What do you consider "historical fiction"?

flapperphilosopher · Feb 22, 2012

I apologize if this has been discussed before; I went back a bit and hadn't seen anything similar in a very long time, anyway!

So-- what do you consider to be "historical fiction"? Is it ANYTHING set in the past? Is it only stuff set in the past that involves major events and/or historical figures? Is it only stuff set in the past that includes the historical setting as a major aspect of the plot?

Curious to know your points of view!

gothicangel · Feb 23, 2012

flapperphilosopher said:
I apologize if this has been discussed before; I went back a bit and hadn't seen anything similar in a very long time, anyway!

So-- what do you consider to be "historical fiction"? Is it ANYTHING set in the past? Is it only stuff set in the past that involves major events and/or historical figures? Is it only stuff set in the past that includes the historical setting as a major aspect of the plot?

Curious to know your points of view!

I think the cut-off date for historical fiction is around 1950.

It's a setting, it doesn't have to have real-life events or figures, but the backdrop must be historical. And of course there are sub-genres like historical fantasy, which are a bit looser with the history.

Shakesbear · Feb 23, 2012

I agree with Gothicangel's definition but would add that the era the fiction is set in has to be very well researched and without anachronisms. The ambiance of the era has to be right or the whole thing goes flat like an ill risen cake.

pdr · Feb 23, 2012

If...

you write about things set in the past then that is historical fiction. It does not have to involve known political or notorious people.

(HNS and some agents define the past as before you were born so that you have to research the details. Others like the HWA define historical fiction as anything older than fifty years ago)

thothguard51 · Feb 23, 2012

This is just me...

I prefer my historical fiction to be set with true historical facts woven into the fictional story. Facts that interest me and int a time period that is interesting. For me, this just adds to the sense of wonder to the story even if the characters are fictionalized.

Watching American Graffiti for me in the 70's did not make American Graffiti a historical fiction movie. Today, it might qualify as historical fiction to my grand children, but I still would not consider it Historical fiction anymore than I would The Great Gatsby.

Lately, I have been reading a lot of historical fantasy by Bernard Cornwell and he is very-very good a weaving historical facts into his story and using historical characters, but told by fictionalized characters. I highly recommend his Saxon Chronicles to anyone who enjoys historical fiction...

JWNelson · Feb 24, 2012

Why a cut-off date of 1950?

KayEn78 · Feb 24, 2012

I was wondering the same thing (about the cut-off date being 1950). What if someone had a story set in the 1950s, '60s or even '70s? Would that be considered contemporary historical fiction then?

-Kristi

Literateparakeet · Feb 25, 2012

JWNelson said:
Why a cut-off date of 1950?

I just read an ariticle in Writer's Magazine that said HF is a "story set at least 50 years in the past, requiring the author's research."

1950 is roughly 50 years in the past.

My personal definition though is less strict. Last year in my Historical Fiction class we read Sunrise Over Fallujah by Walter Dean Myers. It's about Operation Iraqi Freedom. Certainly not 50 years in the past, but something that I felt was beneficial for the kids to learn about. It was "past" enough for me.

Mr Flibble · Feb 25, 2012

Industry says pre 1950 (give or take)

Personally? I think before living memory (so, say before my Dad was born or thereabouts). Because even 1930 was pretty damn different. Even the term 'making love' meant something, well, quite different....Everything was different and there's no one alive (or very few) to give first hand accounts. It's the lack of first handedness that makes it historical for me.

Al Stevens · Feb 25, 2012

Literateparakeet said:
1950 is roughly 50 years in the past.

Very roughly.

A couple years back I looked into subbing my JFK assassination novel into historical fiction markets. It couldn't make the cut because they said formal historical fiction was pre-WWII. Sounds like that's changed, but 1963 still isn't long enough back.

donroc · Feb 25, 2012

Our current events become history for succeeding generations.

augusto · Feb 25, 2012

Last year Irene Goodman had a pitch contest for historical fiction. This was her take: "I am looking for anything set from the dawn of time to World War I."

