1Tess_W
I've argued with myself long enough! I read Steinbeck's Of Mice and Men about 2 men in California during the Great Depression. The depression really played little in the story. I would not necessarily classify this as historical fiction. However, when I look on the LT page, there are those who did. What say ye?
2thorold
A very old topic, which we’ve discussed many times in this group and elsewhere!
The conventional “academic” approach (and what I always worked with) is to ask whether the author had to apply the techniques of a historian (documentary research, analysis of sources, etc.) when writing the book. As a rule of thumb that means that anything set in the lifetime of the writer probably isn’t historical fiction. Especially if it’s written and published very close to the period it is set in, as Of mice and men was.
That sort of reader would probably also distinguish between books that actually try to create characters who talk or think as people in that period might have from mere “costume dramas” that simply put modern characters into an earlier period — that’s a distinction that is usually said to have been invented by Sir Walter Scott (cf. the Introduction to Waverley).
On the other hand, you can argue that the reader really doesn’t care what the author had to do to establish that atmosphere, all they are interested in is “will it have crinolines?” And from that point of view it makes sense to shelve Jane Austen with the regency romances, and Captain Marryat with Patrick O’Brian: anything set in a given historical period counts as historical fiction, irrespective of when it was written. I don’t know if that means we should shelve 1984 as historical fiction now, though…
The conventional “academic” approach (and what I always worked with) is to ask whether the author had to apply the techniques of a historian (documentary research, analysis of sources, etc.) when writing the book. As a rule of thumb that means that anything set in the lifetime of the writer probably isn’t historical fiction. Especially if it’s written and published very close to the period it is set in, as Of mice and men was.
That sort of reader would probably also distinguish between books that actually try to create characters who talk or think as people in that period might have from mere “costume dramas” that simply put modern characters into an earlier period — that’s a distinction that is usually said to have been invented by Sir Walter Scott (cf. the Introduction to Waverley).
On the other hand, you can argue that the reader really doesn’t care what the author had to do to establish that atmosphere, all they are interested in is “will it have crinolines?” And from that point of view it makes sense to shelve Jane Austen with the regency romances, and Captain Marryat with Patrick O’Brian: anything set in a given historical period counts as historical fiction, irrespective of when it was written. I don’t know if that means we should shelve 1984 as historical fiction now, though…
3Tess_W
>2 thorold: Thanks! It's as clear a mud! I think I'm going to refrain from tagging Of Mice and Men as historical fiction.
4lilithcat
>1 Tess_W:
It was written in 1937. The Depression is considered to have lasted until 1939.
How can something be "historical fiction" if it is set in the time during which it is written?
It was written in 1937. The Depression is considered to have lasted until 1939.
How can something be "historical fiction" if it is set in the time during which it is written?
5tealadytoo
>1 Tess_W: I agree with the general definition that if an author is writing about a period prior to their own lifetime, it is historical fiction. Otherwise, no.
Now there are a lot of books out there that just put modern people into an historic period with no real attempt at any kind of historical accuracy. I still think these are historical fiction, just bad historical fiction. {My personal term for these is the "long dress book". Take a contemporary woman, put her in a floor length dress and call it good.} :=)
Something like Of Mice and Men I would consider "vintage fiction". Almost classic, not quite old enough yet.
But these classifications are all quite subjective. If you aren't a professional librarian, define the categories in a way that makes sense to you, be consistent, and be happy!
Now there are a lot of books out there that just put modern people into an historic period with no real attempt at any kind of historical accuracy. I still think these are historical fiction, just bad historical fiction. {My personal term for these is the "long dress book". Take a contemporary woman, put her in a floor length dress and call it good.} :=)
Something like Of Mice and Men I would consider "vintage fiction". Almost classic, not quite old enough yet.
But these classifications are all quite subjective. If you aren't a professional librarian, define the categories in a way that makes sense to you, be consistent, and be happy!
6thorold
>3 Tess_W: I tend to tag for time period anyway — so I'd tag Of mice and men as "1930s" — and then, if appropriate, add a further tag for "historical fiction". And often another date tag for the publication decade.
7Limelite
>4 lilithcat:
EXACTLY. Historical fiction is judged by the time period of the story vs the time it was written. Dickens novels, like this one by Steinbeck, are not historical fiction because the were written in our past. They're contemporary fiction because they were set in the author's present. Steinbeck was writing a story set in his present, too. So, it is contemporary fiction.
BTW, both authors' works can be categorized as classics.
EXACTLY. Historical fiction is judged by the time period of the story vs the time it was written. Dickens novels, like this one by Steinbeck, are not historical fiction because the were written in our past. They're contemporary fiction because they were set in the author's present. Steinbeck was writing a story set in his present, too. So, it is contemporary fiction.
BTW, both authors' works can be categorized as classics.
