Is the year 1987 historical fiction? > Likes and Comments

I am currently reading a Christian Cozy Mystery that takes place in 1987. I was wondering if you feel like the year 1987 is historical fiction or not. Personally I don't but I am curious what other people think.

Hi, Tammy! As a general rule, historical fiction is a genre that portrays a narrative set at least fifty years in the past from the present date. So, 1987 is eleven years short. I would not consider it historical—even though the times were quite different then—and neither would the Historical Novel Society, a mainstream literary organization for this genre. Cheers!

My entirely idiosincratic take is that I wouldn't consider living memory as historical, but yeah, half a century seems a reasonable milestone.

Not sure where I read this in our Group threads, but I think in this Group the Mods have stated that for reporting in Challenges, historical fiction are books set 50 years before publication date. Other groups may have different rules relating to historical fiction.

This is what the Mods posted for last summers challenge:
"The definition of historical fiction that our group uses is a work published at least 50 years after at last half of the events in the work. "

I wish every medium stuck to the 50 year rule. Saw some Gen Z refer to Twisted Sister as classic rock and I wanted to cry. Nothing wrong with the band, but again it was the 1980's.

"50 years" may be just about as good a rule of thumb as any, but that's all it is. A rule of thumb.

I'm reading a series of novels set about 50-75 years in the past. Colm Tóibín, the Eilis Lacey novels. To me, they do not read like historical fiction. Not because they aren't set far enough in the past, but because of the focus. The focus is primarily on the inner life of the characters, who almost coincidentally happen to be living in that setting. The novels (at least, for as far as I've read) do not very much explore the unique historic time and place, the set of public events that shape those characters.

Is Pride and Prejudice historical fiction? I don't think so. For the same reasons as above. It's a "novel of manners."

Pride and Prejudice was contemporary to when it was written, so no, it’s not considered historical fiction.

We usually use the guideline of the book being set at least 50 years prior to when it was written. Not 50 years prior to current date.

So by that standard, no, a book set in 1987 wouldn’t be HF, even if written today.

Hope that helps.

I can see both sides, but I probably wouldn’t call 1987 historical fiction.
It feels more like a period setting than true historical fiction to me.
The 50-year rule may be imperfect, but it gives people a useful line.

50 years does roughly equal the average span of healthy adulthood. 21 is the age of majority; 73-74 is around the average global life expectancy. Anyone who was a young adult in 1968 (the Vietnam Tet Offensive etc.) is old by now, if not gone. But events that happened in 1988 are still fresher in living memories. We can easily find people who were there.

I think it’s helpful in groups like this to have a generally agreed upon definition. Where it gets tricky are all of the novels that are a mix of genres or have dual or multiple timelines. Then things get messy.

I wouldn't regard anything within living memory as historical. On the other hand my living memory is longer than most. It's depressing when your children study something like the Vietnam War in history at school.

Iain wrote: "I wouldn't regard anything within living memory as historical. On the other hand my living memory is longer than most. It's depressing when your children study something like the Vietnam War in his..."

My nephew learned about 9/11 last year. I feel your pain.