A nagging question

Mar 30, 2010 16:36

What is "historical fiction"?

I have always taken it to describe a novel that is set in an earlier time period than the one in which it is written. For example, Philippa Gregory's The Other Boleyn Girl was written in the late 1990s/early 2000s, but it is set in the 16th century; hence, historical fiction. However, I've been seeing a lot of people define "historical fiction" as any novel that is set in a time earlier than the present, regardless of when it was written. For example, I've seen Jane Austen's novels referred to as historical fiction.

This boggles my mind: by this definition, every novel will eventually become historical fiction, given the passage of enough time! Austen's novels are not historical fiction because they were written and set in the 1790s/1800s. By the same token, Charles Dickens' Great Expectations is not historical fiction; however, A Tale of Two Cities is, because it was written in the 1850s but takes place during the French Revolution.

However, my definition of historical fiction may not be the correct one...am I right or am I crazy? Thoughts?

genre: historical fiction, misc: random thoughts

Previous post Next post
Up