Cristin_B · Feb 26, 2012

I've also heard agents describe historical fiction as pre-WWII.

augusto · Feb 26, 2012

I have a novel set during the Depression and WWII. I've always leaned toward calling it literary because it's very much character-driven (and I am confused by what defines historical fiction). I wanted to submit to Graywolf Press--who doesn't take historicals--and I asked them for their definition. Their response:

[FONT=Calibri, Verdana, Helvetica, Arial]The years portrayed are less important than the prose, style, character development, and depth. Historical fiction generally focuses on the retelling of an actual event, is largely plot driven, and emphasizes the period setting. Literary fiction—which is what we publish—places the characters and their internal workings above the plot. If you feel confident that your story is more literary fiction and less historical fiction, then by all means submit...[/FONT]

Granted, this probably is more their definition of literary than a timeline for historical, but it's another view. And, yes, I submitted. And, yes, they rejected.

pdr · Feb 26, 2012

More...

people are accepting the definition of 'if it's before your birth it's historical.'

There are quite a few books set in the 60s called historical. Literary historicals win prizes so persevere, augusto.

Interesting what US agents are calling historical. WWII is certainly that now in the UK/Commonwealth publishing world.

flapperphilosopher · Feb 27, 2012

I'm in the same boat, augusto (which is partially why I asked the question, though I also asked out of genuine interest and curiosity!

). My novel is set in the 1920s, but is also very much character-driven, way more about the people than the time period or place (though of course the time period has shaped and affects my characters, or why would it be set then?). I feel it might disappoint people who pick it up because of the 1920s element, which is why I hesitate to call it historical, even though it's researched to death and very grounded in the time period. AHHH, eh? That definition does say more about what they think of literary than anything else, but it's interesting to hear, thanks for sharing.

It is true that literary historicals exist and win prizes (The Blind Assassin, The English Patient) so there's some hope....haha. Good luck!

pdr · Feb 27, 2012

Er...excuse me but...

why do you think that such a novel

but is also very much character-driven, way more about the people than the time period or place

is not a historical novel? That's what wins the Booker! If you have done your research and made your novel setting the 1920s then it is historical. It's what I consider the best kind of historical because historicals like this make people think. (Like the best of SF)

In this type of historical you are linking to your reader through a set of circumstances in the past which happened to ordinary people, like most of your readers. You are allowing the reader to watch what happens and wonder if they would react the same way. A really brilliant writer can actually leave the thought in the reader's mind that what happened then is happening or could happen today and that maybe history does not have to repeat itself.

Deb Kinnard · Feb 27, 2012

It has to be pre-1950 because I was born in '51, and anything in my lifetime is contemporary.

There. That's settled. I have spoken.

KayEn78 · Feb 28, 2012

Ha! Since I was born in 1978, I used to say that anything before then (even 1977) was history to me! But that wouldn't work in the writing world.

It's too contemporary, too modern.

-Kristi

donroc · Feb 28, 2012

Born 1932, I will still assert against conventional wisdom that if I write a WWII novel, it will be historical for all born after 1945 because it is History for those readers.

And what is the differnce if I interviewed combat veterans for the novel and if 25+ years old interviewed the same this year -- excluding memory lapses of the elderly of course?

flapperphilosopher · Feb 28, 2012

pdr said:
why do you think that such a novel

but is also very much character-driven, way more about the people than the time period or place

is not a historical novel? That's what wins the Booker! If you have done your research and made your novel setting the 1920s then it is historical. It's what I consider the best kind of historical because historicals like this make people think. (Like the best of SF)

In this type of historical you are linking to your reader through a set of circumstances in the past which happened to ordinary people, like most of your readers. You are allowing the reader to watch what happens and wonder if they would react the same way. A really brilliant writer can actually leave the thought in the reader's mind that what happened then is happening or could happen today and that maybe history does not have to repeat itself.

