not a romance.

Have you read it (the book, not just seen the movie)?

San Remo Ave - Edward VIII and Wallis Simpson were history - any way you cut it. Change the name of the characters, and you're probably looking at historical romance. Puma

If the plot is about the relationship between Edward and Simpson (how they met, came to care for each other and his choice to abdicate to be with her) then it could be a romance. A historical romance. A historical, non-fiction romance.

D'you see why I'm pushing back on this?

[Puma]

Honestly, no I don't because in my opinion, you're wrong on both counts. Puma

[san_remo_ave]

Puma,

Then we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

I've offered the industry accepted definition of romance, and the rest is certainly subject to interpretation.

Good night.

[Doogs]

Honestly, no I don't because in my opinion, you're wrong on both counts. Puma

A bit harsh, don't you think?

History is basically the longest, most complicated, greatest story ever told. We each tell but small pieces of that story. Some focus on war and terrible events and great deeds. Others explore more intimate tales of family, or intrigue. Some are just about the battle to survive. There are mysteries and misfortunes and yes, romance.

Like it or not, people have become infatuated with one another and formed close bonds of affection throughout history (I'm going to avoid the word love so as not to start that dust-up all over again). Men and women (and men and men and women and women) have been sexually attracted to each other since the dawn of the species. It's part of the human condition. It's impacted literature since literature existed. People have been writing and telling stories about sex and lust and all the crap that goes with relationships since forever.

Based on that long tradition, I can't buy that a historical novel whose central plot happens to be a romantic relationship is automatically relegated to some second-tier status, whether that relationship is historical or fictional.

The distinction, as you articulated, Puma, is when history is invoked solely as a time period or setting. Window dressing, if you will, for what would otherwise be a modern, trashy romance novel, the sort of which my wife devours as a guilty pleasure.

But if it is grounded in the time period, the culture, the restrictions and taboos (or lack thereof)...in other words if it plays by the rules of most other historical fiction...what's so wrong in that? Why does it have to be denigrated?

[firedrake]

A bit harsh, don't you think?

History is basically the longest, most complicated, greatest story ever told. We each tell but small pieces of that story. Some focus on war and terrible events and great deeds. Others explore more intimate tales of family, or intrigue. Some are just about the battle to survive. There are mysteries and misfortunes and yes, romance.

Like it or not, people have become infatuated with one another and formed close bonds of affection throughout history (I'm going to avoid the word love so as not to start that dust-up all over again). Men and women (and men and men and women and women) have been sexually attracted to each other since the dawn of the species. It's part of the human condition. It's impacted literature since literature existed. People have been writing and telling stories about sex and lust and all the crap that goes with relationships since forever.

Based on that long tradition, I can't buy that a historical novel whose central plot happens to be a romantic relationship is automatically relegated to some second-tier status, whether that relationship is historical or fictional.

The distinction, as you articulated, Puma, is when history is invoked solely as a time period or setting. Window dressing, if you will, for what would otherwise be a modern, trashy romance novel, the sort of which my wife devours as a guilty pleasure.

But if it is grounded in the time period, the culture, the restrictions and taboos (or lack thereof)...in other words if it plays by the rules of most other historical fiction...what's so wrong in that? Why does it have to be denigrated?

QFT.

I couldn't agree more.

I put as much work into my research as any other historical novelist. The fact that a love story happens to be at the heart of it seems to reduce it to a lower shelf, for wont of a better description. I really resent that. I make sure that my characters act and react in a way appropriate for the time. Heck, even the dialogue is as genuine as I can make it. Just because it doesn't have scenes with Churchill agonising over knowing about the proposed bombing of Coventry and not being able to do anything,(the Enigma Code had been cracked, the Brits knew that the Germans were going to hammer Coventry but if the City had taken measures against it, the enemy would've known that their code had been broken) doesn't make it any less historical

I've become so immersed in historical writing that I found it hard, at first, when I started on the WIP, to write in a contemporary setting. It's a whole new set of values.

As I've said elsewhere on this board, history isn't just about the movers and shakers, it's about everyday people. World Wars One and Two are prime examples of ordinary people being caught up in extraordinary events. You only have to look at American pilots who were all afire to join the RAF even before the US became involved in the war. Many of them were just plane-mad boys, cropdusters and stunt pilots, who wanted to fly for a living. They didn't join up to become heroes, they joined because of their love of flight. Their stories are just as much a part of history as Churchill's or Montgomery's.

ETA: Some of the classic historical novels by, say, Anya Seton, are love stories...Katherine and Avalon for starters.

[pdr]

Puma, the HNS is only 11 years old! I remember its beginnings and was an early member.

I'm chuffed to see that most people agree that vampires or were-wolves are definitely not historical.

and, more to the point, if I wasn't presenting pov characters who believe they are seeing ghosts

Oh yes, I have no problems with characters who believe they are seeing ghosts, or a Mediaeval demon or attend a seance. It's when I'm asked to believe that Merlin is waving his magic wand in King William IV's court that I splutter.


The qualifier in my mind is if the story is accurate to the era.

Precisely Melissa
And that is my chief grumble. So much published as romantic hist fiction is not.

But if it is grounded in the time period, the culture, the restrictions and taboos (or lack thereof)...in other words if it plays by the rules of most other historical fiction...what's so wrong in that? Why does it have to be denigrated?

I don't and it isn't. Check out literary historicals where real romance and love can be part of the plot.

In much of the genre hist romances we have a modern female from the 21stC, because your reader has to identify with her, and a sexy alpha male for the reader to drool over. The fact that he'd be slapped in jail for sexual harassment/assault or attempted rape if he really existed, is part of the fantasy.

