This Week’s Topic: Is it historical?
This is not the first time I have wondered about this genre designation. I think it's common for all of us to thing of something written in a time before we existed as historical. Maybe that makes me self centered, but that was always my frame of reference, but as I grow older, I am learning, that I am kind of historical.
Last year, when Fireworks by Katie Cotugno came out, I remember there was a discussion as to if it was a contemporary book or not. You see, this book is explicitly set in the 1990s, which is the near past, but still quite a few years ago. The one definitive answer I remember seeing on this thread, was that if the setting in more than 25 years in the past, it's historical. You could not imagine how elderly I felt at that point, but it was clear rule. So, my first question: How far in the past must a book be set in order to be considered historical fiction?
I recently read some lovely reviews by AJ. She was reviewing Newbery Award winners, and some actually pre-dated me. One comment which gave me pause, was about how the book seemed "dated". When the book was written in 1963, it was a contemporary book, and I know it is common to find some indications of the contemporary world in the book. This all made me remember a comment Rainbow Rowell made, about how she didn't like to make many pop culture references in her books, and maybe this was why. Maybe she feared the references would mark her book in a particular era, and it would not allow the story to age well. This brings me to my other question: Can a book written as a contemporary become historical fiction over time? I feel like it can, if the author references current events or current trends in the book, or if the author uses any slang, it could give a nod to the year in which it was set, and serve as capturing the time period.
Now it's your turn!
What makes a book historical?
Let us know in the comments!
Interesting topic and something I've wondered about as well. I even remember trying to look up the answer at some point but didn't really find anything definitive. In my mind, I'm thinking it has to be set at an earlier time than when it's actually published but that as we move forward in time, the earlier time (even if that earlier setting was considered contemporary when it was published) could eventually classify as historical.
ReplyDeleteI used to just call it historical if it was older than me, but you know, as I get older, I see how this can no longer work.
DeleteThis is a topic that will forever be debated, I think! One thing that comes to mind are those radio stations that play older music (in Canada at least!) I am always surprised when they say the play songs from the 70s, 80s, and 90s. The 90s is slowly becoming historical, for sure. I think that it is an interesting idea to not include pop references. However, sometimes even the technology the characters use can date a book. Definitely a topic that we can discuss forever! :)
ReplyDeleteWhen I was a kid, the "oldies" station played 50s, 60s, and 70s. Now music from when I was in college qualifies as oldies. Ouch! Technology will definitely date a book, forgot about that, which is another thing that I think can make a contemporary a future historical.
DeleteInteresting discussion! I remember being astounded when a professor told me that books set in the 90s are considered historical fiction. I was alive in the 90s! I don’t feel that old! When I label books on my blog, I go by what the author intended to write or what the publisher marketed it as. If it was contemporary when it was written, then I call it contemporary, even if that seems strange now.
ReplyDeleteI think writing styles can also make a book feel dated. Writing styles change over time. Some of the older children’s books I’ve read for my Newbery challenge are painfully slow and preachy. That wouldn’t work for kids today, but 50+ years ago, a lot of kids’ books were written that way. In 50+ years, the books we read now might not appeal to readers anymore.
Aj @ Read All The Things!
That is an excellent point. I do think authors approach MG/YA books in a much different manner these days, showing how they have adapted to the way kids have changed. I think there are issues that kids will always face, but there are some, which affected only certain generations, which would also cause a book to be stuck in a certain time period.
DeleteI've maybe read a handful of books I would consider historical romances with paranormal elements so take my opinion on this matter with a grain of salt. For some reason when I think of historical novels my mind goes to stories that take place before or during the 1800's. I don't know where that number came from or why I relate it to historical novels.
ReplyDeleteI hate it when a novel mentions specific (at the time popular) songs, popular (at the time) slang, and newly released at that the moment tech (i.e. iPhone Z, Samsung Tablet Y). It ages the book so quickly and unnecessarily. Like most descriptions I would rather the author be vague or just have a general description so I can fill in the blank with a generic phone or computer or something :)
I would definitely consider books set in the 19th century as historical - no question. There is this part of me, that finds pop culture references fun, but I unless they are classic references, they will definitely hamper that book from being a timeless favorite.
