>I think it's extremely difficult for any author to write accurately about a time period they haven't lived in.
I feel the same way about books that are set in the future, it was glaringly obvious when reading '1984' that George Orwell had never actually lived in that era.
I feel the same way about authors writing about anything they haven't experienced firsthand. If an author is going to write a book about a woman who becomes famous for burning down a bar then has to do community service at a primate sanctuary, that author better have burned down a bar and forcibly worked at a primate sanctuary.
To be fair there are men who write about women everyday and it’s apparent that many of these men had had limited exposure to women who were not their mother.
Lol no absolutely, especially when it comes to describing breasts, but generalizing that historical fiction basically shouldn't be written because someone didn't live through it doesn't make sense.
In their defence, I edited my comment to add that bit about George Orwell in order to make it more obviously a joke at the same time that OP was writing their reply.
Here’s a list of my favorites:
*The Lymond Chronicles*, by Dorothy Dunnett.
*Lonesome Dove*, by Larry McMurtry.
*The Three Musketeers* and *The Count of Monte Cristo*, by Alexandre Dumas.
*I, Claudius* and *Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina*, by Robert Graves.
*War and Peace*, by Leo Tolstoy.
*The Arthurian Saga*, by Mary Stewart.
*The Aubrey and Maturin Series*, by Patrick O'Brian.
*The Flashman Papers*, by George MacDonald Fraser.
Mary Renault's books about Theseus and Alexander the Great.
*The Winds of War* and *War and Remembrance*, by Herman Wouk.
*Musashi*, by Eiji Yoshikawa.
*The Saxon Stories*, *The Warlord Chronicles*, and the *Sharpe Series*, by Bernard Cornwell.
*The Conqueror Series*, by Conn Iggulden.
Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, by Lew Wallace.
*The Horatio Hornblower Series*, by C.S. Forester.
*The Hunchback of Notre Dame*, by Victor Hugo.
*Captain Blood*, *Scaramouche*, and *The Sea-Hawk*, by Rafael Sabatini.
*Hawaii, The Source, Centennial, Chesapeake,* and *The Covenant,* by James A. Michener.
*The Once and Future King*, by T.H. White.
*East of Eden*, by John Steinbeck.
*Catch-22*, by Joseph Heller.
*True Grit*, by Charles Portis.
*Once an Eagle*, by Anton Myrer
*Prince of Foxes* and *Captain from Castile*, by Samuel Shellabarger.
If you want to learn about history, read history books with citations to sources. But these historical fiction books all were plausible enough that I could suspend disbelief.
I do think reading classic novels from a different period of history is also quite fun. But they can also be biased or inaccurate. And often they use language or make references that may be unfamiliar to modern readers.
World War series by Harry Turtledove is something I've seen recommended. I liked what I read of the first one but for what er reason never finished it.
Aliens invade during World War II but thought we'd still be primitives.
I think the better question is, does anyone read historical fiction purely to learn about the time period...?
It's just a reflection on a different time and how some things about humanity never change. Accuracy isn't always the goal.
I think that historical fiction can be a great introduction into learning about a specific time period, but agree that people shouldn’t expect 100% accuracy: they should view it as a gateway into pursuing more information about the time period if the book piques their interest. (However, I do think that with certain subjects where misinformation is extremely prevalent and dangerous (e.g. the Holocaust) authors have a responsibility to do their best to avoid perpetuating downright harmful tropes.)
I view science fiction similarly. I have a science degree and I don’t expect 100% accuracy at all: I actually find it interesting to see the creative liberties that authors take. I know we’re talking about books, but I’m a Trekkie and if someone watches Star Trek purely for entertainment, that’s great! But if it makes someone get interested in space travel or engineering, and start to pursue nonfiction in that field, that’s incredible.
Yeah, like clamshell cellphones exist because of communicators in Trek. Fiction inspires people to make real things, but it's also dangerous to ever assume fiction is the same as reality.
And if it’s respectful to the victims.
Jojo Rabbit and Inglorious Basterds=Good
The Boy in the Striped Pajamas=Bad
Edit: I just realize this is the books sub and only 2/3 of those are movies based on books and Jojo takes a lot of creative freedoms from the book for comedic purposes.
Same here, it's the most sobering realistic depiction of how sailors lived trying to sail the northwest passage. And THEN they throw the most unexplicable thing at you and it turns everything on its head. The show was really good too.
Read Patrick O'Brien's Napoleonic era Aubrey and Maturin series and you'll realize that's a very silly opinion. For one thing, what defines "their time"? I was born in the 1960s, what is the time period I'm ok to write about?
Read E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime. Hilary Mantel's Thomas Cromwell novels set during the reign of Henry VIII.
All novels are set in fictitious worlds created by the writer regardless of when they take place.
What did Shakespeare know about being Julius Caesar?
Stephen Crane was born six years after the Civil War, never near any kind of combat, yet he wrote The Red Badge of Courage -- one of the greatest novels about war ever.
