Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I disagree. Historical fiction is simply fiction that is set in the past.
|
Well.... I can imagine that not everything that is set in the past can be classified as historical fiction. I am of the opinion that there need to be some sort of recognizable elements to the story that are at least based on something that really existed, and the fiction shouldn't go into into make-believe territory.
For example, Shogun, Musashi, and Mutiny on the Bounty are all (IMHO) historical fiction; they use Japan of around 1600, or the mutiny on the HMS Bounty as a backdrop. Both stories use elements of truth, and elements of fiction and all three are romanticized, but they can be imaged to have happened exactly as written.
On the other hand "Tales of the Otori" (by Lian Hearn), cannot be called historical fiction, IMHO. It uses a backdrop that looks like Japan of around 1600, but in reality it isn't. It's completely fictionalized: the country isn't called Japan, the people are not based on real historical figures, cities never existed and are not based on cities that existed back then or now, and it has a huge element of 'ninja magic' to it (telekinesis, telepathy, voodoo-like stuff, that sort of thing). There is *no* way that anyone could believe that this really happened.