Oh, I don't think being character-driven makes a novel not historical! I probably should have expressed that better [time to stop posting before coffee, haha]. I actually agree with everything you're saying about that being the best kind of historical-- seeing the way ordinary people in circumstances we can relate to are going to deal with them in a way we might not. And YES, those are the ones that win prizes, absolutely.

I was trying to write out a paragraph explaining why I'm not sure about straight-up calling my work historical, but it sounded stupid, haha. So-- you're right! It's literary fiction and it's historical fiction.

But back to the discussion (because this isn't just me trying to sneakily get personal advice, haha) -- it is interesting how perception of 'historical' has that personal aspect. I'm born in 1987, so the 60s to me are a historical time period. Mad Men is historical fiction to me! Whereas if you're born in 1932, WW2-- historical to most of us-- is like my late 1990s. Interesting, isn't it?

EngineerTiger · Feb 28, 2012

Conversely, I now consider some of my favorite contemporay authors (contemporay to their time) as close cousins to historical fiction since they are Pre-WWII and a reader can pick up all sorts of interesting cultural tidbits.

pdr · Feb 28, 2012

It's...

the personal which makes it such a fascinating genre. If only the big publishers would stop trying to pigeon hole it the historical novel could be anything.

Certainly historical novels have a wider appeal than agents/publishers seem to understand. Don must gain great pleasure and have many memories stirred up when he is reading novels set in the years he has lived through. I do when I read novels set in my past.

I happily reread Arthur Ransome's 'Swallows and Amazons' series and Lucy M Boston's 'Green Knowe' series because of the memories. And I laugh when my younger writing students puzzle over the attitudes about honesty and not telling lies and the very decent and proper behaviour. It's such a different mind set. The girls in dresses, big brother in charge, being responsible and taking responsibility for their actions. The lack of the washable easy wear clothes is something that always strikes the students when they look at the illustrations. Great research tools for prewar Britain and the Commonwealth!

Ito · Mar 5, 2012

my first attempt at historical fiction

A story came to me as I was struggling with two other projects, making little progress towards completion as I remained divided amongst different works. After a year of struggling with migraines and writer's block/detours, I have found balance in my life and dedicated myself to finishing my historical fiction.

Set in 1930's China and Japan, it deals with the war but much moreso on the characters who will eventually become involved in it. Due to the very heated debate still raging today over those events, I am slightly afraid that the fact that this is fiction may not lessen the blow to the pride of either country. Should I let the potential backlash affect the story? I do kind of want to visit Japan again ;O

gothicangel · Mar 6, 2012

Set in 1930's China and Japan, it deals with the war but much moreso on the characters who will eventually become involved in it. Due to the very heated debate still raging today over those events, I am slightly afraid that the fact that this is fiction may not lessen the blow to the pride of either country. Should I let the potential backlash affect the story? I do kind of want to visit Japan again ;O

I hope not. I would love to move back to Scotland again.

I think this is where the historical novelist can excel. Bring both sides of the argument to a wider audience than a dry academic text. In my WIP I did tons of background research on Roman Scotland and Pictish culture. There is so much misrepresentation of Ancient Scotland out there. If you read writers like Anthony Riches [even the wonderful Rosemary Sutcliff] you would think it's no-man's land to the Romans.

What do you consider "historical fiction"?

flapperphilosopher

gothicangel

Toughen up.

Shakesbear

knows a hawk from a handsaw

pdr

thothguard51

A Gentleman of a refined age...

JWNelson

JWNelson

KayEn78

Literateparakeet

Nerdy Budgie

Mr Flibble

They've been very bad, Mr Flibble

Al Stevens

donroc

Historicals and Horror rule

augusto

Cristin_B

augusto

pdr

flapperphilosopher

pdr

Deb Kinnard

KayEn78

donroc

Historicals and Horror rule

flapperphilosopher

EngineerTiger

Writing HF Again, Thank God

pdr

Ito

Lover of all things Medieval/Japan

gothicangel

Toughen up.