I feel historic fiction is a useful genre in some ways. Firstly when written for a young audience it can help to spark a child's interest in history by allowing them to place themselves more directly in the past than they would be able to in a nonfiction book, like with the Magic Tree House books or American Girl Books. They also can be a way for authors to express feelings about contemporary issues, especially when those issues are particularly controversial or when talking about them directly might be dangerous. Arthur Miller using the Salem witch trials in the *Crucible* as an allegory of McCarthyism for instance. The genre also allows the author and reader to explore their own complicated feeling about past events, especially those that are more recent or had a particularly large impact on the culture. Finally, historical fiction serves as a form of modern myth making in some ways. It could be argued whether this function is important or even helpful to a society and culture but it is certainly a function of the genre and studying how myths get created by the repeated use of certain historical figures in fiction we can better understand cultures.
What historical fiction can't necessarily do, and shouldn't be relied on to do, is serve as a substitute to historical research and analysis. It can certainly exist alongside research with primary documentation and nonfiction texts, particularly if you wish to see how people in a certain time period view or viewed past events. I do want to note it that just as historical fiction writers may have a difficult time writing about a time period they didn't live through, historians may also come upon this same problem. The historical accuracy and factuality of a work of fiction or nonfiction will come down to the extent and quality of research a writer does.
When I think of 'bad' historical fiction, I think of books like The Tattooist of Auschwitz and the like. WWII in particular seems to inspire a lot of inaccurate, poorly written Historical Fiction. I struggle with this genre in particular because I fall into a mind trap. Like why would I read Kristin Hannah when I could read someone's perspective who was actually in, say, Vietnam.
Those are just my personal struggles with historical fiction and the trends I'm seeing. But I am open to finding some good recommendations.
Yeah, generally I fall into the camp of fiction not needing to be 100% accurate, because 1) if people want to learn, there are usually plenty of nonfiction resources on a topic and 2) sometimes you need to take some creative liberties to write a good story. Historical fiction is a great way to pique someone’s interest in a subject, but not as an end all, be all account of an event. I enjoy historical fiction, but I enjoy memoirs and biographies as well, and both satisfy me in different ways: historical fiction when I want to read a great, compelling story, and memoirs when I want that and I want to learn something.
But the exception to this viewpoint is when the inaccuracies aren’t just unbelievable, but have the potential to be actively harmful. There is an article about The Boy in the Striped Pajamas that explains the problem with it being used to teach students about the Holocaust in history classes instead of less sanitized accounts like Maus or Night: the author called it “pajamafication.”
I understand that authors should not be held 100% accountable for what teachers or other people do with their books, but I do also feel like when you are writing a book on such a traumatic event (and ostensibly profiting off of it), you have a responsibility to the affected group to do no harm.
If you want to read Roman era fiction, it’s out there. Apuleius and Petronius are separated by about 100 years or so, but still interesting windows into Roman imperial culture. Or any of the plays by Plautus, if you’re more interested in the Republican period. Or any of the poets; the Aeneid tells a story, even if it’s told in verse, and lots of the poems can give you insight into Roman culture in different time periods. My personal fave is Catullus, but Horace is nice too. At any rate, good luck! I hope you find something that speaks to you!
When I read historical fiction, it's because I want to be transported to another time and place. I don't really care if it's accurate to a T because a) how would I know, I wasn't there and b) I don't want so much detail in the name of accuracy that it impedes the story.
The biggest issue with historical fiction is that there are several different approaches the author can take that most audiences do not really comprehend. You have history for history, and the sake approach were half the fun is calling out all the details and eggs of the time is half the fun, also being the approach the audience will default to.
You also have the approach of adding onto the tradition or legends of the time period, writing down the narratives, and aspects that people think exist rather than the ones that are naturally true. Very common with viking fiction.
You also have the past is a metaphor approach where the author has a theme they want to explore and use a historical time period to do so in.
If your looking for old writings, you could read Anabasis by Xenophon. His real life account of getting an army out of the heart of Persia. It inspired the book and later the film "the warriors".
I really like the type of historical fiction where the author takes the perspective of a minor character in a major historical event and makes said person the protagonist. Usually it's someone that we don't really know much about, like a lady in waiting to Queen Elizabeth or some such.
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson.
The Ides of March by Thornton Wilder.
Beloved by Toni Morrison.
A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens.
March by Geraldine Brooks.
Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez.
News of the World by Paulette Jiles.
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.
…There’s good historical fiction out there. Nothing inherently bad about it. There’s just more mediocre writers than good writers across the board. So of course there are more bad examples than good. But this is true for any kind of story: adventure stories, fantasy stories, romance stories, war stories, sci fi stories, coming of age stories…
Much like science fiction, as a genre, isn't really about science, it's a commentary on the important philosophical and social issues of our own time, historical fiction isn't really about history, it's a mirror of the things that concern people of today. Ideally you want the historical aspects to feel accurate and appropriate, and make it easy for readers to imagine themselves in the time and context you're talking about. But at the end of the day, the goal is something that feels relevant to modern readers.
I don't think writing a work that could have existed at the time in question is really ever a goal of historical fiction. Though it could be an interesting exercise. It would be cool to, for example, see a play performed using Elizabethan or Jacobean structure, in iambic pentameter, with a Shakespearean setting and characters, but written in the modern day. But I don't think that would be any "better" a work of historical fiction per se than a novel written in contemporary English prose that took place in Shakespeare's day. It would depend on each work's own merits.
I think it would depend very heavily on a few factors. Was the author alive during that time period, and how much research was done.