The couple behave as if they live in the post pill 20thC and 21stC. The writer has them having sexual intercourse as a matter of fact. Honest to the historical era? When pressure from church and society was heavy, hard and constant. Where a bastard had no respect, no inheritance or decent future? It wasn't until the1950s that bastards gained full legal rights. I mean most of these hist MC females are Lady this and the honourable that, who, if true to era, knew their duty to their families and themselves where marriage and connections were concerned.

We can have make-believe people but not make-believe people who we watch fall in love? Srsly?

Oh boy, that's torn it. Fall in Love? I wish! In most of these hist romances I've read it's fuck, screw, and eros rampant! Usually written by post pill, post equal rights writers who have no experience of what life was like before 1960. Romance, I wish! It's all lust and no love.

I would enjoy reading a real historical romance. They are scarcer than hen's teeth. Give me LOVE please, not lust. I'd like to ram Aristotle down every romance writer's throat and make 'em learn his definitions:
eros = lust
filia = brotherly/sisterly love (And don't start me off about what the gay rights people have done with that one!)
agapae = perfect unselfish love, soul mates, which Christians define as like Christ's love for humanity.
Now show me hist romances turned out by Harelquin and Berkley which actually do describe that form of unselfish and soul to soul love in a well researched historical era.

And don't start me on about research. Most of these hist romance are set in Britain by writers who have never been there, who can't understand the social nuances of class and make such thundering errors because their research is superficial and from the web. It's a bloody insult.

IMO, it seems that if fiction is allowed into the category of historical at all, then all types of fiction should be included as long as they are historically plausible.

So you'd let werewolves and vampires in as history? Sorry. We have slip stream and cross genre to fit those things in to.


The truth of the matter is, if I bust my butt and do my research so that everything in my love story, set in the past, is accurate, why can't it be given the same intellectual regard as a straightforward 'historical'. After all, my characters are affected by major, actual events, which I researched to the nth degree.

Poor firedrake. Your Kestrel isn't a hist romance as the genre is today. If you get those rewrites right you have a literary hist based around the growing up and relationships of your MC. From what I've read of your Kestrel you have a novel of depth and it could be a real love story as opposed to a 'screw a minute' candy floss affair.

I think that vibe stems from so many historical romances basically being modern, formulaic romance novels with different costumes.

Spot on, Doogs, a candy floss sexual fantasy is not a real historical romance.

Based on that long tradition, I can't buy that a historical novel whose central plot happens to be a romantic relationship is automatically relegated to some second-tier status, whether that relationship is historical or fictional.

And here I would say that most novels have a relationship in them, we are writing about people and people like people. And yes, a real romance dealing with love and not how many times the MCs screw, fuck and fornicate, should not be second tier.

[Suse]

For what it's worth, GWTW is not a romance. It is historical fiction with a romantic subplot. It's about Scarlett, plain and simple, and how she deals with adversity and the changing landscape of the old South. Yes, Rhett is part of the story, but the plot is not about their relationship, so it is not a romance.


I agree with that definition of GWTW. It's one of those books, along with Wuthering Heights, that I beg people to read, but they refuse and dismiss both as romance if they don't like romances.

[san_remo_ave]

I had such a migraine by my last post, I had to go to bed or give up my sanity altogether. Between this and the RWA kerfluffle over epublishing as a legitimate publishing medium, I was at my wits end.

I've slept on it now and feel much refreshed. And saner. ;)


Like it or not, people have become infatuated with one another and formed close bonds of affection throughout history (I'm going to avoid the word love so as not to start that dust-up all over again). Men and women (and men and men and women and women) have been sexually attracted to each other since the dawn of the species. It's part of the human condition. It's impacted literature since literature existed. People have been writing and telling stories about sex and lust and all the crap that goes with relationships since forever.

Based on that long tradition, I can't buy that a historical novel whose central plot happens to be a romantic relationship is automatically relegated to some second-tier status, whether that relationship is historical or fictional.

The distinction, as you articulated, Puma, is when history is invoked solely as a time period or setting. Window dressing, if you will, for what would otherwise be a modern, trashy romance novel, the sort of which my wife devours as a guilty pleasure.

But if it is grounded in the time period, the culture, the restrictions and taboos (or lack thereof)...in other words if it plays by the rules of most other historical fiction...what's so wrong in that? Why does it have to be denigrated?

Amen, Doogs. Well said.

As I've said elsewhere on this board, history isn't just about the movers and shakers, it's about everyday people. World Wars One and Two are prime examples of ordinary people being caught up in extraordinary events. You only have to look at American pilots who were all afire to join the RAF even before the US became involved in the war. Many of them were just plane-mad boys, cropdusters and stunt pilots, who wanted to fly for a living. They didn't join up to become heroes, they joined because of their love of flight. Their stories are just as much a part of history as Churchill's or Montgomery's.

Firedrake, I agree with you. The archaeologist in my soul (what I always wanted to do for a career, but got sidetracked somewhere along the way) savors the everyday folk. And the humanity of it all --the relationships, heartaches, lifestyles, you name it.


The qualifier in my mind is if the story is accurate to the era.

Precisely Melissa
And that is my chief grumble. So much published as romantic hist fiction is not.

And this is a point I can get behind, pdr, if the discussion centers around whether or not a particular story has historical chops or is merely a costume drama. But to dismiss the entire genre as 2nd class merely because it centers on relationship? I can't agree with that.


IMO, it seems that if fiction is allowed into the category of historical at all, then all types of fiction should be included as long as they are historically plausible.

So you'd let werewolves and vampires in as history? Sorry. We have slip stream and cross genre to fit those things in to.

