Historical Fiction Readers discussion

I've just joined this group (as my go-to reads are always historical fiction and biography) and would appreciate some opinions/guidance.

My book series (self-published) is set during and post-Vietnam Era (mid-1960s though mid-1970s). There seems to be a question as to whether this time period is "legitimate" historical fiction.

My currently selected genre listings for the paperback and eBook are Fiction>Women's (NOT Romance or Erotica) with sub-genres of both Contemporary AND Historical because of the differing opinions I've encountered.

Any advice? Thanks.Kaley Craig

The traditional definition of HF (used in various competitions for example) is that it should be set at least 60 years in the past - so the 1960s - 70s aren't there yet. My gut feeling is that the definition should (may) change to restrict HF to books set outwith living memory, so that they truely would be based on research and not on personal knowledge.

Years seems like an artificial criterion and so does living memory. Perhaps a better criterion would be whether or not the culture and lifestyle was significantly different than that today. Certainly, widespread introduction of television did that by showing everyone the horror of a manufactured war and the alternative of draft dodging, LSD, riots, freedom marches, free love and folk festivals. Supplemented by the internet and smartphones, the shift became permanent though perhaps slightly less dramatic.

That leads me to believe anything prior to the 60's should qualify as HF. Not sure the Vietnam era itself meets that criterion. Three of my novels are set in the 1940-60 time period so they meet the 60 year criterion in any case, though they do fall within my living memory.

Sandy wrote: "Years seems like an artificial criterion and so does living memory. Perhaps a better criterion would be whether or not the culture and lifestyle was significantly different than that today. Certain..." That would be a tricky definition to pin down in some ways - there are many elements of our western civilisation that are very close to Roman and Greek society - in terms of cultural attitudes, morality and so on. And yet in other ways our world is, as you say, very different from that pre-60s - in terms of technology etc. An interesting conundrum. But I guess one of the issues here is where in a bookshop do you want your book to be housed and in those terms the currently accepted standard definitions rule.

From Sara Johnson at the Historical novel Society: "The Historical Novels Review has a working definition for consistency purposes in deciding which books to review i.e, a “historical novel” is a novel which is set fifty or more years in the past, and one in which the author is writing from research rather than personal experience. Not all people agree on this definition, however, and even we occasionally break the rules. Some readers go so far as to say that a novel should only be called “historical” if the plot reflects its historical period so well that the story could not have occurred at any other time in history."

So even here, whether or not a work is truly "historical fiction" is subjective.

My interpretation is that my novels, set in the mid-60's to 70's, could not have been set at an earlier or later time, given the role of women in American society and the available technology of the time.

Thanks.

I tend to like Sara Johnson's definition. Although "The Gamov Incident" occurs in the 1990s, the original 'incident' started with a shoot-down in 1954 and the narrative moves back and forth until the present. The timing of the initial event is the main reason why I think of it as a Cold War Historical Novel. Anyway, that's my rationale and I'm sticking with it. www.sjlutton.com

Multi-period novels are generally accepted provided a significant part of the book is set in the past.