Historical Fiction Panel - July 18, 2012 discussion

The Rez's Edge: Destruction & Redemption
This topic is about The Rez's Edge
22 views
Mixing Recent History With Ancient History

Comments Showing 1-11 of 11 (11 new)    post a comment »
dateDown arrow    newest »

Brad Jensen (bradjensen) | 4 comments My name is Brad Jensen. I recently completed a book set in the late 1970s, but within the book I also cover historical happenings from the 1700s and 1800s via dreams and characters telling internal stories.

It seems to me that some folks don't consider stories told from recent history (such as the 60's and 70's) to really be historical fiction. I however disagree and think along the lines that "history is history" no matter if it just happened the other day, back in the Pleistocene era, or whenever. What are your viewpoints?

I also just started a new GOODREADS GROUP to discuss and take comments on Short Excerpts that I will be posting from my 'REZ's EDGE' - "Destruction & Redemption" book. Please take a quick look and drop me a quick comment/hello/whatever! Thanks!

CLICK HERE --> https://www.goodreads.com/group/show/...

Group Name:
REZ's EDGE (Living Next To An American Indian Reservation and Dealing With Racial Prejudices)

Group Description:
A place to read tidbits, nuggets, samplings, treasures, excerpts and ask questions, make comments, start conversations about the novel/book REZ's EDGE by Brad Jensen.

Thanks For Your Comments & Advice!!!!
Brad Jensen


message 2: by Dawn (new)

Dawn | 9 comments It's hard to consider a time period you lived through as "historical," although you are absolutely correct about it being so. Personally, I would say that historical fiction should be at least 25-30 years ago and possibly more. Otherwise, it's just set in the recent past and could be considered more nostalgic.

(I have two Pinterest boards: historical and nostalgia. My rule for the most part is if I remember it, it's nostalgia. If I don't, it's history.)


message 3: by Brad (last edited Oct 17, 2016 11:58AM) (new) - rated it 5 stars

Brad Jensen (bradjensen) | 4 comments 1976+30=2006 ... Looks like I'm all good for calling it true Historical Fiction then.


message 4: by May (new)

May (mayzie) | 19 comments Dawn, I love the distinction!!! Thank you!!


message 5: by Heidi (new)

Heidi Schramm (hss193040) | 4 comments I am a advanced placement world history teacher. The course is broken into time period from 8000 be to 1914. And beyond. The beyond is modern times to present. So for me as a teacher the 1970's falls into modern times but that does not mean it is not historical fiction. I agree it is. I am also writing a book the 1970's and it is nostalgia. The genre functions both in my opinion.


message 6: by Heidi (new)

Heidi Schramm (hss193040) | 4 comments Sorry. That's 8000 before common era or BC.


message 7: by J.D. (new)

J.D. Peterson (jdpeterson) | 4 comments I'm so enjoying this conversation! I'm thinking about history like 'antiques'. Older objects are considered antiques - while newer objects - like a 1960's car is considered a 'collectable'. Yet, with technology changing so rapidly, many objects that were familiar to me as a child (I'm 57) are so obsolete! ALSO - there was a movie with Michele Pieffer on last week about the 1960's and that sure felt historical in many ways.


message 8: by Heidi (new)

Heidi Schramm (hss193040) | 4 comments 1960's mustache is a collectible. But look on the license plates- all states have "historical car" on the plate. I am same age & believe me even the 70's are seemingly old!


message 9: by Heidi (new)

Heidi Schramm (hss193040) | 4 comments Mustang geeze


message 10: by J.D. (new)

J.D. Peterson (jdpeterson) | 4 comments Damn autocorrect!!


message 11: by Brad (new) - rated it 5 stars

Brad Jensen (bradjensen) | 4 comments Thanks to ALL for taking part in the conversation!!!!!


back to top