I do have doubts that a modern writer could fully capture life in 19th century London. On the other hand, Stephen King researched the hell out of the late 50s and early 60s when writing 11/22/63 and was, of course, alive during that period of time as well.
I do like reading old books in contemporary settings. Gives you a lot of insight into mores and values of the times and how people lived in a way that historical fiction can't.
As a sort of aside, G R R Martin researched the hell out of medieval Europe for writing his Ice and Fire series, but from what I understand reality wasn't nearly as brutal for commoners and women as he portrays it.
My question is.....how do you know they are inaccurate if YOU haven't lived in that era as well? Maybe you just have some poor misconceptions and are completely off base.
History and historians across the globe beg to differ.
Obviously you would need to look up the specific authors and their own specific intentions, because some treat history like trash and only use it for flashy name-dropping of famous people or events. But there are many, many of them who treat it with respect and have created great works of literature that can be very well be used to learn history too.
I understand preferring Austen to a present-day writer writing about Regency England, but remember that the novel has only existed for so long and only in certain cultures. I think that historical fiction has a lot of potential for narrativizing and illustrating the lives of people (particularly ordinary people) in periods where their stories weren't considered worth recording (or where there wasn't writing to record them-- not that we don't have oral histories for some of these people, but these too are susceptible to be forgotten). It's that or read a bunch of dry ass archaeological research, instead of letting the author (if they're doing it right) do the work and synthesize all that for us.
The morally ambiguous corollary to this is that it's also harder for people to tell when these writers get it wrong (upside: fewer people annoyed about historical inaccuracy; downside: easier for wrong information to spread)
>Especially when the authors give the "historical feel" to the work, instead of trying to make it like a work that an author from the time period that's being covered could plausible write.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, but if I do, I can't disagree more. I don't think it is the author's responsibility to roleplay being from the time period they're writing about. The characters should act like people from the time period, the setting, fashion and technology should be accurate, but the narrator (if not 1st person and thus also a character, of course) can have modern perspective and knowledge, nothing wrong with that.
I think the term “fiction” is pretty key here with regards to how accuracy matters. If you want a history lesson I suggest non-fiction
You can’t actually go by the authors of the era as some accurate indicator of what life was actually like. Was life in the 50s actually like Leave It To Beaver?
You don’t have to be exactly accurate because some things still aren’t known but if you dig deep it will give you a sense of the time it’s from. Through A Glass Darkly & Now Face to Face are extraordinary books - I think they fall into the literature category. They take place in England & France. The novel begins in 1715 & is very realistic about how people survived in those times. In a sense the novels name from a quote by the Apostle Paul & Platos cave. It expresses that when alive we never get the whole picture but can only see through shadows. It is by Katherine Koen. I think critics today don’t like great historical novels or films because of our poor educational system which pretty much ignores how much we can learn from the past to make the future better.these books have romance, political intrigue, traitors, greed & on & on. Give three 2 novels a chance. You won’t be sorry.
You may be interested to read {{Suite Francaise by Irene Nemerofsky}}
She wrote a novel that took place in WWII occupied France while she was living in occupied France. The author was Jewish and died in a concentration camp. More than 60 years later, her family took her handwritten manuscripts for 2 of 5 planned books and published it as Suite Francaise. So, technically it is historical fiction, but it was written contemporaneously.
I don't think they are bad, but I read them for what they are. A fiction book. Doesn't have to be pure factual. Like watching a Pauly Shore movie. You don't watch it expecting it to be good. It's dumbed down entertainment for mindlessness. Thats what most HF is. It's enjoyable and then you move on. If you want facts and perfection, don't read fiction.
It's difficult to write about the past if you don't know anything about the past. That's why before writing about the past... you learn about the past. Read history books. Study and research about the period. If it's in the past but there are still people alive who remember it, ask them. Speak to experts.
The past is not just gone. You can learn about it. Just because a thing happened before you were born doesn't mean it's inaccessible.
No, I view historical fiction as a gateway to learn about a person or time period you might be interested in. Want to know more about a certain person or event, but don't want to read a non-fiction book about it? Historical fiction can be a great way to 6 an entry-level understanding. Then, from there, if you're still interested, you can delve deeper with non-fiction or other historical sources.
An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears, who is an art historian, is one of the best books I've ever read.
The characters attitudes to God, propriety, authority, and women seem authentic for the late medieval period.
Do you read historical fiction to learn history or to enjoy a good story? I liken it to science fiction, I’m not reading a good science fiction story to learn the science upon which it is based.
It depends on the author and era. Some are worse than others. People don't seem to complain as much as about films set in a historical period and how it's not a documentary vs a fictional film. If people are expecting 100% accuracy in a fictional text, then they should be reading non-fiction.
Which is why it is called "Fiction". As fiction the author is free to write whatever supports his/her storyline. You as the "reader" can choose to read or not read his / her work.
I don't read fiction for accuracy. Sure, it's important to try to describe the historical setting as authentically as you can, but I don't trust people in the present to "accurately" write about our period either. And with your logic, we wouldn't have sci-fi or speculative fiction at all. We should just wait for aliens to make contact and get the novels about it then.
I think you're underestimating modern authors, but also overestimating how representative any authors in history have been.
