javasaurus: (Default)
[personal profile] javasaurus
From a conversation at work, the following questions:

What is the difference between "historical fiction" and fiction with a historical setting? And how far back in time do you need to go to be "historical" in this sense? Could fiction written with a modern setting be considered historical fiction in the future?

Date: 2007-03-15 08:58 pm (UTC)
dawntreader: (bookworm)
From: [personal profile] dawntreader
i consider historical fiction to be at least somewhat truthful to research written about a person or an amalgamation of people that actually lived in that time, or real people and real events should be mentioned as a backdrop to the fictional characters.

fiction with a historical setting doesn't actually need to be set in that era to retain the storyline. the characters are fictional, there aren't any historical events that take place during or are in any way intrinsic to the story.

according to the History Channel, WWII is the only history worth writing about! /snark *g*

honestly, i think any book written by an author about an era that takes place a generation before their own should count as historical fiction. it means they have to do their research because they cannot write a first-hand account of what transpired.

just because it's historical to us, doesn't mean it's historical fiction. wouldn't consider a book like Huckleberry Finn or Uncle Tom's Cabin to be historical fiction because it was contemporary literature at the time.

Date: 2007-03-15 09:15 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] acroyear70.livejournal.com
WWII is the only history worth writing about

No, it's the only history worth making a documentary about. There's a difference.

It costs the same to write a book about any time you want, but documentaries before WW2 are expensive because you have to re-enact the footage and that requires actors, costumes, etc. documentaries *after* WW2 are expensive because all of the source material is held by copyright in the hands of news organizations that charge more for the footage than the documentary would otherwise cost to make.

Date: 2007-03-16 03:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] blueeowyn.livejournal.com
My Mom calls the History Channel the WW II channel.

That said, I have seen some really cool stuff on it that has nothing to do with WWI or WWII. Things like the armor of Troy (basically flak vests), the death of Tutankhamon, etc..

Date: 2007-03-16 03:26 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wilhelmina-d.livejournal.com
Agree with your snark on the HC.

Date: 2007-03-16 03:42 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] javasaurus.livejournal.com
I don't watch the History Channel much. Heck, I don't really watch TV much. But looking at the HC's prime time for the next week, there are a lot of potentially interesting shows, nearly none of which are WWII. Is this an off-week for them, or is the WWII stuff mostly daytime and late night?

Profile

javasaurus: (Default)
javasaurus

June 2012

S M T W T F S
     12
3456 789
101112 13141516
17181920212223
24252627282930

Most Popular Tags

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Aug. 13th, 2025 09:43 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios