Newbie ?: The line between Fantasy and Historical Fiction
- Thread starter WhiskeyGirl
- Start date
I don't believe that Christian miracles should be ring-fenced or above criticism (note: I was christened, but would not call myself Christian.) However, you have to remember that the people of the 1st century CE really did believe things like predicting the future by inspecting the entrails of a sacrificed bull, the Greeks truly believed that there was a time when Gods walked among them, and Julius Caesar was convinced he was descendant of Hercules.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2012
- Messages
- 4,624
- Reaction score
- 1,549
I don't think it's too soon to worry! I like to start working on the query as soon as I get the idea in my head. It might help now also to think about what sort of agents/pubs you would query.I must say, I'm definitely worrying about the query-stage. Probably more than I should be right now, but I'm a worrier, so that's how I roll.
I agree with this totally. People did believe those things.
The question of Joan of Arc is interesting to me. I've read (I think) every novel about her and a lot of nonfiction about her. I don't think I'd ever try to write about her myself, though. As I recall, most of the novels tend to take an approach that just sort of acknowledges her miracles and conversations with saints as historical facts without non-mystical alternative explanation or else leaves what happened wide open.
But how many of us believe she actually talked to God? I'm not saying that in a snarky way. It's something I've often wondered. My own personal beliefs about God tend to be agnostic, but I also have yet to read an account of her miracles and conversations with God that is satisfactory. That doesn't mean there isn't one, of course.
So, I'm not sure how one would handle that in a novel. Plus, she's such a major historical figure and people get really upset about how she is portrayed in fiction when it doesn't line up with perfect saintly virgin.
That's an incredibly long ramble. This is just something I've thought about.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 313
Ha! Ixtila, you thought you wrote a novel! Be warned!
I agree, bad comparison. So compare Joan of Arc to Perseus instead.
Joan of Arc was an actual historical person. The historical record regarding her undisputedly reports she says she experienced miracles. Many of her followers believed she experienced miracles. To write historical fiction regarding her without addressing those miracles in some way is, in my opinion, to diminish the historical accuracy of an historical fiction novel.
The author could choose a mundane explanation for those miracles. Attribute them to psychology or her manipulation of those around her, or coincidence, instead of the divine. That would not decrease, IMO, the historical accuracy of the novel.
The author could choose to simply lay the miracles out there and let the reader decide if they are mundane or miraculous. Also a valid choice and keeps the novel in the realm of historical fiction.
The author could choose to treat them as Joan and many of her followers treated them, as miraculous interventions from God. This is also a valid choice and does not, IMO, move the novel from historical fiction to historical fantasy.
Part of what I like about historical fiction is getting into the mindset of the historical people. If miracles were believed by them, then the author writing that miracles are believable is not taking the book into the realm of fantasy.
I’m writing from the perspective of a firm agnostic, by the way. I’ve no particular dogma in this hunt.
Now Perseus and all the other semi- or non-divine people in Greek Mythology are also myths. Writing about beheading a Gorgon, where we never had Gorgons in the historical record, would be fantasy. One is writing about a non-historical person doing non-historical things.
And then we come to Troy. The Trojan Wars actually happened. More people are realizing that oral legends can be passed down intact for generations. Schliemann discovered a site that might be Troy based on Homer. Things Homer described have turned out to be backed up in the archeological record. Helge Ingstad discovered L’anse aux Meadows by following the sailing directions in the Greenlander sagas. Descriptions of Saxon mead halls in Beowulf have turned out to be backed up in the archeological record. Etc, etc, etc. (No, I don’t think Grendel was historical!)
So some of the Odyssey and some of the Iliad may be historically accurate.
If an historical novelist does a lot of research into Troy and Greek history from that time period (pick a Trojan time period) and decides “These people believed in Gods. They believed their lives were dice on a Divine game board. I’m going to write my book with my historical characters acting and believing as closely as I can research to the actual historical people of that time, which includes a belief in Divine intervention” I cannot point to that and say “No, that’s not historical fiction, it’s fantasy, get off my shelf!”
Arthur’s another good example. There was probably some war hero that fended off the Saxons from some part of Britain for up to generation back in the sixth century. This grain of historical truth has sprouted all sorts of mythological matter to go with it. Some of the mythological matter is easily dated to waaaay past the sixth century (Mallory, et al). That can be pruned away. But again, an author who goes back to the sixth century and researches as much as possible (not a lot, alas) and tries to get into the heads of the people back then…that’s historical fiction, even if their heads were filled with miracles.
