A nagging question

[christina_reads]

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

Comments

[raconteur99]

I agree with you about the definition of what historical fiction is. It's a novel about something that took place in the past.

However, I don't understand how Austen's novels would be considered historical fiction...they are written to take place in her time period. I don't think that counts at all, or like you said, everything would be considered historical fiction.

[christina_reads]

I agree with you; Austen's novels don't count. I think that some people consider anything not set or written in the present as historical fiction; under that definition, Austen's novels would qualify. But I certainly don't see them that way, which is why I was starting to get confused about the definition!

[ihearthornton]

I think you're absolutely right. I've always thought of historical fiction in the same sense as you do. My question though is if there's a time cutoff. For example, would books about the Vietnam War or 9/11 years be considered historical fiction? Or is it too current?

[christina_reads]

That's the problem, I guess -- how far in the past do you have to go before it's historical fiction? Based on my own gut feeling, I'd say the cutoff is about one generation, 20 years or so. If someone today wrote a book that took place in the '80s, I would call that historical fiction. But I have no idea whether there's a "real" answer, or what that answer might be.

[knightlee]

I consider historical fiction anything story line that revolves around a particular historical event. It can even be a historical even that took place during the lifetime of the author, so long as the plot relies heavily on the event for it's movement in the novel.
Wikipedia gives a pretty good definition of it:
"Historical fiction is a sub-genre of fiction that often portrays fictional accounts or dramatization of historical figures or events. Writers of stories in this genre, while penning fiction, attempt to capture the spirit, manners, and social conditions of the persons or time(s) presented in the story, with due attention paid to period detail and fidelity."

[christina_reads]

That definition makes sense too...but then, would a novel written in 2010 about the events of September 11, 2001, be historical fiction? My gut feeling would be to say no, even though 9/11 was certainly an important historical event. But I can also see why someone would say yes...argh, stupid definitions.

[knightlee]

If the novel was focused on the characters and details of the event, and contained fictional elements as well, I can't see why it wouldn't be called historical fiction.
I can understand the temptation to think of historical fiction as "historical", or "old", but I don't think it makes more sense to view it as "fiction focusing on an important moment in time for a large body of people" (like a country, or a sect).

[christina_reads]

I guess I've always read the word "historical," in this context, to mean "taking place in the past." But your interpretation makes sense too. Since the two definitions overlap quite a bit, I suppose it's not such an urgent issue to decide. :)