Historical Fictionistas discussion

602 views
Historical Fiction Discussions > Obligation of H.F. Writers to be Factual

Comments Showing 1-50 of 417 (417 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

message 1: by Silver (new)

Silver This is just a random thought which popped into my head, and I thought it could make for an interesting topic of conversation and something worth considering.

I know that there are certain authors and books which receive a lot of complaints for the authors playing fast and loose with the facts as it were, and for giving an inaccurate portrayal of the people, time, events, etc. in which they are writing about.

And this leaves me to wonder, just how much of an obligation to historical fiction writers have to give factual accurate accounts of the topics in which they write about?

While on the one hand if an author B.Sed through their book too heavily and simply made it up as they went along one could question if in fact it would be justified to even call their work historical fiction.

But on the other hand I think that fiction is the key word in HF. The fact that the books while focusing upon actual historical events, places, people and so forth, they still are not making any false claims (I do not think) to strictly following the facts. So does the very fact that they claim up front of be writers of fiction give them more leeway and creatively with the way in which they present their stories?

In addition, because they are writing works of fiction, above all else it is their first and foremost goal to offer an entertaining story to the readers, not simply offer text book facts, and they are trying to reach a wider audience than just history buffs.

There is also the fact that even Historical Non-Fiction, is peppered with a degree if fiction in it, because while we do have some evidence left behind there is also a lot of gaps in the evidence and a good deal of studying history is like putting together a puzzle with missing pieces and having to make the best guess you can as to what those missing pieces would look like, and every work of Non-Fiction comes with the bias of the author and the information he presents is his perception and interpretation of the facts.

So should it just be taken in due course that works of Historical Fiction will contain certain in accurateness in the authors effort to make the story come to life, and flesh it out so that it is enjoyable to read.

Or by the very fact that they are claiming to write about historical events sent them automatically to a standard in which it should be expected of them to give the reader a more factual account of the events?


message 2: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Very interesting topic, Silver. :)

I personally expect a HF book to be well researched regarding the setting, and as much as possible about the historical events and the like... but I do not mind the author taking a bit of liberty with the characters and the events to suit their own story purposes.

I want to feel like what I'm reading COULD have happened, even if it's not 100 percent what DID happen. It's not a text-book, or non-fiction, or hypothesis, it is fiction written in a historical setting, so I'm OK with the author taking a little leeway with it.

But as much as possible, I want to know that the author did their homework and didn't just make it up or change around historical facts to make their story flow better. I'm fine with that, if it's an ALTERNATE history story, which is quite a bit different, obviously. :)


message 3: by Donna (new)

Donna | 35 comments Someone, maybe Chrissie, once said "I'll forgive a lot with a good author's note" and I think that sums it up nicely for me.

If the author is honest about any major changes, fills in some glaring gaps, or explains any liberties they took with the history in the author's note at the end, which sometimes I actually read first, then I'm OK with taking liberties with the fact.

I really do not like a HF book without an author's note since I wonder what the author really knows about the history.


message 4: by K (new)

K | 6 comments I have to agree with Donna, I don't mind changes in history, like timing of events, merging of characters, etc, but I would like to see some note of it at the end. Obviously, dialogue is going to be made up for the most part but I like it to stick to what we know of the person.

All that being said, so much of actual history is changed, made up or implied. I hate to be too hard on authors who make take a snippet of something and run with it to make a better plot.


message 5: by Robin (new)

Robin (ukamerican) | 528 comments I think HF has an obligation to be accurate in terms of the setting and time period - no modern terms, for example. But when it comes to events, chronology or the portrayal of a historical figure, it does not have to be 100% accurate for me to enjoy it. I always say "as long as the fictional aspects work and make sense, I don't mind". I do respect and appreciate accuracy in fiction and I do think writers can take a creative license too far sometimes but if I required everything to be factual, I would stick to reading non-fiction.