I agree it’s sliding, and there are bunches of grey areas. I think author intent is important here. If the intent is historical accuracy then it’s more probably historical fiction. If your Egyptians, from your research, believed that sort of thing, then it’s historical to put it in your book.
If you actually have an actual God walking down the street, you may have stepped into fantasy. But even then… Is it a vision one of your characters has? Was it an historically documented vision? (Probably Historical Fiction). Or are the Gods characters in your book? (Probably Historical Fantasy)
Yes! I agree! And your last paragraph is soooo important. Write your story. Write it true to your writer’s heart. Worry about what genre it’s in later with your agent or editor.
The story I’m working on uses sung galdor as magic. It’s really magic. My story is, thus, really fantasy, no matter how accurate the historical bits are. If I was working with characters singing galdor and it didn’t contradict the physics of the universe (scrying, wards and actual weather manipulation are not historical) then it could be historical fiction. After all, they thought the galdor worked. (Well, except for the part where William lost the Battle of Hastings so all of history post 1066 is different. But aside from that…
That’s Merovingian Superhero. You have to say it in a grand voice: ULTRAGOTHA! Ta-da! I’m sure that’s historically accurate. Someday I will find a Superman font “U” to have as my avatar.
God(s) are historically documentable Or at least conversations and visions are. Satyrs not so much.
I don’t know that gritty and realistic would be a dividing line between historical fiction and historical fantasy. Chelsea Quinn Yarboro’s St. Germaine books have a gritty realistic feel but they’re firmly fantasy. There are a lot of gritty ‘realistic’ unabashed fantasy novels out there. Dark Fantasy is quite popular.
Yes.
It is your second paragraph I would like to address, and please take this with the spirit of debate I intend.
I agree, bad comparison. So compare Joan of Arc to Perseus instead.
Joan of Arc was an actual historical person. The historical record regarding her undisputedly reports she says she experienced miracles. Many of her followers believed she experienced miracles. To write historical fiction regarding her without addressing those miracles in some way is, in my opinion, to diminish the historical accuracy of an historical fiction novel.
The author could choose a mundane explanation for those miracles. Attribute them to psychology or her manipulation of those around her, or coincidence, instead of the divine. That would not decrease, IMO, the historical accuracy of the novel.
The author could choose to simply lay the miracles out there and let the reader decide if they are mundane or miraculous. Also a valid choice and keeps the novel in the realm of historical fiction.
The author could choose to treat them as Joan and many of her followers treated them, as miraculous interventions from God. This is also a valid choice and does not, IMO, move the novel from historical fiction to historical fantasy.
Part of what I like about historical fiction is getting into the mindset of the historical people. If miracles were believed by them, then the author writing that miracles are believable is not taking the book into the realm of fantasy.
I’m writing from the perspective of a firm agnostic, by the way. I’ve no particular dogma in this hunt.
Now Perseus and all the other semi- or non-divine people in Greek Mythology are also myths. Writing about beheading a Gorgon, where we never had Gorgons in the historical record, would be fantasy. One is writing about a non-historical person doing non-historical things.
And then we come to Troy. The Trojan Wars actually happened. More people are realizing that oral legends can be passed down intact for generations. Schliemann discovered a site that might be Troy based on Homer. Things Homer described have turned out to be backed up in the archeological record. Helge Ingstad discovered L’anse aux Meadows by following the sailing directions in the Greenlander sagas. Descriptions of Saxon mead halls in Beowulf have turned out to be backed up in the archeological record. Etc, etc, etc. (No, I don’t think Grendel was historical!)
So some of the Odyssey and some of the Iliad may be historically accurate.
If an historical novelist does a lot of research into Troy and Greek history from that time period (pick a Trojan time period) and decides “These people believed in Gods. They believed their lives were dice on a Divine game board. I’m going to write my book with my historical characters acting and believing as closely as I can research to the actual historical people of that time, which includes a belief in Divine intervention” I cannot point to that and say “No, that’s not historical fiction, it’s fantasy, get off my shelf!”
Arthur’s another good example. There was probably some war hero that fended off the Saxons from some part of Britain for up to generation back in the sixth century. This grain of historical truth has sprouted all sorts of mythological matter to go with it. Some of the mythological matter is easily dated to waaaay past the sixth century (Mallory, et al). That can be pruned away. But again, an author who goes back to the sixth century and researches as much as possible (not a lot, alas) and tries to get into the heads of the people back then…that’s historical fiction, even if their heads were filled with miracles.
I agree it’s sliding, and there are bunches of grey areas. I think author intent is important here. If the intent is historical accuracy then it’s more probably historical fiction. If your Egyptians, from your research, believed that sort of thing, then it’s historical to put it in your book.