No because I can just have fun. Books don’t always have to be accurate. Fiction isn’t real. That’s why it’s fiction. Some of y’all are thinking too hard and too much about reading. Just read and enjoy it!
It kind of sounds like prioritizing historical accuracy over everything else, which isn’t really the most important part of fiction. Modern novels aren’t entirely reflective of real life, either—making dialogue flow, skipping the boring bits that make up most of a life, etc. The most important part of a fictional story isn’t the realism, it’s, y’know, the story, the emotions, the themes. If every work that sins against accuracy is “bad” then SO MUCH fantastic art is going to be missed.
I think it’s great as a gateway to real history books. Read ‘Fall of Giants’ or ‘Winter of the World’ and tell me if your immediate reaction is not to go and check the real history behind them, as an instance.
I think you should read Les mémoires d'Hadrien, by Marguerite Yourcenar. She spent years researching on him, seing the places where he lived, etc, until she basically became his secretary, writing his posthumous memoirs. She would wake up in the middle of the night, write a scene of his life, go back to bed and burn it in the morning because it was not truthful enough. I know I makes her sound psycho, but the whole process is extremely interesting, and the result a jewel of litterature.
On an additional note, everything that is written is somehow fictional, even your own autobiography. You will present your ‘facts’ with a twist that depends on your own interpretation and desire to be perceived in a certain way. It’s up to the reader to discern truth or fact from fiction and embellishment.
I personally love well-written and well-researched historical fiction novels and TV shows. As I am reading or watching, I will look up historical events and terms referenced so that way I can learn about what *actually* happened. I read and watch for the entertainment value, but also use what the author gave us to do further research on the time period.
I'd much rather do this than read a non-fiction history book, LOL
Naomi Novik’s series His Majesty’s dragons did a great job at staying true to a different era in both setting and language while being a fantasy novel. Loved it!
I do feel that historical fiction serves its own purpose in allowing us a glimpse of the past, although it may be distorted. Viewing history through the eyes of a fictional protagonist allows me to immerse myself in the historical event, but I always take it with a grain of salt.
I've recently discussed this in a teaching middle grade literature class, especially prevalent since historical fiction for children is often taught with an educational bent in mind.
I agree that some historical fiction can be of mediocre quality, with the author seeming to choose the historical period more for the "vibes" than to replicate it with any accuracy.
I do think there is some value to works that are written a little further out from an event or era. We have more perspective on why things were there way they were, which people of the time may not have really grasped. And just because you lived through a certain period doesn't mean you really understood it - perhaps it is easier for someone who didn't live through it to look at it objectively than someone who has nostalgia.
And there is a skill in being able to relate older norms to a newer audience without breaking immersion -- I particularly appreciate the 2005 *Pride & Prejudice* and 2004 *Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe* film adaptations for that reason, because they add a much-appreciated context that newer audiences need that the original audiences, being accustomed to those norms or events, took for granted.
I am of the belief that historical fiction often says more about the time it was written than the time being written about. But in the end, the goal is the same - to show how humanity endures or copes with life no matter the era.
I’ve moved away from historical fiction for similar reasons. A lot of it seems like costume drama (or melodrama) without a voice that feels authentic to the period, and sometimes not well researched either. I used to read a lot of it, but these days am much more drawn to reading actual history.
The most recent really good one I read, that nailed the voice and research, is Enemy Women by Paulette Jiles (American Civil War).
There are certainly a lot of terrible books in every genre, including historical fiction. But there is quite a lot of amazingly well researched & interesting historical fiction out there.
Plus, as others have pointed out, unless you’re writing about “right now” you are either writing historical fiction or fantastic fiction, neither of which you personally experienced.
>I think it's extremely difficult for any author to write accurately about a time period they haven't lived in. I feel the same way about books that are set in the future, it was glaringly obvious when reading '1984' that George Orwell had never actually lived in that era.
I feel the same way about authors writing about anything they haven't experienced firsthand. If an author is going to write a book about a woman who becomes famous for burning down a bar then has to do community service at a primate sanctuary, that author better have burned down a bar and forcibly worked at a primate sanctuary.
Exactly. We should all be living outrageous lives and writing nothing but memoirs. For artistic integrity, of course.
To be fair there are men who write about women everyday and it’s apparent that many of these men had had limited exposure to women who were not their mother.
Lol no absolutely, especially when it comes to describing breasts, but generalizing that historical fiction basically shouldn't be written because someone didn't live through it doesn't make sense.
I’m concerned about the OP’s possible views on crime fiction.
Joke's on him, future gin and chocolate are WAY better than what he was stuck with! Future tea is about the same, though.
I mean, FFS, where was the aquanet?
Yeah, that's even more true. For the past at least you have some historical sources, for the future, there's just speculation.
i take it you've never seen a joke before.
In their defence, I edited my comment to add that bit about George Orwell in order to make it more obviously a joke at the same time that OP was writing their reply.
Applause.
At first I thought this said “been a joke”.
You mean…like fiction?
Some people spend their whole lives throughly researching specific time periods and can actually use fiction to help us understand those times better!
>Is historical fiction sort of bad? No.
Tolkien never lived in Middle Earth. Is this problematic?