No, I did not say that. I said that as long as they are 'historically plausible'. Then I specifically gave the examples that vampires, were-things, ray guns and other historically inaccurate elements should not be considered a historical work. IMO, they would have to be classified as fantasy or sci-fi.

I agree with that definition of GWTW. It's one of those books, along with Wuthering Heights, that I beg people to read, but they refuse and dismiss both as romance if they don't like romances.

I know, Suse. Their loss, IMO.

[Puma]

I think part of the problem is that there are too many layers to historical, historical romance, and romance. So there's an immediate burn when someone's favorite gets referenced in what appears to be a negative manner. We've seen this before in other discussions. Doogs did an excellent job of describing the objectionable romances - modern, trashy, romance novel - the kind that fills the bins in grocery stores. There's a big difference between those and something like Firedrake's Kestrel. But how do you make a clear distinction between Kestrel and the trashy type, especially since a lot of those appear to have historical bases?

Gone with the Wind was historical fiction (and yes, I read the book many years ago), but Rhett and Scarlett's relationship does play a major role in the story. It is far more of a romance than many of the other historical works being published in that period. And, the history is more of the backdrop to Scarlett's story than the major theme of the novel. Which, in my opinion, does now put it on the line of wavering between historical fiction and a historical romance. At the time I read it, it was unquestionably historical fiction, there weren't other categories for it to fall into - but now, I'm not so sure. Puma

[pdr]

But to dismiss the entire genre as 2nd class merely because it centers on relationship? I can't agree with that.

I'm not doing that. For heaven's sake isn't one of the major points of fiction that it deals with people and their relationships? Most people love a love story, a true love story.

What gets up my nose is the dishonesty, slack research, the sloppy writing, and the unreal presentation of lust as love.

And generally other writers and readers I've talked to dismiss publishers like Harlequin et al as trash, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it is treated.

If it were marketed honestly as Romantic sexual fantasy I don't suppose people would object. It's foisting this sort of writing off as Historical romance which is disturbing.

[san_remo_ave]

But how do you make a clear distinction between Kestrel and the trashy type, especially since a lot of those appear to have historical bases?
Since I haven't read Kestrel, I cannot comment on the distinction. I also think the term 'trashy' is subjective and could mean straight up erotica or a simple kiss on the lips, depending upon the viewpoint.

How is non-romance historical fiction currently vetted to ensure the historical perspective is accurate and complete and of sufficient quantity (eg not a slip-shod job of research or a fictional story set in a mere sketch of the era)?

Gone with the Wind was historical fiction (and yes, I read the book many years ago), but Rhett and Scarlett's relationship does play a major role in the story. It is far more of a romance than many of the other historical works being published in that period. And, the history is more of the backdrop to Scarlett's story than the major theme of the novel. Which, in my opinion, does now put it on the line of wavering between historical fiction and a historical romance. At the time I read it, it was unquestionably historical fiction, there weren't other categories for it to fall into - but now, I'm not so sure. Puma

If you're disregarding the industry's criteria of the romance genre, you can certainly call it whatever you want.

[san_remo_ave]

I'm not doing that. For heaven's sake isn't one of the major points of fiction that it deals with people and their relationships? Most people love a love story, a true love story.

Sorry, pdr. I did not mean to suggest that you were. I agree with your points and was only trying describe what I disagreed with from elsewhere. I will try to be more specific in the future to avoid such confusion.

What gets up my nose is the dishonesty, slack research, the sloppy writing, and the unreal presentation of lust as love.

And generally other writers and readers I've talked to dismiss publishers like Harlequin et al as trash, not because of the subject matter, but because of the way it is treated.

If it were marketed honestly as Romantic sexual fantasy I don't suppose people would object. It's foisting this sort of writing off as Historical romance which is disturbing.

Fair enough. I would object to that in any type historical fiction. Or any fiction, for that matter. There is nothing that will set me off faster than reading about a character loading an ammo clip into a revolver, for crying out loud. ;)

[BAY]

Firedrake, I understand your frustration. It takes a lot of energy, time, and critical thinking to unveil a romance under an historical backdrop. My thoughts, and I'm not a romance writer, so forgive me if I step on some toes, I think romance as a stand alone category is evolving. And, while Romance writers may understand what's going on the rest of us are clueless and guessing.

Second-No one wants to mention this, but I think the confusion over distinctions is related to the 100,000 + wc leeway "automatically" given to historicals. All the other categories in general (because there are always exceptions) wc's are floating down. It's much easier to say oh, no need to cut back it's historical>romance>fantasy etc. This needs a frank and honest discussion. I don't know what the WC of GWTW is, but I do know it spans the civil war from beginning to end. Now if I write about a man and a woman during the civil war that takes place during one big battle should I expect the acceptable wc range to be near GWTW?

[pdr]

can you explain more about word counts? I'm a little lost as to a wc's application to the hist romance.

Sorry to be dozy, Bay. It's winter, a wicked frost is on its way, it's cold and the fire is roaring. I'm about to nod off!

[cooeedownunder]

ETA: Puma, I just caught up with your other posts, and see you mentioned Gone With the Wind, before I realised youhad . I saw it after I posted this but I wont' change what I wrote below, because I think it is interesting our perceptions of the same story from different generations. :)

Gone With the Wind andThe Thorn Birds have been the two main stories, that made me want to write a great love story, but set around a history that I love.

I see The Thorn Birds as being more fictional than historical, but the impact of that story on me and it and its delivery, impacted as much as Gone With the Wind.

My point..oh, gosh, I want to write a great love story that may have existed in a historical context. To me, you can't have a great love story set in a period of history, without that history having impacted on them.

I know, I am probably hitting my head against a brick wall... the history I want to speak about is not very favoured, but gosh, if some of us don't write about it, what will be left of the time, but false accounts, well, not all of them...and hopefully some women writers can fill in the gaps.