I agree, author's notes are appreciated since they show the author has done their research and simply chosen to make certain fictional changes, rather than it simply being poorly researched.


message 6: by Joyce (new)

Joyce Moore | 28 comments This is an ongoing discussion between authors on the historical novel society digest. I believe an author has a duty to h/her readers to portray actual events within the time frame in which they actually happened, as well as the background events, people's ages, etc. because a lot of us read hf not only for enjoyment but also to learn more about the period. If it's necessary, for the sake of story, to alter any date or place, I include that in my author's notes, along with other pertinent facts that help to ground the reader in the setting. Good hf authors sometimes even list the historical characters and the fictional characters separately, which is nice. Everyone works differently, but I include what I think readers would want to know, based on what I'd want to know. In the end, I guess that's the nearest thing an author can do, considering we don't know what conversations actually took place or what someone wore on a given day. All that still leaves room for a lot of creativity, anyway. My 2 cents.


message 7: by Kate (last edited Oct 02, 2010 10:28AM) (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments I don't mind historical facts being fudged, but I do get annoyed when the feel of the period is wrong. Perfect example - the HBO series "Rome." They fudged actual events (the historical Atia appears to have been a perfectly respectable woman who never had an affair with Marc Antony; the timeline is crunched down for efficiency's sake) but the series really nailed the FEEL of ancient Rome. I didn't care about the liberties they took, because the overall flavor was authentic.


message 8: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments Hello everyone, I'm new on your discussion area. I tend to agree that if a novel is set in an actual place and refers to actual events those should be as accurate as possible. The history, the politics of the times, the geography, the climate, the food, the diseases...What we do with the characters is another matter and all ours to play with - unless they are historical figures too. But there of course one can interpret, as Hilary Mantel has done so successfully I think in Wolf Hall. An author's note at the end pointing out divergences from the closest to the facts one can get seems to me to be fine. But I would sau that, wouldn't I, because that is what I do.


message 9: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments Another point about factual accuracy in HF is where it was written and when. Sometimes people have had to place the story they are writing about in another era, as allegory almost, because it was too dangerous for them to be able to talk openly about their own times. This was, and still is, true about the writing of many authors in countries where censorship is a problem, and of course it was true of Shakespeare too.


message 10: by Silver (new)

Silver Zina wrote: "Another point about factual accuracy in HF is where it was written and when. Sometimes people have had to place the story they are writing about in another era, as allegory almost, because it was t..."

That brings up another question as to how to define Historical Fiction. From my point of view an author writing about their own time would not really be classified as Historical Fiction, because for them it is contemporary. While theatrically it is historical by nature, and fictional. I view the HF genre as being books in which the author is wiring about a time that did not occur within their own lifetime, but is for them the past.


message 11: by Laura (new)

Laura | 35 comments This was a comment that I wrote in another group that sums it up for me and historical fiction.

I once had a history professor that stated that history is how to tell lies as if they were true. When reading history (non-fiction), you like to think that what you are reading has been well researched and is factual. Unfortunately, unless you were there, there is no way to know all of the details of what really happened. Even if you were present, what you witness is going to be distorted by your personal feelings and impressions. When I read historical fiction, I keep those thoughts in mind. If it is a good story that keeps me interested I'm going to be a little more forgiving if some of the facts have been changed, especially if the author admits what they have done and why. If the story is not that interesting or I don't find it believable, I tend to be less forgiving.


message 12: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments Silver wrote: "Zina wrote: "Another point about factual accuracy in HF is where it was written and when. Sometimes people have had to place the story they are writing about in another era, as allegory almost, bec..."

What about where books contain a historical element - set well in the past - but also moments that are more recent, and in the author's liftime. Does that count as historical fiction, or is it a question of the proportion of the book that is set sufficiently in the past?


message 13: by Silver (new)

Silver Zina wrote: "Silver wrote: "Zina wrote: "Another point about factual accuracy in HF is where it was written and when. Sometimes people have had to place the story they are writing about in another era, as alleg..."

That is a good question. It the book is evenly divided between past and present, or if the parts which take place in the past are more frequent than the present setting, I would say it could be considered Historical Fiction.