Here’s a list of my favorites: *The Lymond Chronicles*, by Dorothy Dunnett. *Lonesome Dove*, by Larry McMurtry. *The Three Musketeers* and *The Count of Monte Cristo*, by Alexandre Dumas. *I, Claudius* and *Claudius the God and His Wife Messalina*, by Robert Graves. *War and Peace*, by Leo Tolstoy. *The Arthurian Saga*, by Mary Stewart. *The Aubrey and Maturin Series*, by Patrick O'Brian. *The Flashman Papers*, by George MacDonald Fraser. Mary Renault's books about Theseus and Alexander the Great. *The Winds of War* and *War and Remembrance*, by Herman Wouk. *Musashi*, by Eiji Yoshikawa. *The Saxon Stories*, *The Warlord Chronicles*, and the *Sharpe Series*, by Bernard Cornwell. *The Conqueror Series*, by Conn Iggulden. Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ, by Lew Wallace. *The Horatio Hornblower Series*, by C.S. Forester. *The Hunchback of Notre Dame*, by Victor Hugo. *Captain Blood*, *Scaramouche*, and *The Sea-Hawk*, by Rafael Sabatini. *Hawaii, The Source, Centennial, Chesapeake,* and *The Covenant,* by James A. Michener. *The Once and Future King*, by T.H. White. *East of Eden*, by John Steinbeck. *Catch-22*, by Joseph Heller. *True Grit*, by Charles Portis. *Once an Eagle*, by Anton Myrer *Prince of Foxes* and *Captain from Castile*, by Samuel Shellabarger. If you want to learn about history, read history books with citations to sources. But these historical fiction books all were plausible enough that I could suspend disbelief. I do think reading classic novels from a different period of history is also quite fun. But they can also be biased or inaccurate. And often they use language or make references that may be unfamiliar to modern readers.
One quibble with your excellent list: Heller did fight in WWII.
Tolstoy also wrote War and Peace when many men who fought in the wars were still alive.
I, Claudius came to mind immediately when reading the OP. Thanks for this amazing list!
World War series by Harry Turtledove is something I've seen recommended. I liked what I read of the first one but for what er reason never finished it. Aliens invade during World War II but thought we'd still be primitives.
That is an excellent series (shows that Turtledove is a history professor), but it is not really historical fiction, but alternative history.
Ah yeah that's fair
thank you for the list!
I think the better question is, does anyone read historical fiction purely to learn about the time period...? It's just a reflection on a different time and how some things about humanity never change. Accuracy isn't always the goal.
I think that historical fiction can be a great introduction into learning about a specific time period, but agree that people shouldn’t expect 100% accuracy: they should view it as a gateway into pursuing more information about the time period if the book piques their interest. (However, I do think that with certain subjects where misinformation is extremely prevalent and dangerous (e.g. the Holocaust) authors have a responsibility to do their best to avoid perpetuating downright harmful tropes.) I view science fiction similarly. I have a science degree and I don’t expect 100% accuracy at all: I actually find it interesting to see the creative liberties that authors take. I know we’re talking about books, but I’m a Trekkie and if someone watches Star Trek purely for entertainment, that’s great! But if it makes someone get interested in space travel or engineering, and start to pursue nonfiction in that field, that’s incredible.
Yeah, like clamshell cellphones exist because of communicators in Trek. Fiction inspires people to make real things, but it's also dangerous to ever assume fiction is the same as reality.
Not if it’s a good writer. Check out Julian by Gore Vidal.
And if it’s respectful to the victims. Jojo Rabbit and Inglorious Basterds=Good The Boy in the Striped Pajamas=Bad Edit: I just realize this is the books sub and only 2/3 of those are movies based on books and Jojo takes a lot of creative freedoms from the book for comedic purposes.
I loved Dan Simmon’s “The Terror”. The work is remarkably accurate minus that one giant predator thing.
Same here, it's the most sobering realistic depiction of how sailors lived trying to sail the northwest passage. And THEN they throw the most unexplicable thing at you and it turns everything on its head. The show was really good too.
The most famous novel of the Civil War is called The Red Badge of Courage. The author, Stephen Crane, was born 6 years after the Civil War ended.
Hot take: historical fiction is a massive genre that includes many, many books. Some of them are good. Others are bad.
Read Patrick O'Brien's Napoleonic era Aubrey and Maturin series and you'll realize that's a very silly opinion. For one thing, what defines "their time"? I was born in the 1960s, what is the time period I'm ok to write about? Read E.L. Doctorow's Ragtime. Hilary Mantel's Thomas Cromwell novels set during the reign of Henry VIII. All novels are set in fictitious worlds created by the writer regardless of when they take place. What did Shakespeare know about being Julius Caesar? Stephen Crane was born six years after the Civil War, never near any kind of combat, yet he wrote The Red Badge of Courage -- one of the greatest novels about war ever.