In my mind there's an easy distinction: If the history is the major idea of the novel, it's historical; if the romance is the major idea, it's historical romance.

But by history, I don't mean just time period and setting - there has to be something of historical significance or importance that happens during the story to make it truly historical and not just a period piece (not dismissing period pieces, they have their worth.) Puma

Now, that is tricky, what if it is a 50% split? ...the storys main plot is split around historical facts where a couple just happen to fall in love and both are given equal balance and both are the plot to the story...without one, you can't have the other?

I guess we can say, well history is history...and no romance makes history unless we are writing about Anthony and Cleopatra....or...

I loved Gone with the Wind...without it, I would never have known anything about the American Civil war, maybe even nothing about American history to that point.

My point it is I precieved that as a love story set backdropped by pages and page of narrative, that I never read, until I finished it, and then went back. Yeah, weird maybe...but I read it because I was not only facinated by the period it was set it, but very facinated by that couples relationship.

I don't know if Gone With the Wind is called a historical novel, although I can't see why it wouldn't be, but I most certainly read it as one and considered it as one, but I dare say, without the relationship thing happening there, I would never have read to the very famous last line, which is my favourite line out of any book I have ever read before or after.

[cooeedownunder]

perhaps it's just my current frame of mind, but I sometimes get the vibe that 'historical romance' is regarded as the proverbial red-haired stepchild.

The truth of the matter is, if I bust my butt and do my research so that everything in my love story, set in the past, is accurate, why can't it be given the same intellectual regard as a straightforward 'historical'. After all, my characters are affected by major, actual events, which I researched to the nth degree.

I am commenting on this after getting to the end of the other posts.

I am thinking that we need to go back to what maybe Puma called rightly so period pieces...this made me think that maybe I am bordering on a period piece in my current WIP, where my last was most certainly historical.

Just because we set it in a year which is considered historical, doesn't necessarily mean our story has historical significance....that is what I think Puma and pdr are saying...more so than saying stories form sub genres in Historical arent necessarily worthy, and I think they are correct.

If our stories plot is not the historical moments, our stories may be considered something else. Although I think this perception is changing very slowly, and period pieces are being accepted some more in the tradtional sense....there is no shame writing in any of the sub genres which many of us are.

I think I have a respect for the traditional history genre, but coming from a different generation of readers and having a different interest in the way stories are writen or their focus, doesn't dismisish us historical writers...even if we decide to put a vampire in it...

But I don't think a vampire, or all those other mythical, imaginal charachters belong or are historical, unless they are told in the only manner in which they can.

I have a fantasty writen back at the begining of time when a certain place believed in mermaids, but no matter how I write it, even if it was possible they existed, which there is jack shit evidence, apart from sightings which were probably seals, it can't be a historical, even if I set it 1800s...if it is humanly non-conceivable that these people lived it can only be determined as fantasy unless it can be back up with historical data.

By tupence worth, or is that tupperwear....lolol

[Puma]

BTW - Apologies to the OP for the total derailment of her thread on the distinction between fantasy and historical fiction.

But, I think we're coming back around. Cooee has just brought fantasy back into the conversation and I think some discussion of historical recorded myth/fantasy elements is worthwhile.

There are recorded sightings of mermaids, sea monsters, dragons, the Lorelei, etc.; apparations like the Flying Dutchman, ghost ships, and ghosts; physical legends like the Sargasso Sea, the Maelstrom, even the Bermuda Triangle and flying saucers; human legends like Vlad the Impaler, Rasputin, even the old farmer down the road from me who drank pig's blood when he butchered; and creation/religious legends from all over the world. These stories have shown up throughout history and are recorded here and there in historic documents. Ever seen an old map of the Atlantic with the annotations and pictures of sea monsters?

These were real to the people at the time the notations were made in and on what are now historic documents. I don't think incorporating any of these elements into manuscripts automatically puts the manuscript into the fantasy or even sci-fi category. I honestly can't imagine writing a story about early sea farers and not including a bit of legend appropriate to the area where they were sailing. Legend can add so much color and interest to a piece of writing.

And this is about where the OP started. If you haven't read her post in sci-fi/fantasy in SYW, take a look at it. What's your opinion? Is it fantasy or is it historical. Puma

[WhiskeyGirl]

Actually, you guys have done a good job of making it clear that since the line is so blurry, I can post in any SYW forum I like :) Besides, I'm rather enjoying the melee thats ensued.

[Suse]

Maybe this is a UK thing or maybe it's just me. I'm curious. Make that confused. I think of the period novel as Jane Austen, George Elliot, Margaret Mitchell. It's a novel set in the past but during the modern era. It may have been written contemporaneously, as with Austen, or looking back, as with Mitchell.

Perhaps I've come up with this definition because I've grown up watching BBC period dramas (Austen, etc), or are the UK/US definitions different? I don't suppose it matters an awful lot, since everything changes, lines become blurred. It's not as if your average bookshop has space to dedicate shelves to Historical and to every Historical sub-genre. All the same, it's good to know for querying. Anyone? Pdr?

[Doogs]

But, I think we're coming back around. Cooee has just brought fantasy back into the conversation and I think some discussion of historical recorded myth/fantasy elements is worthwhile.

There are recorded sightings of mermaids, sea monsters, dragons, the Lorelei, etc.; apparations like the Flying Dutchman, ghost ships, and ghosts; physical legends like the Sargasso Sea, the Maelstrom, even the Bermuda Triangle and flying saucers; human legends like Vlad the Impaler, Rasputin, even the old farmer down the road from me who drank pig's blood when he butchered; and creation/religious legends from all over the world. These stories have shown up throughout history and are recorded here and there in historic documents. Ever seen an old map of the Atlantic with the annotations and pictures of sea monsters?

