How far can historical fiction be stretched?

DianeL · Post by **DianeL** » Thu August 16th, 2012, 10:59 pm

[quote=""Divia""]The author made vampires sexy with a love triangle and a sappy story. Not sure how that plays into Buffy other than both deal with vampires. Personally, I think it was the romance that the teens loved.[/quote]

You put it perfectly - at a completely random guess, I would imagine Anne Rice fans would be far more likely to segue into Twilight than Buffy fans. (Because, along with the teenagers, there are the Twi-moms - a phenomenon simply beyond my comprehension, but clearly documented - and not amongst Whedon fans.)

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Thu August 16th, 2012, 11:50 pm

The twi moms loved the series and were just as crazy about it as their daughters.

Now they have 50 shades to tame their appetite

R.W.Ware · Post by **R.W.Ware** » Fri August 17th, 2012, 9:04 pm

[quote=""Divia""] Why not make a fantasy novel then.[/quote]

Because fantasy HAS to involve magic, myth or monster. The Bourne Identity is completely fraudulent as far as historical fact goes, but it is in NO way a fantasy genre. I have issue with this before. Where does it fit if it's not "historical" but "Historical Fiction," which doesn't try so much to pass itself off as history except in setting?

In my mind, this is STILL historical fiction, just with a greater emphasis on fiction. AND, I feel this is why historcial fiction is not a widespread separate genre, like it used to be.

Nefret · Post by **Nefret** » Fri August 17th, 2012, 9:26 pm

I used to be an Anne Rice fan, but I have no interest in Twilight.

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Sat August 18th, 2012, 12:21 am

[quote=""R.W.Ware""]Because fantasy HAS to involve magic, myth or monster. The Bourne Identity is completely fraudulent as far as historical fact goes, but it is in NO way a fantasy genre. I have issue with this before. Where does it fit if it's not "historical" but "Historical Fiction," which doesn't try so much to pass itself off as history except in setting?

In my mind, this is STILL historical fiction, just with a greater emphasis on fiction. AND, I feel this is why historcial fiction is not a widespread separate genre, like it used to be.[/quote]

Then I guess this would be a sub genre of historical fiction. What one calls it I dunno.

R.W.Ware · Post by **R.W.Ware** » Sat August 18th, 2012, 7:54 pm

But, if you go back to basics, Steampunk is still Sci-Fi--though with a historical bent--unless it has Myth, Monsters or Magic, then it's Fantasy. Paranormal Romance is still Fantasy (or loosely Horror). Point is, sub-genres are all still their main genres.

If the point of historical is ONLY Historical fact, why use anything fictitious? Why not just have a note at the beginning explaining where extrapolation was necessary, cite the sources you base your extrapolation about and let it be only "true" historical stories?

Meh. Fiction is Fiction, whether there's a dose or a dollop. As long as I can immerse--which is all verisimilitude for me--the writer has done his or her job in milieu. There are far more components to a good story to focus on only the background details. For me, stories are about characters--with the exception of the cities or milieu's which become characterized to the point of being in direct interaction with those who have to play through, so to speak.

Divia · Post by **Divia** » Mon August 20th, 2012, 9:22 pm

I dunno what to tell you.

I like my historical fiction to be just that...historical in a sense. I don't want made up events. Tis one reason I hated Wild Princess. The whole flippin book was made up and was very, very loosely based on Louise. I can get more historical accuracy reading a 5th grade report. I'm more forgiving with made up people, but still.

To each their own, of course.

DianeL · Post by **DianeL** » Mon August 20th, 2012, 11:45 pm

[quote=""Nefret""]I used to be an Anne Rice fan, but I have no interest in Twilight.[/quote]

No, I used to read Rice as well, and cannot imagine reading Twi - BUT there seems to me at least something more in common there, in that Ricean works didn't stint on various types of romance, and it's possible some of what appeals to Twi fans exists in the pretty wide and varied world of Rice.

Gabriele Campbell · Post by **Gabriele Campbell** » Sat October 20th, 2012, 6:47 pm

It's a fine line to thread and I've been there, too. Not with my Roman novels; they are plain historical fiction, and the fragmentary nature of what we know for facts gives me enough leeway to weave my tale, mix up fictional and historical characters (because we don't know the names of all the officers in Varus army, I can add my own bunch), make up motivations (we know Arminius annihilated those legions, but we have no idea WHY) and explain the few liberties - or mostly my own interpretations of discussed sources - in an afterword.

But that Mediaeval thing was different. History kept getting in the way of the story I wanted to tell and I had to constantly wonder if I could have this king die a year earlier or that character be in a place he likely was not at a certain time .... At some point I threw up my hands in despair and decided to pull a Guy Gavriel Kay on the whole mess.

It became so much easier once I found a magic layer to warrant the change into historical Fantasy. I then changed the place names and names of historical characters into something still resembling 12th century, but sort of a parallell world. You may recognise some of our beloved dysfunctional Plantagenets even in disguise, but a lot of the characters are plain fictive and the story has really taken off once I didn't need to care about history any longer.

Historical Fiction Online

How far can historical fiction be stretched?

Right...