another day, another rant about historical fiction

[tempestsarekind]

I feel like the Guardian is just trolling me at this point. Does the paper actually employ anyone who likes historical fiction?

Why historical fiction needs daring and anachronismhttp://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/ ( Read more... )

Comments

[lareinenoire]

Ugh, I am in so much agreement. I've always loved historical fiction and wanted to write it, and everywhere people insist upon not taking it seriously as a genre unless it's somehow magically doing something "more" than just being historical fiction. I'm sure there's also a gender aspect to this since it's a genre predominantly associated with women (Walter Scott notwithstanding). I'm reminded of writing my master's thesis and constantly finding only criticism of Alexandre Dumas for his historical inaccuracies with little consideration of the fact that in spite of those inaccuracies, so many people across so many generations have found his work compelling and interesting. Bah, humbug.

I'm all for genre-bending, sure, but I also really enjoy digging into some straightforward historical fiction. But apparently the Guardian feels the need to rain on my parade. Boo to them.

[tempestsarekind]

Yeah, the Guardian reviewers seem to have a real unexamined bias against straightforward historical fiction! I would say that it's odd, but I don't think they're alone in that, by any means.

I would love to be able to write historical fiction as well - if only I were better at, you know, history - but in the meantime it would be nice for critics to take the genre more seriously!

[spacklegeek]

Admittedly Viper's Wine sounds pretty interesting, but I agree with you. If, O Essayist, your suggestions to improve a genre are to add elements that edge that genre into rather different territory (so historical fiction becomes SF), then maybe you shouldn't be writing about that genre. Maybe you should be reading SF instead.

*sighs*

[tempestsarekind]

I know, right? That's like me watching football and going, "They always play this game the same way, with all these restrictive rules! The sport really needs to mix things up with rackets and a net!"

[spacklegeek]

Exactly!

I feel like this person should read 1) Dorothy Dunnett, whose prose demonstrates that historical fiction is anything but boring omg, and 2) Mary Robinette Kowal, who writes historical fantasy that, save for the wee element of magical glamours, is essentially historical fiction. Both of whom, again, are not anachronistic and yet somehow still manage to be "daring" in their plotlines.

I mean, I'm sure there are many other writers who fit this bill as well, but Dunnett and Kowal are some of my favorites.

(Have you read Kowal? Her "Glamourist" books are so much fun, and impeccably well-researched -- you might enjoy them!)

[tempestsarekind]

I haven't, no! I know I've seen them in the bookstore, but Regency fantasy can go either way with me… Perhaps I'll add them to the list of things to check out!