These were real to the people at the time the notations were made in and on what are now historic documents. I don't think incorporating any of these elements into manuscripts automatically puts the manuscript into the fantasy or even sci-fi category. I honestly can't imagine writing a story about early sea farers and not including a bit of legend appropriate to the area where they were sailing. Legend can add so much color and interest to a piece of writing.

I think the distinction here is when you start representing the legend as a very real, flesh-and-blood entity. I mean, it's one thing to have a sailor think he glimpsed a sea monster in the morning fog...it's another to have some crazy icthyosaurus-looking beast attack the boat.

[RichardB]

No! It sodding doesn't!!!:Headbang:

I feel like I'm in the same boat for Saint Mark's Body. By the purest definition, it is a historical novel. The main plot point is about a historical event, the transportation of the titular relics. It's a novel because I made up all the details necessary to tell a good story around the known historical events.

As Donroc has pointed out before, many agents who say they want "historical fiction" actually want historical romances. Or at least, for that agent "historical fiction" means "it is set in Victorian England".

As I finish my edits and rework the query, I'm going to start reaching out to fantasy agents. The novel does have a fantasy feel -- no dragons, but plenty of Dark Ages swordplay, mysticism surrounding the Saint, and magic too if you count the apparent sorcery of long-forgotten medicine and physics. But a historical romance it ain't.

[BardSkye]

:) Besides, I'm rather enjoying the melee thats ensued.

We do have some entertaining melees here, don't we?

I think the distinction here is when you start representing the legend as a very real, flesh-and-blood entity. I mean, it's one thing to have a sailor think he glimpsed a sea monster in the morning fog...it's another to have some crazy icthyosaurus-looking beast attack the boat.

Haven't giant squid now been documented? I thought I read something about them being the basis for a lot of sea monster sightings and actual attacks. And then there was the prehistoric fish swimming around the Australia area...

Let the melee continue... I'm such a brat.

[Doogs]

We do have some entertaining melees here, don't we?

They're good for keeping your wits about you :D

Haven't giant squid now been documented? I thought I read something about them being the basis for a lot of sea monster sightings and actual attacks. And then there was the prehistoric fish swimming around the Australia area...

Let the melee continue... I'm such a brat.

That's exactly the point I was trying to make. A lot of those "sea monsters" were more than likely giant squids, whales, basker sharks and other weird-but-naturally-occurring creatures. They were just perceived as monsters and drawn as weird lion-headed snakes and whatnot because sightings were fleeting and panicked and our perspective of the sea has been limited to what we can observe from the surface for most of human history.

But there's a big difference between being attacked by something that matches the description of a sperm whale and something more akin to a plesiosaur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plesiosaurus).

[Puma]

Ah, now, Doogs - what about poor Nessie? Isn't she a plesiosaur? Puma

[Puma]

Richard - How many queries have you sent out on St Mark, how many e-mail, how many snail mail. I'd hate to see you throw in the towel too soon. And, are you going onto the publishers/agents websites to get a better feel for what they want - what's on agent query (and elsewhere) is sometimes misleading. Puma

[Doogs]

Ah, now, Doogs - what about poor Nessie? Isn't she a plesiosaur? Puma

If anyone can ever find concrete evidence of that (beyond a totally grainy, impossible to verify photograph), great. But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[RichardB]

Richard - How many queries have you sent out on St Mark, how many e-mail, how many snail mail. I'd hate to see you throw in the towel too soon. And, are you going onto the publishers/agents websites to get a better feel for what they want - what's on agent query (and elsewhere) is sometimes misleading. Puma

Who said anything about a towel?! Heck, I started a whole new webnovel just to be able to cite readership in the next round of queries! And let us not forget my Italian Wikipedia Mojo (tm) !

And yes, I am doing all the research one can do with what's available. So far I have sent out fewer than 12 queries total. They were mostly well targeted, and I didn't get farther than "Dear Author". That told me I needed to both improve my product and expand the target audience.

[WhiskeyGirl]

Haven't giant squid now been documented? I thought I read something about them being the basis for a lot of sea monster sightings and actual attacks. And then there was the prehistoric fish swimming around the Australia area...

Giant Squid (Architeuthis dux) and the very unimaginatively named Colossal Squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) are both very real. I'm a big cephalopod fan so if this is about to degenerate into squid bashing, I'm leaving ;)

[cooeedownunder]

WhiskeyGirl I read the piece, but I wasn't sure because I wasn't sure what the man was suppose to be. When you say he looked like a lion I wondered if he had a tale? in which case I would think it was a fantasy. I also wondered if your MC would no what a lion looked like?

That said, this makes me wonder where dinasores fit into this topic and/or those first primates? Although it is very hard for us to concieve that they lived, they did.

[pdr]

I'm UK/Commonwealth too, Suse and define a period novel as one written at the time. Jane Austen wrote about her world. It is now history to us but it was not to her!

So Austen, Trollop, Gaskell, the Brontes, Thackery, Dickens et al were not writing historical novels and today I would define them as period novels. It was Walter Scott who first created the historical novel and deliberately wrote about people in times past.

Re approaching agents. In the UK, as far as I've been able to ascertain, nearly all those accepting fiction are happy to accept historical novels and they don't define them as romance. There's a long tradition, since Scott's 'Ivanhoe' I suppose, of UK/Commonwealth readers enjoying historical novels as I define 'em!

What I would like to do here, with apologies to Whisky Girl, is to ask those of you doing the rounds of agents who told you your work was ready to go off? Who told you it was publishable and marketable? You are too close to your beloved babies, you can't judge yet, particularly those of you who haven't got a C.V. of published work. So how do you know?

