Zelda wants to comment on Hamnet...

Hannah asks the best questions! 🎉 I have

I struggle so much when I face historical fiction as a genre! I read old books about eras even older-but then a book about the mid 20th century counts as “historical fiction” but the old books don’t? That doesn’t make sense to me. The idea that “historical fiction” refers not to setting but to real people (or at the very least very specific events) is something I can understand!

The lies! This will be a big one for my therapist. We can stop talking about childhood for a while. I often find myself saying I'm not really into historical fiction and then having to walk back from that claim after really thinking about it. On another note, after living in Atlanta for 20 years, I tended to see GWTW as more contemporary (to Mitchell's time, anyway) than it might seem at first. There's a lot of post-Reconstruction rhetoric and themes that reflected the racism that was still pervasive even up to the 1996 Olympics.

Good day. When I think about historical fiction it isn't the setting but a narrative about real people. I think it is true that some readers will come away from reading a historical novel and take it as factual and not explore the events and people. However, it is also true that it will inspire readers to read historical works, such as it has done with me. It was Vidal's novels of Empire, beginning for me with Lincoln, that made me interested in U.S. history. I now have bookshelves with biographies and histories of Burr, Hamilton, Marshall, Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln. I too am not comfortable with using the term "literary fiction" but sometimes it's necessary in conversation about books with genre readers, which in my circle are the norm.

Hi Brian, I think there are numerous and subtle reasons why we don’t enjoy a book. Thank you for elaborating on your views on historical fiction. Aloha friend.

I'm glad you figured out there's a certain kind of historical fiction you enjoy. I love historical fiction. I think I'm less specific about preferring real figures vs fictional characters, not sure. But it's pretty easy for me to keep a good level of skepticism about the facts portrayed. A lot of times it gets me interested in reading non fiction about the time, place, and people involved.

I try to be careful about saying I don’t like any particular genre because there is always an exception to the rule. Loved the discussion.

That's true about historical figures in historical fiction. Richard III is now forever remembered as a pure evil man thanks to Shakespeare.

great vid, I feel like historical fiction is one of those things I never want to read but when I read it it's usually very eye-opening and interesting. Currently in a south-asian lit class and reading a ton of historical fiction out of india/pakistan, the reluctant fundamentalist by mohsin hamid and ice candy man by bapsi sidhwa are really great !

wades into the debate with gumboots on

I loved Wolf Hall which I just finished rereading and while I understand the points you made about ascribing thoughts and motivations to real people, that doesn't really bother me. I know while I'm reading it is fiction and not necessarily how it really was but still enjoy the story. I think we have to always keep in mind when reading about real people even in biographies that we are getting another person's viewpoint that will be skewed. I agree that many readers will accept Mantel's version of events as entirely historically accurate without reading any history of the period, but I would rather they have some knowledge of the Tudor era that way than none at all which is more likely in the US.

I’m sure I could find equal “lies” if I investigated my own blanket statements about things.

Your thoughts on whether the characters are real was interesting - my mum couldn’t get on with Hamnet for precisely this reason, yet she loved Wolf Hall - as I do! Contrary!

I wouldn’t list historical fiction as favorite genre either, though I do like a lot of them. I have never heard the criteria of sixty years being the cut off before.

Hey Brian! Thanks for another great video! Personally I’m a big fan of historical fiction including 2 novels whose characters are real, The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, about the battle of Gettysburg, & The Revenant by Michael Punke. Maybe I just don’t know enough of the actual details of both histories to wonder much about the accuracy of the thoughts & dialogue in both stories. I found Shaara to be very effective with fictional dialogue among so many historical figures as the battle unfolds. And almost even more effective as he got into many men’s heads. Hugh Glass spends a lot of time alone and his thoughts as he has to survive this horrible ordeal were part of what made the book fascinating for me. Anyway, thanks again!!

I absolutely love historical fiction! Read it all the time.

Uh oh! I too have often been heard to opine that Historical Fiction was not my jam. Turns out I didn’t know what it was! What a goofball I am! 😊😮

Historical fiction is my favourite genre. I love Wolf Hall. Having read lots of Tudor era fiction, I don’t think it crosses any line that every other book about the Tudor court hasn’t also crossed.

This is a great topic. I need to think on this some more. I just yesterday finished Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables. I am still reeling from having been immersed in the world of that novel for the past month. I guess it is considered “historical fiction,” and it contains huge sections-massive digressions from the primary plot line-in which Hugo expounds on various historical events. There are actual historical characters in the book, but most, I think, are not “real” people. But this feels very different from Wolf Hall to me. I share your love of Beloved. While I have not thought of it as historical fiction, it is based on, or inspired by, the life of an actual historical person. And it certainly depicts the horrors of slavery in a historically accurate way. Again, it feels very different from Wolf Hall. Hamnet was my favorite book the year it came out. It felt “historical” but again, not what I would exactly think of as historical fiction. I’m just thinking out loud here. It seems like perhaps this prize that Katie was talking about has a much broader definition of what historical fiction is. It seems like “historical fiction” is simply being defined as fiction that takes place in the past, at least 50 years back, with an accurate depiction of that time period, whereas perhaps you and I both have been thinking of it more as fiction that attempts to recreate actual historical events and actual historical figures in the form of a novel. I need to think about this topic further…Lots of good food for thought, though. Thanks, Brian.