Historical Novels, Period Dramas, etc. Should Not Exist!

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Hogan's Heroes ??? !!!!

Papa Bear calling Goldilocks. Come in Goldilocks.

[Katsunami]

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

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 are romanticized, but they can be imaged to have happened exactly as written.

On the other hand "Tales of the Otori" (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.

I agree of course that there is a difference between historical fiction and fantasy, and that historical fiction should be set in a recognisable world. However, I don't think that minor changes to historical reality rule something out as being historical fiction. One example of this is that in the first Poldark novel, a woman asks Poldark to help her unbutton the back of her dress. In the 18th century, women's dresses actually fastened at the front, not the back.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree of course that there is a difference between historical fiction and fantasy, and that historical fiction should be set in a recognisable world. However, I don't think that minor changes to historical reality rule something out as being historical fiction. One example of this is that in the first Poldark novel, a woman asks Poldark to help her unbutton the back of her dress. In the 18th century, women's dresses actually fastened at the front, not the back.

If inaccuracies in the story would rule it out as being historical fiction, then basically every book or movie in the genre that I've read or seen would immediately be relegated to the fantasy genre.

The Last Samurai for example:

The film was based on the stories of Jules Brunet, a French army captain who fought alongside Enomoto Takeaki in the earlier Boshin War and Frederick Townsend Ward, an American mercenary who helped Westernize the Chinese army by forming the Ever Victorious Army. The historical roles of the British Empire, the Netherlands and France in Japanese westernization are largely attributed to the United States in the film, for American audiences.

The Last Samurai is clearly based on multiple, real events and people, but it is so wildly inaccurate that it can be considered to be completely made up. However, it can easily be imagined to have happened as portrayed, in Japan of +/- 1868, so therefore I still consider it to be historical fiction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

If inaccuracies in the story would rule it out as being historical fiction, then basically every book or movie in the genre that I've read or seen would immediately be relegated to the fantasy genre.

Precisely my point, too .

[Katsunami]

Maybe, for something like Tales of the Otori, there is a genre called "Historical Fantasy".

An XBOX/PC-game called "Jade Empire" (Bioware, 2005-2007) falls in what is called the wuxia genre: this basically is a genre of movies/books/games that use ancient China as inspiration, but everything is completely made up, and people often have superhuman capabilities.

If Tales of the Otori had been placed in a fictional ancient China-like country instead of Japan-like, it would have been wuxia instead of fantasy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Maybe, for something like Tales of the Otori, there is a genre called "Historical Fantasy".

There are of course many books that are set in recognisable historical settings with fantasy or SF elements. The entire genre of "steampunk", for example. Fantasy authors like Guy Gavriel Kay set many of their books in settings which are almost - but not entirely - historical. That doesn't just apply to historical settings, of course. Look at the genre of "urban fastasy" - a recognisable modern-day setting with fantasy elements.

However, I think one can make a distinction between SF/fantasy, and historical fiction which is not quite true to reality.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Maybe, for something like Tales of the Otori, there is a genre called "Historical Fantasy".

Of course, though I'd personally lean toward calling it a subgenre of fantasy, not a genre of its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fantasy

And it's differentiated from alternate history, which is a "what-if" realistic fiction story in a historical setting that has branched from our own history.

[DiapDealer]

I don't necessarily see being based on a real event as being any sort of requirement to be called "historical fiction." Just the backdrop of the period is sufficent. Of course, much historical fiction has real events (big or small) that do occur during the course of the narrative, but they don't need to be integral to the plot at all for me to label it historical fiction.

[HarryT]

Hilary Mantel's acclaimed historical novels "Wolf Hall" and "Bring Up the Bodies" have been criticised by some historians for their portrayal of Thomas Cromwell in the court of Henry VIII in an overly-sympathetic manner, but this is a fictionalised biography, not history. An author of fiction is entirely at liberty to choose to emphasise one side of Cromwell's character and gloss over his less attractive attributes in ways than a historian can't. Authors of fiction don't have to be impartial.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by meeera

Of course, though I'd personally lean toward calling it a subgenre of fantasy, not a genre of its own.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_fantasy

LOL. I *knew* I should have checked before I wrote that.

[Tarana]

Why do I think this way? Because people accept some of what's in those media as the truth, when it isn't the truth. That results in all kinds of problems, IMHO, because of the fact that people act based upon what they believe to be the truth. So, without trying to overstate the case or be melodramatic, I think that they can be dangerous.

I completely see your point of view, but all you can do is lead a horse to water with the hope that they will look up the non-fiction relevance. Keep in mind that we have a fairly large population who buys the Enquirer and similar trash and actually BELIEVE what is in there. Sadly, these folks are part of the voting public.

On the media's side however, you will rarely get people flocking to documentaries (Cosmos with Sagan and Jacque Cousteau were flukes, not the norm). For every historical fiction book or movie, you will get a percentage of those folks seeking out what REALLY happened. I just finished The Australians by William Stuart Long (Vivian Stuart) and learned tons about Australian history - every couple of chapters, I'd be looking up something about persons or events and found that Ms. Stuart was actually a pretty good stickler to the facts of history as known at the time she wrote her stories. Unusually, she appeared to have first presented the history and wove her story and characters around in it. Did she get it all right? Probably not. But, no matter how accurate it is, it is still fiction.

As to categorizing, I put it under fiction, historical. I consider fantasy to be more extreme - like steampunk, nonhumans, magic, alternative worlds to name a few. Bernard Cornwell, Vivian Stuart, Georgette Heyer, Carolyn Harrod-Eagles and similar have no magic and are narratives placed closely in the history in which they occur. These are folks that made special effort to be historically accurate, but are still fiction.

But, keeping in mind your suggestion Meeera, here is a link to over 5000 historical fiction novels that INCLUDE both non-magic and magic elements: http://www.historicalnovels.info/

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by GrannyGrump

Hogan's Heroes ??? !!!!

You're suggesting that there's something wrong with the show?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by GtrsRGr8

You're suggesting that there's something wrong with the show?

I love Hogan's Heroes

[DiapDealer]

Hogan's Heroes is dangerous. People will think all POWs had rain-barrel/tin-can periscopes and coffee-pot radios at their disposal.