And WG I would call yours an historical novel.

[cooeedownunder]

Ah, this means my use of the term period piece is wrong - I thought period pieces were pieces set in a particular time in history but where the history or an historical event was missing.

Gee whiz, it seems to get harder not easier :Shrug:

[Doogs]

What I would like to do here, with apologies to Whisky Girl, is to ask those of you doing the rounds of agents who told you your work was ready to go off? Who told you it was publishable and marketable? You are too close to your beloved babies, you can't judge yet, particularly those of you who haven't got a C.V. of published work. So how do you know?

What does this have to do with anything in this thread whatsoever?

[lkp]

I've been lurking in this thread, enjoying the different posts. I think the first question to ask, before you ask where to draw the line, is to ask who is drawing that line and for what purpose?

If, as a reader, you don't like this or that genre of historical writing, of course that is entirely up to you, and whatever categories help you organize your reading are fair game --- period pieces, historical romance, etc.

Agents, editors, and publishers use a fairly specific set of categories to describe historical writing, and if you know their categories and how they are defined, you can have better success selling your work. If you have written historical fantasy or alternative history, you may have better success with an agent who reps fantasy than historical fiction. Agents who rep literary work, may also be interested in literary historical fiction but not other kinds. I'e never seen the word "period piece" used in the publishing profession, even if Touchstone-Fireside's big summer book, Gregson's East of the Sun would seem to fit that category --- it is sold and marketed as historical fiction.

If it is the Historical Novel Society drawing the line, I hope they draw a broad one. People who like historical writing have wide and varied tastes, and the society will be strongest if it doesn't impose artificial barriers. If a book is crap, well that's what the review is for.

And if it is our very own historical novels forum, I hope we also will cast our net broadly. There are many on AW who write with a historical focus, or with historical content, and I have a great interest in encouraging them all to improve and develop the historical side of their writing.

[Doogs]

Agents, editors, and publishers use a fairly specific set of categories to describe historical writing, and if you know their categories and how they are defined, you can have better success selling your work. If you have written historical fantasy or alternative history, you may have better success with an agent who reps fantasy than historical fiction. Agents who rep literary work, may also be interested in literary historical fiction but not other kinds.

First of all, great post, lkp! I agree there's definitely a distinction to be made between personal perspective and a more establishment definition.

Speaking personally, my main frustration with all of this is the habit a significant number of agents have of ticking Historical Fiction in the "interested in" box on Agent Query and pretty much every other similar resource. Often as not, further research reveals that they are actually interested in either historical romance, or what is probably best termed romance with a historical flair. It makes separating the wheat from the chaff rather tiresome.

If it is the Historical Novel Society drawing the line, I hope they draw a broad one. People who like historical writing have wide and varied tastes, and the society will be strongest if it doesn't impose artificial barriers. If a book is crap, well that's what the review is for.

And if it is our very own historical novels forum, I hope we also will cast our net broadly. There are many on AW who write with a historical focus, or with historical content, and I have a great interest in encouraging them all to improve and develop the historical side of their writing.

Complete agreement here.

[Puma]

On the agents, Doogs, I'm also wary of the ones that mark every category. How do you know what they're really interested in - or, are they just keeping their options open hoping for a "once in a lifetime" best seller?

Good post, lkp. I think a lot of the frustrations, melee, stems from the limitations of all genre definitions, not just historical. There seem to be a lot of AWers who've written decent books that don't fit any of the niches - how do they query them? If you have access to the agents/editors/publishers specifications/categories and can post them (preferably for more than historical) somewhere on AW (and let us know where they are) I think that would be a tremendous help to a lot of people. Puma

[girlyswot]

I saw the thread on historical fiction vs lit and although my question is very similar, I didn't want to hijack it so I started a new thread.

I'm currently working on a piece that is set in Ancient Sumer and tells the story of the real events that inspired the Epic of Gilgamesh. It has an element of mysticism, but no more than the religion of the time calls for. When I asked in the science fiction and fantasy chat, general opinion was that, like The Mists of Avalon, it would be considered fantasy however, there were dissenting voices that cited Clan of the Cave Bear as a more appropriate parallel. I thought perhaps some experts here might have some further insight.

What is the line between fantasy and historical fiction?

I've posted the first chapter in the SYW sci/fi fantasy section here: http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145650

but am rather afraid that as the story moves forward and no dragons appear, I'll get lynched. ;) Would it be more at home in the Historical Writing SYW forum, or should I move it to Interstices or Other?

Thank you for your time.

Good question. I had a similar one when I was writing my (now on hiatus) novel inspired by the Ugaritic myth of Aqhat. I thought it was historical, but when I went over to fantasy and described it to them, they all said absolutely definitely fantasy. I didn't have dragons, either. ;) Just human beings, as historically accurate as I could make them, living their lives within their own religious framework, which included occasional direct interaction with the gods.

My advice would be to write it, then assess for yourself where you are most likely to sell it. Even if you decide that it really is historical, you might find more readers for that kind of book in the fantasy section. Or you could submit to both historical and fantasy agents and see who bites first!

[BardSkye]

Giant Squid (Architeuthis dux) and the very unimaginatively named Colossal Squid (Mesonychoteuthis hamiltoni) are both very real. I'm a big cephalopod fan so if this is about to degenerate into squid bashing, I'm leaving ;)

No squid bashing, just proof that sometimes fact is stranger than fiction. Even if some long-ago sailor saw and recognized a defunct squid floating by, by the time the story reached port the poor creature could have been turned into a monster that attacked and had to be bravely fought off. Makes for a better tale to impress the ladies.

