- This topic has 10 voices and 24 replies.
-
Posts
-
Not citing any specific work, what is your position on historical fiction? Not alternate history, where an autor changes a single event in history to create his own story line. I'm talking about placing a storyline within a point in history, often interacting with it. A great example of this is Forest Gump. The problem I do have is when authors attempt this using the foggy bits of history or when there are errors. Do it right or don't do it at all. In my attempts at fiction, it is better to go to the fantasy world, that way I can make everything up.
I think the reason why these writers don't just go into fantasy is because it is more believable if there's an interaction with an historical storyline. Even if it's placed on the fiction shelves of a bookstore, people will read it with curious belief that it's somewhat factual. It may even be difficult to determine what is fact and what is fiction when the elements are interwoven so carefully.Do I see this as problematic? Yes and no. It can be, such as in the DaVinci Code. I recall someone seeing the movie and saying to me something like "there's a kernel of truth in there somewhere". This kind of fiction can change people's lives and can creep into modern thought and discussions, which can be harmful. On the other hand, bringing fiction into an historical setting can be rather entertaining. Is it responsible to do this? That's a debatable question.
Define fiction. What about a real historical event in a realistic setting using fictional characters?What about the movie 300? The movie was good, but Persians on elephants???? That kind of ruined it for me, but that's just me.
awe you ruined it for me. I haven't seen 300 yet!
If you are a stickler for something even remotely resembling historical accuracy don't waste your time. I actually got up and walked out of the theater with my wife because I was so disgusted with the movie.I dont have a problem with historical fiction per se, I just have a problem when history is so distorted it is unrecognizable as such yet it is marketed as historical fiction. 300 is a perfect example of such a movie. They should have said it was verrry loosely based on Thermopylae, instead was portrayed in the previews as being fairly accurate.
I'm all in favor of GOOD historical fiction — provided it's recognized as such. GOOD historical fiction opens the door of historical events for people who otherwise might not have been exposed to it, and it can be a catalyst for further historical study.Since we're not supposed to cite specific examples, I'll stick with authors - people such as Michael and Jeff Shaara, Steven Pressfield, and David L. Robbins. IMHO these are some guys who "get" historical fiction, and by and large, produce GOOD historical fiction.Then there's BAD historical fiction -- I think we've all seen plenty of that -- and it should be classified solely as FICTION - or for that matter "BAD FICTION".
I definitely agree that the Shaara's do an excellent job at historical fiction. Harry Turtledove would probably be excellent at it if he wasn't so invested in counterfactual fiction. I think Turtledove was an historian before he became a novelist but I am not 100% certain. Good historical fiction definitely has the essence of realism, often to such an extent that it is hard to separate the fact from the fiction. Plus it has a story that draws you in and causes the reader to become somewhat invested in the success or failure of the protagonist.
What can I say? I am just a smart ass. Historical fiction is among the best of fiction, because it is based on fact. Science fiction comes from the same venue. Dune. And others, I don't want get carried away, here. So how does the reader compare science fiction with historical fiction?Dune. The desert planet. Check it out. For really superior historical fiction. Enjoy!
The fundamental problem with historical fiction, as I see it, is that you're not entirely sure which information you can file away as historical fact. You don't want to engage in a discussion with someone and refer to some trait of figure X from the 19th century when your knowledge is built on an author's creativity more than the record of past events. That could get embarrassing.
Ok, I guess I'm thinking that TRUE historical fiction is that which does more than tell a story set in a certain time period. I'm thinking about those that use fictional characters and plot to actively interact with known historical fact, even to the point of explaining why or how something may have happened. This does not mean counter-history such as a few of Turtledove's works and the like.I guess my point is, I would like to try my hand at this genre but do not know to what extent I should take the historical interaction.Thanks
The fundamental problem with historical fiction, as I see it, is that you're not entirely sure which information you can file away as historical fact. You don't want to engage in a discussion with someone and refer to some trait of figure X from the 19th century when your knowledge is built on an author's creativity more than the record of past events. That could get embarrassing.
Oh, I don't know; why not any questions one may have spur research?
The fundamental problem with historical fiction, as I see it, is that you're not entirely sure which information you can file away as historical fact. You don't want to engage in a discussion with someone and refer to some trait of figure X from the 19th century when your knowledge is built on an author's creativity more than the record of past events. That could get embarrassing.
Oh, I don't know; why not any questions one may have spur research?
It seems to me that even 'factual' popular history is all too often full of specific mistakes and vast ideological misunderstandings (it's very difficult to get back to the mood of a past time - take 'Doctor Zhivago' - when you've suffered the experience that time gave rise to). I think 'creative' literature is far too free to get anywhere near what the past was really like (the way attitudes to religion, class, sex and the like change, let alone different degrees of knowledge involved. The average early Victorian Methodist teenager could run rings round a modern 'fundamentalist' pastor when it came to theology; a modern teenager is much more informed about sex than most Victorian parents. I read a novel once in which people carried a baby in a carry-cot long before such things were available. The novel went dead for me at once - but for others the 'facts' will have changed. The current British tv series on the Tudors, I'm told, had to change the costumes because it was essential that females show cleavages in historical drama. It is extremely hard to hang on even to our own pasts, without this deliberate distortion.
Well, sir, I almost give up … but what is the point of any story, if not to teach us how our forefathers goofed. So, what is wrong with pieces like Herbert's “Dune”? as an educational study of our past and probable future? Rah, rah! Let historical and science fiction be an important part of reading lists for our young pups, if only in hopes that one of them will get it right in the future.