Though I am sure that the genre of HF is not rigidly set and there may be variations for what people do or do not consider HF I should look up to see if I can find any information on how books are classified as HF for publishing, and by stores which sell them under that category.


message 14: by Kate (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments I'd say it's not just what percentage of the book is set in the past - it's also the viewpoints. The people in the past - does the reader get their viewpoint as well as the modern characters? The Glassblower of Murano is evenly split between a Renaissance glassblower's point of view, and the point of view of the modern-day girl who is his descendent, so I would call it historical fiction. Robert Goddard's Past Caring has a modern-day man investigating a mystery about the early suffragettes - but you hear about the historical figures second hand, or from diary entries or old letters, rather than from an as-it's-happening point of view. So I'd call that a mystery rather than HF.


message 15: by K (new)

K | 6 comments Laura wrote: "This was a comment that I wrote in another group that sums it up for me and historical fiction.

I once had a history professor that stated that history is how to tell lies as if they were true. ..."


This is a good point. Like the saying goes: there are three sides to every story, his, hers and the truth. More than anything when I read fiction, I want to be entertained. If you are going to bore me with non-essential facts, I am not interested. However, if you change it a little, that is okay. Who knows, maybe that take is closer to the truth.


message 16: by Robin (new)

Robin (ukamerican) | 528 comments Kate wrote: "I'd say it's not just what percentage of the book is set in the past - it's also the viewpoints. The people in the past - does the reader get their viewpoint as well as the modern characters? [bo..."

I agree. I recently finished a book which seemed evenly split in modern and historical times. It was a historical/archaeological mystery thriller like Da Vinci Code. A lot of these books only supply a historical side plot to provide info and details relevant to the main modern plot (which is why I normally wouldn't call them historical fiction) but this one really explored the historical characters and setting and there were times when I felt it could have been a book on it's own, without even the modern plot.


message 17: by Henry (new)

Henry (henrymoses) | 17 comments hi guys i'm a new member. I always like to believe that what i am reading really did happen (the history aspect) it helps me think and talk about the fictional characters/events like they were real so, i'll agree with the people that said if the author alters anything he/she should let us know.


message 18: by Babs (new)

Babs (somedaybabs) | 69 comments Henry wrote: "hi guys i'm a new member. I always like to believe that what i am reading really did happen (the history aspect) it helps me think and talk about the fictional characters/events like they were rea..."

I suspect in most HF the author alters something...either a timeline or some of the facts...that is why it is called HF and not History...I find if you read the author's comments on their blog or web page he/she says why she may have changed the time line or some of the facts..usually it is to make the story flow or be able to tell it in a reasonable amount of pages.


message 19: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments Not necessarily. Of my four books, of which two would be properly called historical fiction, I was extremely to stick to historical and political fact although - it is true - in one of them I placed a field hospital in the south of the city concerned where it had not actually been. So maybe you're right. Is that tampering with the facts? For me the fiction lies with the characters and their interpretation of what is going on around them.


message 20: by Mary (new)

Mary (marynovik) | 20 comments This is a very interesting topic. I wrote the novel Conceit, which I like to call a novel set in the past, not a historical novel. Here's what I wrote in my acknowledgments, “I have consulted the usual scholars and biographers but, after all is said and done, this is my 17th century and I have invented joyfully and freely. The characters entered fully into the spirit of it, contributing in surprising ways to their own fictionalization, John Donne most liberally of all. Perhaps this is fitting, for he confided to a friend, long after becoming a priest, ‘I did best when I had least truth for my subjects.'

Maybe the novels that stay closest to fact should be called traditional historicals, for instance Phillipa Gregory's, and the ones that stray furthest, e.g. Michael Ondaatje's, should be called literary novels set in the past. I, for one, am very happy that there's room for both.

What do the rest of you think?
Mary Novik


message 21: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments There's room for everything...except bad writing.


message 22: by Mary (new)

Mary (marynovik) | 20 comments Zina wrote: "There's room for everything...except bad writing."

So true! Novels are either well written or badly written, as Oscar Wilde said.

Good historical novels vary as widely as contemporary novels. One of my favourite authors is Annabel Lyon I love what she did with Aristotle in The Golden Mean. It reads like a clever contemporary novel that just happens to be set in the past—my ideal read. Maybe it would make a good group read here.