[pdr]

girlyswot has it, Whisky Girl. Finish first. Worry about category as you edit.


P.S.
What does this have to do with anything in this thread whatsoever?
Think about it, Doogs!

[Doogs]

What does this have to do with anything in this thread whatsoever?
Think about it, Doogs!

Gosh, thanks.

I thought about it when I read it. But since message boards have a way of concealing tone, I figured I'd take a deep breath and pose a question rather than respond based on my initial reading.

Since it seems my question won't be receiving a serious answer, I guess I'll just have to go with what's on the screen.

What I would like to do here, with apologies to Whisky Girl, is to ask those of you doing the rounds of agents who told you your work was ready to go off? Who told you it was publishable and marketable?

First, this can be read two ways. On the one hand, it can be an honest question. On the other, it could be a snarky comment posed from a position of perceived superiority.

Either way, I don't see how 1) this question applies to anything in this thread at all, and 2) there can possibly be any "right" answer. There's no set of international standards for publishability, no judging body. The agents and publishers are the ones who determine if a work is publishable and marketable. We can have every beta reader rave, and it wouldn't (and doesn't) matter a lick. The only way to find out is to put it out there.

Honestly, I believe the decision is internal. And that it requires an almost contradictory mix of humility and self-confidence. Humility to admit that your work needs more revision, more editing, more polish, and self-confidence to get to the point where, yeah, it is good enough to go out. Without both of those you either send out something that's premature, or you get caught in an endless revise-and-edit loop.

You are too close to your beloved babies, you can't judge yet, particularly those of you who haven't got a C.V. of published work. So how do you know?

I'll be the first to admit I can get "too close to my beloved baby". Slave away on anything for months and years in what spare time you can scrape together, and yeah, you're going to be attached to it. That's exactly why I've set TSOR aside for the time being. I need to clear my head and write something else.

That said, I found the declarative second-person rather off-putting, and it gives me the impression the initial question was posed more from the "snarky comment" side. If that's not the case, fine, but understand it can definitely be read that way, especially in the absence of any tone of voice or body language clues.

And again, what does knowing if our work is ready for submission have to do with this thread? I'm still not seeing the connection. So what if someone is too close to their work? So what if someone is submitting material prematurely? So what if they don't have a C.V. of published work? Last I checked, this was a board for writers, not just published writers, and I for one love having access to such a wide and diverse spectrum of perspectives.

[Raspberry]

I'm a terribly unorganized person and as such I'm trying to structure things.

I don't know how the genres have evolved, but it appears to me that there are three main categories:

Futuristic
Contemporary
Historical

Ok? Makes sense, doesn't it?

There's no contemporary bookshelf as there are way too many books in that category. Therefore, the category contemporary is broken up into its subgenres.

Mystery
Thriller
Romance
Fantasy

the latter introduces another measure to differentiate: realistic or unrealistic events and actions, but thanks to the publishers, they did not put that up before the timeline catagories!

With that said, it may be (just maybe) that we have historical romance, historical thriller, and historical fantasy just as we have contemporary romance, mystery and such.

Just trying to find the logic!

:)

Rasp.

PS: WWII is contemporary as long as there are still witnesses around.

[Doogs]

Ah, this means my use of the term period piece is wrong - I thought period pieces were pieces set in a particular time in history but where the history or an historical event was missing.

That's how I've perceived it, too. But I tend to blend film and literature, so in addition to books I'm also thinking of movies such as, say, "Reservoir Dogs", which is set in a vague 70's timeframe for no real reason other than atmosphere.

[Puma]

Nice post, Raspberry - and welcome to AW and historical. I like your "unorganized" organization. Puts it all together pretty neatly. Puma

[Doogs]

Nice post, Raspberry - and welcome to AW and historical. I like your "unorganized" organization. Puts it all together pretty neatly. Puma

Agreed!

And if you think about it that way...a lot of the same distinctions that set historical romance, historical fantasy, etc, apart from straight historical fiction...well they're pretty much the same in contemporary or future fiction.

[WhiskeyGirl]

WhiskeyGirl I read the piece, but I wasn't sure because I wasn't sure what the man was suppose to be. When you say he looked like a lion I wondered if he had a tale? in which case I would think it was a fantasy. I also wondered if your MC would no what a lion looked like?

Enkidu was blond. Since there were no other blonds in ancient Sumer, the MC thinks he's some kind of animal but she's wrong. He's just a guy. The MC would definitely have seen one, though perhaps not a live one. Lion hunting was very common, since they preyed on the Sumerian's herds and they also features very prominently in the art of the time.

Thanks so much for trucking all the way over to sci-fi to take a gander at it!

[DMarie84]

I have an issue too classifying my new book. It's definitely historical, as it takes place in Heian era and Edo era Japan, yet the main element is a paranormal theme (in fact my MC is the legendary Yuki-onna, or Snow Woman). I was in the fantasy forum and wondered if what I had was "mythic fiction", "historical paranormal" or what.

They all said it was historical fantasy, with a paranormal emphasis.

Sigh. Oh well I'm not gonna try and classify it just yet. It's just a mix of history and myth.

There are so many different subgenres it gives me a headache :tongue

[firedrake]

PS: WWII is contemporary as long as there are still witnesses around.

Really?

[lkp]

I have an issue too classifying my new book. It's definitely historical, as it takes place in Heian era and Edo era Japan, yet the main element is a paranormal theme (in fact my MC is the legendary Yuki-onna, or Snow Woman). I was in the fantasy forum and wondered if what I had was "mythic fiction", "historical paranormal" or what.

They all said it was historical fantasy, with a paranormal emphasis.

Sigh. Oh well I'm not gonna try and classify it just yet. It's just a mix of history and myth.