If you actually have an actual God walking down the street, you may have stepped into fantasy. But even then… Is it a vision one of your characters has? Was it an historically documented vision? (Probably Historical Fiction). Or are the Gods characters in your book? (Probably Historical Fantasy)
Yes! I agree! And your last paragraph is soooo important. Write your story. Write it true to your writer’s heart. Worry about what genre it’s in later with your agent or editor.
The story I’m working on uses sung galdor as magic. It’s really magic. My story is, thus, really fantasy, no matter how accurate the historical bits are. If I was working with characters singing galdor and it didn’t contradict the physics of the universe (scrying, wards and actual weather manipulation are not historical) then it could be historical fiction. After all, they thought the galdor worked. (Well, except for the part where William lost the Battle of Hastings so all of history post 1066 is different. But aside from that…
That’s Merovingian Superhero. You have to say it in a grand voice: ULTRAGOTHA! Ta-da! I’m sure that’s historically accurate.
Someday I will find a Superman font “U” to have as my avatar.God(s) are historically documentable
Or at least conversations and visions are. Satyrs not so much.I don’t know that gritty and realistic would be a dividing line between historical fiction and historical fantasy. Chelsea Quinn Yarboro’s St. Germaine books have a gritty realistic feel but they’re firmly fantasy. There are a lot of gritty ‘realistic’ unabashed fantasy novels out there. Dark Fantasy is quite popular.
Yes.
Precisely! If the story includes the actual beliefs of the time, it is historical, it must be historical because without those beliefs it would not be an accurate portrayal of the time.
But maybe it's all in how the narrator treats it - if the characters believe, that's historical, but if the narrator believes and expects the reader to believe, does that make it fantasy?
ULTRAGOTHA! Ta-da!
(Did I get it right?) lol
I was nodding along with you all through your post, right until you got to this:
Then I put my head in my hands and groaned.
This is exactly what I'm trying to explain. If someone from our distant future came back and looked at modern beliefs they would say exactly the same thing about us as you are trying to say about the Greek myths. How is all the hundreds of extant writings from as early as the 6th and 7th centuries BCE not ''historically documentable'' just because it is so very old? How is it different, except that WE don't believe in these things? Plenty of modern Europeans believe just as adamantly that fairies are real, with no documentary proof whatsoever.
Edited to add: You have to remember, to the ancient Greeks this was HISTORY. There was no such thing as FICTION. They didn't just make up stories about satyrs and centaurs and hekatonkeires or anything else. To them it was TRUE. Just like your Joan of Arc analogy is, to you, TRUE.
(Did I get it right?) lol
I was nodding along with you all through your post, right until you got to this:
God(s) are historically documentable
Then I put my head in my hands and groaned.
This is exactly what I'm trying to explain. If someone from our distant future came back and looked at modern beliefs they would say exactly the same thing about us as you are trying to say about the Greek myths. How is all the hundreds of extant writings from as early as the 6th and 7th centuries BCE not ''historically documentable'' just because it is so very old? How is it different, except that WE don't believe in these things? Plenty of modern Europeans believe just as adamantly that fairies are real, with no documentary proof whatsoever.
Edited to add: You have to remember, to the ancient Greeks this was HISTORY. There was no such thing as FICTION. They didn't just make up stories about satyrs and centaurs and hekatonkeires or anything else. To them it was TRUE. Just like your Joan of Arc analogy is, to you, TRUE.
Last edited:
That’s Merovingian Superhero. You have to say it in a grand voice: ULTRAGOTHA! Ta-da! I’m sure that’s historically accurate.
I have friends who are Merovingian-American. I totally support them in that.
God(s) are historically documentable
I concede that having a satyr walk out the brush and shoot the breeze with the characters would lean on the fantasy side. But what if the satyr is seen from the corner of the eye, pausing only to mouth the words, "lai, xaire," before vanishing in the thickets.
For me, it's all in the effect, either "in-yer-face" straight up impossible or subtler, the sort of thing that can be incorporated into a mimicry of life.
I might have too much emphasis on realism, I guess what I meant was evoking an authentic historical setting.
Though I think realism is a useful element. You can play with "realism" as much as "fantasy." A swashbuckling adventure could have a very well-defined historical setting, but what counts is the deadly swordplay, the beautiful princess, the daring leap from the parapet, that sort of thing. It's fantasy, but not Fantasy. That's why Harold Lamb's Cossack tales, or Rafael Sabatini have enduring appeal to fantasy fans, although you won't find much, if any magic or monsters in their stories. Michael Chabon made a point of referring to Moorcock, Leiber and Howard as forerunners of Gentlemen of the Road. I'd say there was plenty of gritty realism in that, but I recommend it to fantasy fans.