Mary
Mary Novik


message 23: by Janice (new)

Janice (jamasc) I agree with Mary Novik's assessment of historical versus literary fiction.

I want the history of the novel to be accurate. It really annoys me to find inaccuracies and would rate a book lower because of it. If the author has altered the history significantly, I would consider the book to be literary fiction and not historical fiction.

Zina wrote that she placed a field hospital in a location that didn't exist in the time period. I wouldn't call that inaccurate history. It's part of the fiction.

I prefer an author to include notes as well so that any license taken to alter the facts is explained. That way you know what is fiction and what is history.

Afterlands is a great example of that. The author explained that he went one step further and wrote a plausible story about what could have happened after the historical events. The first part of the book was true to the historical record of the Polaris Expedition of 1871. The remainder was mostly fiction about what some of the characters did once they were rescued.


message 24: by Zina (new)

Zina (zinarohan) | 30 comments Tiny correction: I placed the field hospital in the south of Tehran in the book when it was not originally in the south but to the west (I think). There were field hospitals there at that time... Now I'm being picky ;)


message 25: by K.P. (new)

K.P. Vorenberg | 16 comments The best compliment I ever received for my historical suspense novel came from the chairman of the publishing committee: "It was difficult to tell where history ended and fiction began."

Historical fiction is just that -- a piece of fiction set against the backdrop of a period in history. Although I spend months and years conducting research for even the most trivial item in my writing, the story is still that of my own creation.

And, that history professor pretty much hit the nail on the head! My old journalism professor would always emphasize the fact that no two people ever witness something in the exact same way. Which is kind of nice since it leaves the door open for those of us who love to write historical fiction. . . .

Kathy
K.P. Vorenberg


message 26: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments I think that authors should stick to the hard facts and chronology of the historical period. I hate when authors decide to mix up the facts for creative license. Otherwise, it is just fiction and not much historical.


message 27: by Kate (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments I think it depends on what facts are being distorted. I don't mind changing small historical facts - say, moved the date of Emperor Hadrian's magistracy in Greece up a few years to serve the plot. It's a small fact; very few people would catch it, plus I'd cop to the change in an author's note. But I would not move the date of Hadrian's death ten years, or put his entire reign in the third century instead of the first - big historical facts, which should be left to stand.


message 28: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Janice wrote: "I want the history of the novel to be accurate. It really annoys me to find inaccuracies and would rate a book lower because of it. If the author has altered the history significantly, I would consider the book to be literary fiction and not historical fiction."

Jayme(the ghost reader) wrote: "I think that authors should stick to the hard facts and chronology of the historical period. I hate when authors decide to mix up the facts for creative license. Otherwise, it is just fiction and n..."

I differ from Janice and Jayme regarding this. I am pretty liberal with my "historical fiction" umbrella, as many of you already know, and consider historical fiction to encompass anything written in a time before my own, basically - no matter how much liberty the author has taken with the story they are telling. It is fiction.

I appreciate when authors try to keep the story as accurate as possible, while still telling a compelling story, but to me, accuracy is secondary to the story.

I read for enjoyment and escapism - if I learn something in the process, or am intrigued enough to want to learn more, then that's great, but it's not a fiction writer's job to educate me, even if they are writing about history. Their job is to entertain me. :)


message 29: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
That's very true, Martha. Seems like a very fine line to walk. =\


message 30: by Kate (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments Martha wrote: "Kate and Becky,

I found your comments interesting and helpful. It would be nice if an author could trust that most readers would be as "liberal" (Becky's word) as you two obviously are.

However..."


Oh, I hear you. I've gotten a few of those reviews where people seemed miffed about historical inaccuracies, and I've been on the other side rolling my eyes at some blatant bit of historical rearrangement in the books I'm reading. What's interesting is how authors handle it. Example: accusations of historical inaccuracy never seem to stick with any permanence to Bernard Cornwell, because he cheerfully admits his mistakes. "Yep, that fact is completely wrong. I probably screwed it up in copy-editing. Yep, I changed the outcome of that battle to suit my characters. I'm a storyteller not a historian, I change facts if it'll tell a better story. Deal with it." Whereas I remember a lot of fur flying around Philippa Gregory when she tried to defend her version of Tudor history as really being true; all kinds of people jumped in and started tearing her apart.