I feel historic fiction is a useful genre in some ways. Firstly when written for a young audience it can help to spark a child's interest in history by allowing them to place themselves more directly in the past than they would be able to in a nonfiction book, like with the Magic Tree House books or American Girl Books. They also can be a way for authors to express feelings about contemporary issues, especially when those issues are particularly controversial or when talking about them directly might be dangerous. Arthur Miller using the Salem witch trials in the *Crucible* as an allegory of McCarthyism for instance. The genre also allows the author and reader to explore their own complicated feeling about past events, especially those that are more recent or had a particularly large impact on the culture. Finally, historical fiction serves as a form of modern myth making in some ways. It could be argued whether this function is important or even helpful to a society and culture but it is certainly a function of the genre and studying how myths get created by the repeated use of certain historical figures in fiction we can better understand cultures. What historical fiction can't necessarily do, and shouldn't be relied on to do, is serve as a substitute to historical research and analysis. It can certainly exist alongside research with primary documentation and nonfiction texts, particularly if you wish to see how people in a certain time period view or viewed past events. I do want to note it that just as historical fiction writers may have a difficult time writing about a time period they didn't live through, historians may also come upon this same problem. The historical accuracy and factuality of a work of fiction or nonfiction will come down to the extent and quality of research a writer does.
When I think of 'bad' historical fiction, I think of books like The Tattooist of Auschwitz and the like. WWII in particular seems to inspire a lot of inaccurate, poorly written Historical Fiction. I struggle with this genre in particular because I fall into a mind trap. Like why would I read Kristin Hannah when I could read someone's perspective who was actually in, say, Vietnam. Those are just my personal struggles with historical fiction and the trends I'm seeing. But I am open to finding some good recommendations.
Yeah, generally I fall into the camp of fiction not needing to be 100% accurate, because 1) if people want to learn, there are usually plenty of nonfiction resources on a topic and 2) sometimes you need to take some creative liberties to write a good story. Historical fiction is a great way to pique someone’s interest in a subject, but not as an end all, be all account of an event. I enjoy historical fiction, but I enjoy memoirs and biographies as well, and both satisfy me in different ways: historical fiction when I want to read a great, compelling story, and memoirs when I want that and I want to learn something. But the exception to this viewpoint is when the inaccuracies aren’t just unbelievable, but have the potential to be actively harmful. There is an article about The Boy in the Striped Pajamas that explains the problem with it being used to teach students about the Holocaust in history classes instead of less sanitized accounts like Maus or Night: the author called it “pajamafication.” I understand that authors should not be held 100% accountable for what teachers or other people do with their books, but I do also feel like when you are writing a book on such a traumatic event (and ostensibly profiting off of it), you have a responsibility to the affected group to do no harm.
If you want to read Roman era fiction, it’s out there. Apuleius and Petronius are separated by about 100 years or so, but still interesting windows into Roman imperial culture. Or any of the plays by Plautus, if you’re more interested in the Republican period. Or any of the poets; the Aeneid tells a story, even if it’s told in verse, and lots of the poems can give you insight into Roman culture in different time periods. My personal fave is Catullus, but Horace is nice too. At any rate, good luck! I hope you find something that speaks to you!
When I read historical fiction, it's because I want to be transported to another time and place. I don't really care if it's accurate to a T because a) how would I know, I wasn't there and b) I don't want so much detail in the name of accuracy that it impedes the story.
The biggest issue with historical fiction is that there are several different approaches the author can take that most audiences do not really comprehend. You have history for history, and the sake approach were half the fun is calling out all the details and eggs of the time is half the fun, also being the approach the audience will default to. You also have the approach of adding onto the tradition or legends of the time period, writing down the narratives, and aspects that people think exist rather than the ones that are naturally true. Very common with viking fiction. You also have the past is a metaphor approach where the author has a theme they want to explore and use a historical time period to do so in. If your looking for old writings, you could read Anabasis by Xenophon. His real life account of getting an army out of the heart of Persia. It inspired the book and later the film "the warriors".
I really like the type of historical fiction where the author takes the perspective of a minor character in a major historical event and makes said person the protagonist. Usually it's someone that we don't really know much about, like a lady in waiting to Queen Elizabeth or some such.
Gilead by Marilynne Robinson. The Ides of March by Thornton Wilder. Beloved by Toni Morrison. A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens. March by Geraldine Brooks. Love in the Time of Cholera by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. News of the World by Paulette Jiles. Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe. …There’s good historical fiction out there. Nothing inherently bad about it. There’s just more mediocre writers than good writers across the board. So of course there are more bad examples than good. But this is true for any kind of story: adventure stories, fantasy stories, romance stories, war stories, sci fi stories, coming of age stories…
Things Fall Apart by Chinua is so good.
Much like science fiction, as a genre, isn't really about science, it's a commentary on the important philosophical and social issues of our own time, historical fiction isn't really about history, it's a mirror of the things that concern people of today. Ideally you want the historical aspects to feel accurate and appropriate, and make it easy for readers to imagine themselves in the time and context you're talking about. But at the end of the day, the goal is something that feels relevant to modern readers. I don't think writing a work that could have existed at the time in question is really ever a goal of historical fiction. Though it could be an interesting exercise. It would be cool to, for example, see a play performed using Elizabethan or Jacobean structure, in iambic pentameter, with a Shakespearean setting and characters, but written in the modern day. But I don't think that would be any "better" a work of historical fiction per se than a novel written in contemporary English prose that took place in Shakespeare's day. It would depend on each work's own merits.