Howard Andrew Jones (Sea of Stars) and Scott Oden (Lion of Cairo) have both been working in historical fantasy. Jones likes pyrotechnic magic that is totally fantasy. Oden tends toward more subtle effects. They are both quite good at getting history and fantasy together.
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 313
Yes! Very good. You now must always hear that in your head when you read my username.
Hm. I wonder how much they actually thought all those mythical monsters were true? Ancient Greek sociology isn't my forte. There's a difference between the perception of a divine miracle and the presence of a mythical beast.
Now, if you're writing about an ancient Greek divine miracle, I'll answer the same way as I do with Joan of Arc.
I have friends who are Merovingian-American. I totally support them in that.
Wow. Your friends are really old.
I think the same way I posit the Joan of Arc example. If you're in your historical characters' heads, then you take what is in those heads as probably history. Including possible sightings of mythical beasts would be treading closer to the fantasy line; but I can see a scenario where it would stay in history.
I think we agree here.
I can answer that question: absolutely and unequivocally real. To them, divine miracles happened every day. They firmly believed that the gods walked among them and took an active interest in even the lowliest peasant's life. Everything was externalised. If you so much as stubbed your toe it was some god's fault. If you had a big decision to make you asked a god for an answer. Achilles was a great warrior not because he trained hard but because his mother was a goddess. Helene was the most beautiful woman in the world because she was a daughter of Zeus. To me, you can't separate history from myth in this case. If it feels better to call it fantasy, fine, but it is still absolutely historical because without it, your story would not be true.
As for all the strange and wonderful fantastical creatures of Greek myth, they firmly believed they were real too. Perhaps as modern writers we can find logical explanations for them that the Greeks had not the knowledge nor ability to discover. Like centaurs being a memory of the first time men rode horses. Or something like the hekatonkeires that I mentioned before (trans. the hundred handed ones) could have been a sighting of a colony of giant octopi... But they had no such knowledge so they must be real and your story would not be historical if they weren't.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jan 17, 2011
- Messages
- 2,467
- Reaction score
- 313
Yes, yes! If you get in their historical heads and those heads contain miracles or myths then it's still history. Yes!
Yay!Yes, yes! If you get in their historical heads and those heads contain miracles or myths then it's still history. Yes!
Your little jumpy man made me giggle...
Thanks for an awesome debate, that was so much fun.
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2010
- Messages
- 1,249
- Reaction score
- 147
- Location
- Far North
- Website
- www.theragsoftime.com
Abso-fricking-lutely. I think genre is a matter of tone and style more than anything - you can write a love story that isn't genre romance and you can write a book with supernatural incidents that isn't fantasy, but maybe historical fiction or magical realism. It's a matter of tone, style and in some cases of adhering to certain genre conventions (like a HEA in romance). Much more subtle than any hard rules allow for.
Sometimes deciding on what you want it to be can help you in finding the right tone or style and sticking to it throughout the story. Sometimes it's better to just write and see where it takes you, and decide afterwards.
I have been reading this thread with great interest. It touches on two things which have been a source of perplexity in my story for some time. One is the whole romance thing. My story is set in the tenth century Eastern Roman Empire. I have researched it meticulously and am trying to adhere to the facts as best I can,interweaving the lives of two or three fictional character in with what really happened. It is an extremely complex process. There is somewhat of an element of a love story in there, but that is not the main focus of my story, so I am so glad that that has been set straight by some of you. I do NOT want it classified as Romance, because it is first and foremost an historical adventure.
The second, is that my protagonist has from time to time visions/conversations with Odin (he is a Norse mercenary). Would this change my classification? My MC is somewhat of an agnostic, had he heard of the term at the time and also an alcoholic. So I am leaving the reader with the vague interpretation that Odin is a figment of his imagination. In fact, he has been heard to say that on occasion. The story of Joan of Arc came to mind actually, when I was writing it, and it has been referenced here. Where does historical fiction draw the line at religious experience?
The second, is that my protagonist has from time to time visions/conversations with Odin (he is a Norse mercenary). Would this change my classification? My MC is somewhat of an agnostic, had he heard of the term at the time and also an alcoholic. So I am leaving the reader with the vague interpretation that Odin is a figment of his imagination. In fact, he has been heard to say that on occasion. The story of Joan of Arc came to mind actually, when I was writing it, and it has been referenced here. Where does historical fiction draw the line at religious experience?