DeleteOh wow. I consider historical fiction to be something that actually is talking about a historical event. A few pop culture references don’t count. Not to me anyway. I do think those pop culture references do date a book though.
ReplyDeleteBut what if the book captures the time period really well, such as any Regency romance?
DeleteWhat a great topic! I'm not sure how I would define historical fiction. Maybe pre-WWII?
ReplyDeleteI think it is hard go by how many years in the past the book is set/written. I think a book that captures the Vietnam War or Watergate or the tearing down of the Berlin wall are all capturing historical events, and would qualify as historical fiction.
DeleteI tend to think of historical fiction as books based on a historical event or person, but maybe not always? I guess it could include books that just happen to take place in an earlier era. If I had to put a date on it, I'd say maybe pre-1960? Everything after that to me feels like the modern era.
ReplyDeleteI think I make the mistake of considering anything I actually lived as modern, but you know, the older I get, the less true that is. A lot of contemporaries I read do not elude to an exact time period, and if they make any pop culture references, they are of a classic nature, which I think is smart.
DeleteUgh, no! Historical romance to me is like early 1900's. Latest WW2. Maybe... Ok. My thoughts shifted around on this like a kaleidoscope while writing this comment. I just... Books set in the 90's? Historical? No. Just no.
ReplyDeleteI think my problem with accepting a book set in the 90s as historical is that I was alive during that time period, and it makes me feel old. XD
DeleteWell...I officially feel old if 1990's is considered historical >.< I guess I would consider something historical if most, if not all, of the fictional people in the story would now be dead....Like I wouldn't really consider the 60's historical because my parents are still alive. But 40's I would...I think that's the self-centered thinking you were talking about lol
ReplyDeleteI think I was drinking something when I was reading the thread, and choked on it. I feel like my definition of "older than me" is looking better and better.
DeleteI'm right there with you, Sam. Apparently we're "historical" now. Yikes!!
ReplyDeleteNicole @ Feed Your Fiction Addiction
*laughing*
DeleteSo. I think Fireworks (and any other 90s set book, for that matter) is, sadly for our psyches, historical fiction in the strictest sense. For it isn't contemporary, and 1998 is 20 years ago so.... yeah. That said, a book set in 1998 WRITTEN in 1998 is still contemporary. Perhaps a book, after a certain time has passed, could be dubbed a sort of "classic", but I think if it's set in generally the time when it was written, it's contemporary. If it's set in a time significantly prior to its publication, it's historical. I don't think a book can become historical over time- I think it just becomes dated basically? But who knows, maybe I am totally off base :D Fun topic!
ReplyDeleteMaybe that is where I struggle - historical vs. classic. For instance, Little Women was published in 1869 and is set in the early 1860s. The book has be anointed a classic, but it also contains so many things related to that time period. Alcott captured so much of that time in history, that it could sort of be a great reference for life in the early 1800s. But I guess there is difference between an author explicitly setting out to write a period piece and a reader interpreting a work as historical, because they are reading it so many years later.
DeleteQuote: "but as I grow older, I am learning, that I am kind of historical."
ReplyDeleteHaha, me too!
I agree with Shannon above, on some accounts - also because to me "historical" means "set against the backdrop of some particular event that made history", like WWII or slavery or Kennedy's assassination. Of course, some of the things that are happening now will become history all the same. But I wouldn't call a book set in the '50s (just to name a period in which I was not born yet) "historical", if it's just a once-contemporary set back in the day. Then again, I can understand other people using the label...It's all so confusing. Great topic though!
I am going to be honest, sometimes I just leave it at "fiction", because I struggle with something eluding to the way people lived in the past as contemporary. My co-blogger and I were just debating that with respect to the Little House books this morning. They are loosely based on the author's life, but still fiction, however, they capture the pioneer experience. It's an interesting conundrum.
DeleteI had this discussion on my booktube channel as well! It was interesting because I learned that alternate history is not the same as historical fiction. Because alternate history as a genre is where you take historical events or people and change something specific about them which didn't happen. Historical fiction is pretty much anything set in the past, but if it is fairly recent history rather than say 'historical fiction' I put the time it is set in? Because the time is similar to ours still and has a lot of the same lifestyles, if not just some outdated technology... if that makes any sense?