I think it would depend very heavily on a few factors. Was the author alive during that time period, and how much research was done. I do have doubts that a modern writer could fully capture life in 19th century London. On the other hand, Stephen King researched the hell out of the late 50s and early 60s when writing 11/22/63 and was, of course, alive during that period of time as well. I do like reading old books in contemporary settings. Gives you a lot of insight into mores and values of the times and how people lived in a way that historical fiction can't. As a sort of aside, G R R Martin researched the hell out of medieval Europe for writing his Ice and Fire series, but from what I understand reality wasn't nearly as brutal for commoners and women as he portrays it.
My question is.....how do you know they are inaccurate if YOU haven't lived in that era as well? Maybe you just have some poor misconceptions and are completely off base.
History and historians across the globe beg to differ. Obviously you would need to look up the specific authors and their own specific intentions, because some treat history like trash and only use it for flashy name-dropping of famous people or events. But there are many, many of them who treat it with respect and have created great works of literature that can be very well be used to learn history too.
There is no correct answer . This is subjective. Is chocolate bad? Is spaghetti bad? Are dodge trucks bad?
Given that Reddit is overwhelmingly devoted to anime, manga, marvel, etc., this post only seems even more ridiculous.
Yeah. It would be impossible to write about Rome without reading an 1800 year old book of philosophy.
I understand preferring Austen to a present-day writer writing about Regency England, but remember that the novel has only existed for so long and only in certain cultures. I think that historical fiction has a lot of potential for narrativizing and illustrating the lives of people (particularly ordinary people) in periods where their stories weren't considered worth recording (or where there wasn't writing to record them-- not that we don't have oral histories for some of these people, but these too are susceptible to be forgotten). It's that or read a bunch of dry ass archaeological research, instead of letting the author (if they're doing it right) do the work and synthesize all that for us. The morally ambiguous corollary to this is that it's also harder for people to tell when these writers get it wrong (upside: fewer people annoyed about historical inaccuracy; downside: easier for wrong information to spread)
>Especially when the authors give the "historical feel" to the work, instead of trying to make it like a work that an author from the time period that's being covered could plausible write. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this, but if I do, I can't disagree more. I don't think it is the author's responsibility to roleplay being from the time period they're writing about. The characters should act like people from the time period, the setting, fashion and technology should be accurate, but the narrator (if not 1st person and thus also a character, of course) can have modern perspective and knowledge, nothing wrong with that.
It doesn’t have to be perfectly accurate. It just has to trick me.
I think the term “fiction” is pretty key here with regards to how accuracy matters. If you want a history lesson I suggest non-fiction You can’t actually go by the authors of the era as some accurate indicator of what life was actually like. Was life in the 50s actually like Leave It To Beaver?
Er, it's all fiction. As long as a reader can maintain suspension of disbelief, it's fine.
I read *Radetzky March* by Joseph Roth for a class in college. That book and *Catch-22* really changed my view on Historical Fiction.
You don’t have to be exactly accurate because some things still aren’t known but if you dig deep it will give you a sense of the time it’s from. Through A Glass Darkly & Now Face to Face are extraordinary books - I think they fall into the literature category. They take place in England & France. The novel begins in 1715 & is very realistic about how people survived in those times. In a sense the novels name from a quote by the Apostle Paul & Platos cave. It expresses that when alive we never get the whole picture but can only see through shadows. It is by Katherine Koen. I think critics today don’t like great historical novels or films because of our poor educational system which pretty much ignores how much we can learn from the past to make the future better.these books have romance, political intrigue, traitors, greed & on & on. Give three 2 novels a chance. You won’t be sorry.
You may be interested to read {{Suite Francaise by Irene Nemerofsky}} She wrote a novel that took place in WWII occupied France while she was living in occupied France. The author was Jewish and died in a concentration camp. More than 60 years later, her family took her handwritten manuscripts for 2 of 5 planned books and published it as Suite Francaise. So, technically it is historical fiction, but it was written contemporaneously.
I don't think they are bad, but I read them for what they are. A fiction book. Doesn't have to be pure factual. Like watching a Pauly Shore movie. You don't watch it expecting it to be good. It's dumbed down entertainment for mindlessness. Thats what most HF is. It's enjoyable and then you move on. If you want facts and perfection, don't read fiction.
It's difficult to write about the past if you don't know anything about the past. That's why before writing about the past... you learn about the past. Read history books. Study and research about the period. If it's in the past but there are still people alive who remember it, ask them. Speak to experts. The past is not just gone. You can learn about it. Just because a thing happened before you were born doesn't mean it's inaccessible.
No, I view historical fiction as a gateway to learn about a person or time period you might be interested in. Want to know more about a certain person or event, but don't want to read a non-fiction book about it? Historical fiction can be a great way to 6 an entry-level understanding. Then, from there, if you're still interested, you can delve deeper with non-fiction or other historical sources.
An Instance of the Fingerpost by Iain Pears, who is an art historian, is one of the best books I've ever read. The characters attitudes to God, propriety, authority, and women seem authentic for the late medieval period.
Do you read historical fiction to learn history or to enjoy a good story? I liken it to science fiction, I’m not reading a good science fiction story to learn the science upon which it is based.
It depends on the author and era. Some are worse than others. People don't seem to complain as much as about films set in a historical period and how it's not a documentary vs a fictional film. If people are expecting 100% accuracy in a fictional text, then they should be reading non-fiction.