I think the moral of the story is, no matter how much changing of history you do for your book, cop to it without shame. This is where Author Notes come in handy.


message 31: by Kate (last edited Dec 03, 2016 05:00AM) (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments Very true. Scathing reviews hurt, and at the beginning you can't console yourself with, "Well, who cares what you think; I'm on the NY Times bestseller list and have my own island." But we're all hoping to get to that point, so it's probably good to start practicing appropriate responses when you get nailed by those reviews.

Or we just start researching more thoroughly. I had several people point out inaccuracies in my first book - "ancient Rome didn't have velvet." Wince. I went through my second one with a fine-tooth comb. Getting called on my mistakes was good for me.


message 32: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments If I don't know about a historical time period, I start to research it while I read it or after I read it and if there are too many discrepencies. I don't like that because I don't know which is the real facts. For example, "The Other Boelyn Girl", the movie had too many discrepencies for me to appreciate it. I did read the book and the book was a little better but not much. You can tell an entertaining and thrilling story without having to play around with the facts.


message 33: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments I like historical fiction books where you have a story around the historical facts. You can fictionalize dialogue and a little fictionalize how the facts came to be but dates and events should stay accurate.


message 34: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Jayme(the ghost reader) wrote: "You can tell an entertaining and thrilling story without having to play around with the facts. "

That's true, Jayme. But I don't let it bother me so much, because it IS fiction. I mean, if a HF author markets their story as historical fact, then I'd expect that level of accuracy. I'd want bibliographies a mile long telling me just how they dug up their information. But I don't read textbooks, I read historical fiction, and to me, the story is more important than absolute factual accuracy.

Everyone is different, and reads for different reasons, but for me, if I want to know what really happened, I have the internet at my fingertips and a library down the street. :D


message 35: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments To each their own, I am just stating I prefer the historical events in a Hf to be accurate or as close to it as possible.


message 36: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
:)

I can imagine that it would be very hard to try to be both historically factual and still tell a compelling story, that doesn't have tedious data dumps, that doesn't condescend to readers who are familiar with the history...

You HF authors must really enjoy a challenge! ;)


message 37: by Janice (new)

Janice (jamasc) Becky wrote: "I differ from Janice and Jayme regarding this. I am pretty liberal with my "historical fiction" umbrella, as many of you already know, and consider historical fiction to encompass anything written in a time before my own, basically - no matter how much liberty the author has taken with the story they are telling. It is fiction.."

What you describe is fiction, just not historical fiction in my opinion. That's like saying that a novel set in a graveyard and has a friendly ghost or two is horror fiction.

I don't say that to be confrontational. I'm just anal enough to get wrapped up in definitions. We all have different perspectives, likes, dislikes, and opinions. Viva le difference!

I also read to be entertained, but I won't be entertained by glaring inaccuracies. One book had several anachronisms in the first few chapters. It was set in 1986 and had Brandon Lee buried near his father. Brandon died in 1993. It also had the ordinary person easily accessing the Internet when the World Wide Web wasn't established until 1991. (Internet was in existence long before 1991, but wasn't used by the public. WWW is what made it widely accessible to the public.)

Those are the kind of things that drive me crazy and I quit reading the book. For me to buy into a story, I have to feel that what is being presented is plausible, even if it's not.

I will forgive a lot if the author discusses it in an author's note. Then I know it's intentional instead of poorly written.


message 38: by Kate (new)

Kate Quinn | 542 comments I think many people will forgive a lot if the author explains in an author's note. It's the feeling that the author is trying to slide one by the dumb ole public that people get mad at.


message 39: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Martha, that's good to know. :)

Janice wrote: "What you describe is fiction, just not historical fiction in my opinion. That's like saying that a novel set in a graveyard and has a friendly ghost or two is horror fiction."

