What historical fiction is... or isn't...

thedrafthorse said:

Or is historical fiction more like historical fantasy? Is writing a historical piece like writing fantasy, only where real, verifiable history has done all the world-building for the author?

Click to expand...

I had to laugh when I saw the way you've framed this. You make it sound like people who write historical fiction are taking the easy way by using a "pre-built" world. I've always considered it exactly the opposite: fantasy writers have it easy because they can make up whatever conditions they want, while writers of historical fiction have to struggle to make their story conform to history as we can determine it.

I'm not trying to dis fantasy writers--I enjoy a richly-created world tremendously. I just personally enjoy the boundaries of writing within a historical setting, and wouldn't trust myself not to cheat if I wrote fantasy. You know, like in whichever Harry Potter book it was where they decided they really needed a secret place to practice their Defense Against the Dark Arts, and the answer was Hey! The secret room that only appears when people really need it! And has everything you need to do whatever you it is you really need to do! Except a back door, so you can be conveniently caught when the plot requires it. I like the HP books, but that was lazy.

Historical fiction is that which is set in a more-or-less historically accurate "then," as opposed to the present or any purely fantasy setting that, although reminiscent of our world, is not meant to connect to true history at all (many fantasy settings, and some romance). Alternate histories, in which real history unfolds up to a point and then deviates (as in a lot of Harry Turtledove's work), is not quite the same as historical fiction but certainly requires much of the same research and discipline. Would Naomi Novik's Temeraire books be historical fiction? It's a much bigger what-if than most alternate histories offer -- the Napoleonic Wars, with dragons -- but her research on ships, the British military of that era, politics of the Napoleonic world, etc. certainly is akin to what most historical fiction aims to present. So I think it's a big, flexible category, capable of borrowing themes from any number of genres.

Whether the characters are real historical people or fictional ones says nothing about the quality of the individual book or the skill of the author, I'd say; either approach could be valid or ridiculous, depending.

My historical novel is taking place in Philly - 1776. My characters are fictional and the whole story is fictional but the events that are heppening in 1776 in Philadelphia are kind of there, but in the background, not really a part of the main story line, but the characters are aware of what is going on and will meet up with some of the Real Life characters from time to time, but not so much as to interfere with what really happened.

Hi Claudia - I think you confused me with your two definitions of historical fiction.

1. Historical fiction is that which is set in a more-or-less historically accurate "then," as opposed to the present or any purely fantasy setting that, although reminiscent of our world, is not meant to connect to true history at all (many fantasy settings, and some romance). I read this as historical setting but not at all historical truth.

2. Alternate histories, in which real history unfolds up to a point and then deviates (as in a lot of Harry Turtledove's work), is not quite the same as historical fiction but certainly requires much of the same research and discipline. I read this as partial historical truth with a purely ficitonal ending.

So, my question, what about the works which I consider to be true historical fiction - those in which the settings, the events, and the characters are historically accurate and actual, but in which there is usually a fictional main character (or characters)?

I would not consider either of the two definitions you offered as true historical fiction. Puma

thedrafthorse - I think you've probably come pretty close by identifying historical fiction with creative nonfiction; although, I don't think creative nonficiton is particularly well defined. Puma

Puma said:

Hi Claudia - I think you confused me with your two definitions of historical fiction.

1. Historical fiction is that which is set in a more-or-less historically accurate "then," as opposed to the present or any purely fantasy setting that, although reminiscent of our world, is not meant to connect to true history at all (many fantasy settings, and some romance). I read this as historical setting but not at all historical truth.

2. Alternate histories, in which real history unfolds up to a point and then deviates (as in a lot of Harry Turtledove's work), is not quite the same as historical fiction but certainly requires much of the same research and discipline. I read this as partial historical truth with a purely ficitonal ending.

So, my question, what about the works which I consider to be true historical fiction - those in which the settings, the events, and the characters are historically accurate and actual, but in which there is usually a fictional main character (or characters)?