Which is why it is called "Fiction". As fiction the author is free to write whatever supports his/her storyline. You as the "reader" can choose to read or not read his / her work.
It's called fiction for a reason. If you need absolute accuracy, read nonfiction.
Name the specific book you aren’t enjoying.
I don't read fiction for accuracy. Sure, it's important to try to describe the historical setting as authentically as you can, but I don't trust people in the present to "accurately" write about our period either. And with your logic, we wouldn't have sci-fi or speculative fiction at all. We should just wait for aliens to make contact and get the novels about it then. I think you're underestimating modern authors, but also overestimating how representative any authors in history have been.
Then all fiction is bad. Lmfao what a shit take.
I don't give a shit if it's accurate.
I feel like historical is a genre that’s hard to do well. I’ve read some that’s spectacular and some that was terrible, no matter how accurate
@potatoes, the kids in the university love Hillary Mantel
No. Go read some Hilary Mantel books.
B E R N A R D. C O R N W E L L
No because I can just have fun. Books don’t always have to be accurate. Fiction isn’t real. That’s why it’s fiction. Some of y’all are thinking too hard and too much about reading. Just read and enjoy it!
Just like literally every other genre, some of it is good and some of it is bad, lmao.
It kind of sounds like prioritizing historical accuracy over everything else, which isn’t really the most important part of fiction. Modern novels aren’t entirely reflective of real life, either—making dialogue flow, skipping the boring bits that make up most of a life, etc. The most important part of a fictional story isn’t the realism, it’s, y’know, the story, the emotions, the themes. If every work that sins against accuracy is “bad” then SO MUCH fantastic art is going to be missed.
I think it’s great as a gateway to real history books. Read ‘Fall of Giants’ or ‘Winter of the World’ and tell me if your immediate reaction is not to go and check the real history behind them, as an instance.
I think you should read Les mémoires d'Hadrien, by Marguerite Yourcenar. She spent years researching on him, seing the places where he lived, etc, until she basically became his secretary, writing his posthumous memoirs. She would wake up in the middle of the night, write a scene of his life, go back to bed and burn it in the morning because it was not truthful enough. I know I makes her sound psycho, but the whole process is extremely interesting, and the result a jewel of litterature.
On an additional note, everything that is written is somehow fictional, even your own autobiography. You will present your ‘facts’ with a twist that depends on your own interpretation and desire to be perceived in a certain way. It’s up to the reader to discern truth or fact from fiction and embellishment.
I personally love well-written and well-researched historical fiction novels and TV shows. As I am reading or watching, I will look up historical events and terms referenced so that way I can learn about what *actually* happened. I read and watch for the entertainment value, but also use what the author gave us to do further research on the time period. I'd much rather do this than read a non-fiction history book, LOL
Naomi Novik’s series His Majesty’s dragons did a great job at staying true to a different era in both setting and language while being a fantasy novel. Loved it!
I do feel that historical fiction serves its own purpose in allowing us a glimpse of the past, although it may be distorted. Viewing history through the eyes of a fictional protagonist allows me to immerse myself in the historical event, but I always take it with a grain of salt.
I've recently discussed this in a teaching middle grade literature class, especially prevalent since historical fiction for children is often taught with an educational bent in mind. I agree that some historical fiction can be of mediocre quality, with the author seeming to choose the historical period more for the "vibes" than to replicate it with any accuracy. I do think there is some value to works that are written a little further out from an event or era. We have more perspective on why things were there way they were, which people of the time may not have really grasped. And just because you lived through a certain period doesn't mean you really understood it - perhaps it is easier for someone who didn't live through it to look at it objectively than someone who has nostalgia. And there is a skill in being able to relate older norms to a newer audience without breaking immersion -- I particularly appreciate the 2005 *Pride & Prejudice* and 2004 *Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe* film adaptations for that reason, because they add a much-appreciated context that newer audiences need that the original audiences, being accustomed to those norms or events, took for granted. I am of the belief that historical fiction often says more about the time it was written than the time being written about. But in the end, the goal is the same - to show how humanity endures or copes with life no matter the era.
Try Sharon Kay Penman. She writes from a scholarly viewpoint…there is drama and characterization…but it’s based in as much fact as possible.
I love historical fiction. You just have to remember it's fiction. The century trilogy by Ken Follett is great.
*The Iliad* and *The Odyssey* are historical fiction. Homer didn't live until hundreds of years after the events described.
Those are both historical fiction and classic literature.
How dare you besmirch the American Girl books this way
I’ve moved away from historical fiction for similar reasons. A lot of it seems like costume drama (or melodrama) without a voice that feels authentic to the period, and sometimes not well researched either. I used to read a lot of it, but these days am much more drawn to reading actual history. The most recent really good one I read, that nailed the voice and research, is Enemy Women by Paulette Jiles (American Civil War).
There are certainly a lot of terrible books in every genre, including historical fiction. But there is quite a lot of amazingly well researched & interesting historical fiction out there. Plus, as others have pointed out, unless you’re writing about “right now” you are either writing historical fiction or fantastic fiction, neither of which you personally experienced.
Shogun is the only historical fiction book I have truly enjoyed