Newbie ?: The line between Fantasy and Historical Fiction

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

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?

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.

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Puma said:

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

Click to expand...

Thanks...that's our doofus of a yellow lab, Smith (HERE 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.

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

Puma said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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

Inarticulate Babbler said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Inarticulate Babbler said:

Did I miss the magic, mythologyor monsters?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

There's...

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!

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

pdr said:

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!

Click to expand...

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.

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

Puma said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Puma said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

firedrake said:

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.

Click to expand...

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?

san_remo_ave said:

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?

Click to expand...

Amen.

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

Puma said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.