There are so many different subgenres it gives me a headache :tongue

Have you read Susan Fromberg Schaeffer (I hope have her name right) The Snow Fox? It has some strongly fantastic elements, if I remember rightly, but I'd certainly query HF agents with that book. I loved it, and yours sounds very much like something I'd read.

[pdr]

haven't you learned yet, Doogs that if you go looking for nastiness you'll be sure to find it?

[cooeedownunder]

What does this have to do with anything in this thread whatsoever?

also

And again, what does knowing if our work is ready for submission have to do with this thread? I'm still not seeing the connection. So what if someone is too close to their work? So what if someone is submitting material prematurely? So what if they don't have a C.V. of published work? Last I checked, this was a board for writers, not just published writers, and I for one love having access to such a wide and diverse spectrum of perspectives.



Before I say anything, take into account some write better than others, and lets not deny those who could do with help.

I don't think there was anything wrong with pdr's comment, and I think pds comment and question was clear and most certainly not snarky, and I never read where she said only published writers could contribute, and also think she was on topic if anyone wants to look through the posts in this thread in a logical and open minded manner and they can keep their perspective on the entire thread.

That said, some of those who dont' visit often might not be aware, but we have become masters of derailing threads in the hisorical SYW forum. But seriously, I think we have all come to the conslusion and the realisation that some threads evolve from the original topic post, become broader, and take on different paths sometimes, which this one most certainly did, prior to pdrs post. Pdr did not take it off topic, but responded to topics already posted.

I have no intentions of getting into a debate, or a mind game of throwing sentences out of context to the full text, back and forth between anyone, when I think the following statements are very clear in one manner but very vague in the purpose of them for some, but logic should prevail to fully undestand them......"So what if someone is too close to their work?" and "So what if someone is submitting material prematurely?"

I am at a lost for the reason of those confrontational questions to writers. I think only each individual writer can answer them. And no, I haven't missed anything, I know where they were aimed, but surely, only each writer can answer them for themselves.

I can guess I don't even have to be an agent or publisher to answer those questions after I look at those types of submissions that come from writers that have that opinion, I have betta read too many stories now that had the same attitude. "Well, so what on earth is this crap? Throw it in the bin?"

Some writers do have that opinion or those questions and write very, very well, and their work is brilliant, and all the flaws those questions posed by those writers won't be an issue to publication, but the majority do not. I won't ponder on them too much more, because I know the answer to all those questions - which is they are not not the type of questions you should be asking when you submit.

And again, what does knowing if our work is ready for submission have to do with this thread?

Well, gosh - beyond answering that question in a different context, I think, go back a few posts.

I thought we all knew this is a site for writers regardless if they are published or not, and many writers here are published because of the help they recieved here. Many others ignore advice to assist them from both published and unpublished authors and plow ahead with submissions and then wonder why they are being rejected. Many writers post on various SWY and their work is clearly not ready for submission but they plow ahead anyway.

And to be honest, I think "So what, if they don't care?"

Anyone who is submitting their material prematurely, which I take to mean - not ready or they can't admit to themselves it is not ready, is only asking for heartache in my opinion.

I see pdr's comment and question as a legitimate question in relation to this thread in response to some of the posts.

I saw pdr's post as trying to get some writers to really think about the submission process and the marketability of their work, and a suggestion to take a step back to look at their work in an objective manner to be able to determine if it is as wonderful as they think it is.

You said "so what?" a hell of a lot of times, and I am thinking what is the issue - I did not put a question mark there because I have no intention of falling into a debate. I am simply putting my opionion forward, which you are free to disagree with. If I wanted to debate I would have opened up a thread elsewhere.

I can't help wonder why it is bewildering to some that a poster here tries to save some people from having to go around in circles in an aim to stop them having to ask, "Why is it being rejected?"

If we all said, "So what?" or thought "So what?", which I hear as WHO CARES? many on AW wouldn't be published.

Every single poster on this thread has a similar goal and an interest in the same craft, and I appreciate that some care naught for what others think about their craft or want assistance unless asked.

BUT I don't see why when we are presented with a challanging question, which is aimed to make one look within themselves and at that craft they are working at, that because no one choses to answer it, that question should not be allowed on a thread when the door was clearly open to the question.

[Raspberry]

Really?

That may depend on market, but it's mainly handled by contemporary oriented agents rather than historical fiction oriented ones.

[DMarie84]

Have you read Susan Fromberg Schaeffer (I hope have her name right) The Snow Fox? It has some strongly fantastic elements, if I remember rightly, but I'd certainly query HF agents with that book. I loved it, and yours sounds very much like something I'd read.

Thanks! You just made my day! :)

I'm going to look up that book now too.

[BAY]

PDR,

You asked those ready to query or in the process of, who told us the work was ready to go? I'm guilty for submitting without permission! Please send permission slips ASAP, even better if check off boxes are provided.

Now-in case you must have confirmation that I'm not squemish--I assure you I can take it. I bait my own hooks, if the squid's not working, I hack up the caught fish. Not only that, I remove my own hooks from the non keepers-except for sharks, notably the bull sharks famous for biting off chunks of boats when it gets between a bull and its snapper. I cut the line and leave those bad boys with hooks in, making them even meaner.

Do you take Paypal? http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/icons/icon6.gif

[pdr]

Clarification please.

[cooeedownunder]

BAY I have paypal and for an agreed amount, am happy to send you a permission slip, and even a checklist for you to mark off how many hooks and how much bait you need to fill up your bucket before you can take it to market.

Now if you are talking about submitting, without permission, with a different partner than your regular partner - that will cost more.

How much do you think would be an agreeable amount?

[pdr]

Bay, clear your PM folder so mine can reach you!

Thank you.