Why not? If a person finds a graveyard-set ghost story horrifying, then to them, it's horror. I have no issue with that. :)
I don't get too caught up in defining my reading. I actually tend to NOT want to know specific genres and subgenres and tropes before reading something.

To me "historical" is a broad term, so the genre is just as broad. I wasn't around in 1960, but it is considered history now, so if a fictional story is written and set in that time, I consider it to be historical fiction. *Shrug* I know many people don't agree with me, and that's fine.

Janice wrote: "For me to buy into a story, I have to feel that what is being presented is plausible, even if it's not."

I agree with this.


message 40: by CK (new)

CK | 10 comments I think there is a difference between a period book and historical fiction. A period book can be entertaining, without adhering to historical accuracy. What makes historical fiction appealing is an author's use of thorough research to create a believable background for the characters.


message 41: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments Good point CK.


message 42: by Janice (new)

Janice (jamasc) Becky wrote: "Why not? If a person finds a graveyard-set ghost story horrifying, then to them, it's horror. I have no issue with that. :)..."

LOL! Yeah, okay. :)

Forget about the ghosts (friendly or not), a novel set in a graveyard could be innocuous. It could be a romance and that's where the only place the lovers interacted. My point is that the setting does not define the genre.

What I hear you say is that you don't favour one genre over another. There's nothing wrong with that and you're probably more well read than many people who restrict themselves to one genre. I like all sorts, too. I just have a special love for historical fiction. It makes me think and leaves me wanting more. I tend to do further research on the period or people described in the book. Although I love a good mystery, when it's over, it's over. :)


message 43: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
When does historical fiction turn into a period book though, and who decides? Is this a generally accepted thing I've just been oblivious to? (Wouldn't be surprised there, given my tendency to not think about genre delineations at all except in the broadest terms...)

See, I just don't really see a difference. To me, if it's set in the past, and isn't non-fiction, I count it as HF.

I have Gail Carriger's books on my HF shelf, and those are definitely not historically accurate. ;) LOL


message 44: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Janice wrote: "LOL! Yeah, okay. :)

Forget about the ghosts (friendly or not), a novel set in a graveyard could be innocuous. It could be a romance and that's where the only place the lovers interacted. My point is that the setting does not define the genre. "


Ahh, I see what you mean... LOL


message 45: by CK (new)

CK | 10 comments Becky wrote: "When does historical fiction turn into a period book though, and who decides? Is this a generally accepted thing I've just been oblivious to? (Wouldn't be surprised there, given my tendency to not ..."

Who does decide what genre a book gets classified into? I guess editors and the author determine how a book is going to be marketed, but isn't alot based on how readers perceive a book? I mean if a novel doesn't hold you in suspense, is it still a mystery?


message 46: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Ooh, that's a good question, CK. For me, I'd still call it a mystery, even if it's a bad one, because that seems like it would be the intent.


message 47: by Jayme (new)

Jayme (jaymetheghostreader) | 2793 comments @Becky It can be historically inaccurate and be fine as long as you are aware that it is. Some authors write HF and it is historically inaccurate but pass it off as fact. That is what I have a problem with.


message 48: by Becky, Moddess (new)

Becky (beckyofthe19and9) | 3414 comments Mod
Jayme(the ghost reader) wrote: "@Becky It can be historically inaccurate and be fine as long as you are aware that it is. Some authors write HF and it is historically inaccurate but pass it off as fact. That is what I have a prob..."

That makes sense, Jayme.


message 49: by Janice (new)

Janice (jamasc) Becky wrote: "When does historical fiction turn into a period book though, and who decides? Is this a generally accepted thing I've just been oblivious to? (Wouldn't be surprised there, given my tendency to not ..."

We already know my definition of Historical Fiction. :)

I'm not sure if period fiction is a genre. I could be way out in never never land with this but I would suggest that if a novel is set in the past but doesn't concern itself with adhering to history, it could be considered a period piece.

That's my own connotation. Maybe someone who is more knowledgeable on the subject could clarify.


Victoria_Grossack Grossack (victoriagrossack) | -53 comments I just posted on my blog a piece on "Facts in Fiction" - please stop by!
http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/...


« previous 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
back to top