I would not consider either of the two definitions you offered as true historical fiction. Puma

Click to expand...

I think you misread the first definition, which is probably my fault for lack of clarity. The first definition I gave was: Historical fiction is that which is set in a more-or-less historically accurate "then." This was separate from/"opposed to" fiction that, while set in a world sort of like our own past, doesn't bear any real relationship to history.

That first definition would, for me, include what you're talking about, although it would also count fiction with historical settings and events that (1) featured a cast of almost entirely real historical people as the characters, describing their experience of real events (such as The Grass Crown) or (2) featured almost entirely fictional characters with only a slight relationship to real historical persons and not much influence on real historical events (such as As Meat Needs Salt).

Probably if I were trying to sell a book to an agent/editor, I wouldn't dub it "historical fiction" unless it fit definition #1. However, if in this thread we are meant to be talking about the difficulties/issues in writing historical fiction, I think alternate histories of the type described in definition #2 would raise many of the same problems and questions for the author. Guns of the South is as well-researched and convincingly characterized as other fine Civil War novels I've read, such as The Rebel Angels. And I've read plenty of WWII novels that didn't recreate the mentality of Nazi Germany as compellingly as Fatherland. So for our purposes -- not those of an agent or a bookseller -- I think it makes sense to consider alternate history as "historical writing."

Thank you for the clarification, Claudia. Your second post makes a lot more sense (at least to me since we're definitely on the same wavelength.)

Way back when I had asked for help in defining the genre for my historical work which is a novel about real people and events tied together by plausible fiction. We debated the possibility of creative nonfiction and finally decided it had to be classified as fiction because I didn't know exactly what was said by the people and exactly what happened. Don't know if that will help anyone else, but actually, from what I understand, historical fiction is a good marketable genre these days and that's always nice to know. Puma

One of the HNS definitions...

is that historical fiction is written by someone who was not around at the time, but is writing about events which occurred fifty or more years earlier.
Also:
That same writer is writing about real history and historical events, but is telling a story (fiction) which may or may not mention real people from the time, or use them as characters.

Personally I always feel it's cheating to latch on to some known historical figure and write murder mysteries or historical thrillers using them as the MC. I've had to review several of these and they are usually diabolically bad.

Accurate historical fiction is difficult.

If you attribute an opion or a deed, or sometimes even a type of pocket watch to someone then you will always get someone complaining that you have got the facts wrong. Historical writers are forever haunted by the spectre of ANACHRONISM.

To counter this I set my books in the past but in imaginary countries. Thus the flavour of the period and I can do a lot more than I would if I was constricted by constantly checking the facts.

Having said that; hats off to Bernard Cornwell and George MacDonald Fraiser whose research and novels are brilliant.

Creative Nonfiction

Captain Scarf said:

Accurate historical fiction is difficult.

Having said that; hats off to Bernard Cornwell and George MacDonald Fraiser whose research and novels are brilliant.

Click to expand...

Agree with you on Cornwell. He's part of the Historical Fiction Writer's Conference in NY in June, along with Diana Gabaldon. I was planning to go, but the dates wouldn't work for me.

My favorite of Cornwell's books is "Gallows Thief." I've spent almost eight years researching his period, and have to say he's the only author I've found who I never catch making a mistake with details.


On Creative Nonfiction:

I had a short work of creative nonfiction published last year, and had to really sort out what it is and is not. It is NOT historical fiction.

The most mainstream definition for Creative Nonfiction is journalism written in a literary style.

Style is what sets it apart from pure journalism. Purists of the genre don't invent facts or change events. They use the same arts as a creative writer, such as symbolism, characterization, description, plot, setting... it's all in there. Writing a true story as literature is harder than writing historical fiction, and we all know how difficult that can be. This just triples the stress of getting it right and presenting it in a beautiful way.

To me historical fiction is a blend of creativity and historical facts to produce a story that is infinately more entertaining than either one alone.