ReplyDeleteNow I feel less old. =) Even though the time period may be similar, it's kind of incredible how much our world has changed in recent years. I finished The Future of Us the other day, and it's set pre-internet explosion. They were dialing up via an AOL CD in the book, which made me chuckle, and get a peek at Facebook, which is in the future. This just made me think how much staying connected has changed and how fast information (good or bad) spreads.
DeleteIn June I'm staring a new regular feature "Genrely" Speaking becsue of this! :) Some genres are confusing and overlap! E.g. Is it romance, historical or historical romance? Is it fantasy? historical fantasy or Historical? LOL Your question is spot on! when do contemporary become historical! it is like the old debate between vintage and antique ;) Great post
ReplyDeleteClassifying books by genre is very confusing. I have read a million things on the internet regarding the way sub-genres can be assigned, but there isn't even agreement there. That is why I usually keep it broad, but this is one area that has always bothered me.
DeleteOooh, I love this topic! Here's my take, for what it's worth: if the author is writing specifically or generally about their own "current" time period, whatever that is, it's contemporary. If the author is writing in the past specifically--even if, say, someone writing now decides to write a book set in 2012 for some reason--then it's historical. Because there would have to be a REASON why they chose 2012 (maybe the Mayan calendar end of the world thing is part of the plot?) and they would have to be careful to get their details right (is it too early to have people laughing at the idea of Trump running for President? Which iPhone was out? Wait, was that before or after the tsunami in Thailand?).
ReplyDeleteBUT THEN. Time passes. And a contemporary becomes dated, and then it becomes historical. I took a class in college called "The Novel As History" in which we read books written AND set in the 1800s-1950s (this was in 1987) and discussed what historical information could be pulled from them. The class was in the history department. So Dickens may not have set out to chronicle life in the Victorian era any more than Hemingway set out to remind us of life before the sexual revolution, but we can read their books now and possibly get a more "authentic" look at those time periods than from a book written as historical fiction.
All that being said, my mind wobbles at the thought that books coming out in the past year or two about 9/11 are historical fiction. Because the author is choosing to write about an event that happened in the past. Even though it was like, twenty minutes ago in my mind.
I consider something set in the 1960s historical fiction as much as something set in the 1860s. But yeah, anything in the 1990s? Just makes me feel old if it's categorised as historical fiction!
ReplyDeleteI guess technically, yesterday is history, but when you label something set during my lifetime as "historical" it makes me feel really ancient.
DeleteDon't say anything over 25 years is historical! That's not ok. I do find books set in the 80s and 90s really difficult to classify because for some they are historical (I know, it's crazy stuff) but I don't feel like they're historical because it's still too recent.
ReplyDeleteI do think contemporary reads can become historical, though. A prime example is Jane Austen's book, at the time of writing it would have been contemporary fiction but for us totally historical (and also classics) so I think it can happen. I don't know at what point that happens though. For me, a book is historical when it's set over 50 years ago, I don't know how to categorise those in between years. It gets awkward.
That's what I'm saying! If a contemporary written many moons ago captures the time period, it can serve as a way to learn about that time period. And yes, some of those older, but not so old time periods are awkward.
DeleteI love historical fiction so this gave me an eye twitch. When I look to buy historical fiction I look for books that are specific to that genre. I will look for books that are set during a certain time period and uses certain events of that time period in that story. Like World War I, Civil War, The Gilded Age, stories about Royalty and their history. I would not pick up a book written in 1998 that is a contemporary just because they are now calling it "historical fiction" to me it's still a contemporary. Now if something of importance happened in 1998 that the book majorly focuses on that has made history, than maybe it's not a contemporary but now calling contemporaries based on what year they had been written as historical makes me a bit irritated I guess.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying that we reclassify books as "historical fiction", but it seems when contemporaries age, and those contemporaries capture the time period and events (big or small) during that time period, they are sort of a time capsule of the time. Little Women was a contemporary when it was written. Now we call it a "classic", but it contains lots of insight into how people lived during that era and how events which transpired affected their lives.
Delete