Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion

There was some mention recently of historical fantasy and historical fiction being so similar in feel and a query by a new member (Joe) on whether historical fantasy was discussed here.
I thought perhaps we should have a thread for it as I tend to agree.

To give those who aren't familiar with historical fantasy and idea of what it is, examples are;

George R.R. Martin and his A Song of Ice and Fire series which kicks off with the very popular A Game of Thrones.
And
Guy Gavriel Kay who is highly regarded and as an example, here is a book of his that I have been meaning to get to for aaaages.
The Lions of al-Rassan

I generally avoid historical fantasy for the very reasons that it was brought up in the Meet & Greet section. It is too close to real world historical fiction for my tastes. When something feels like it could have been real then I generally want real history and lands in it.

Still, I have read some historical fantasy in my life.
Most recently I read The Ten Thousand by Paul Kearney.


I just couldn't enjoy it because it didn't feel fantasy enough. While reading it I was constantly annoyed that I wasn't reading a Steven Pressfield historical fiction instead. At least I would be learning something and imagining the real battles between men of bronze.
That is the feeling that historical fantasy gives me. I feeling of disappointment that it is not taking place on a real horizon and reaffirmation that I like my fantasy obvious. Mages, wizard fire, magic, charmed goblets, elf armies, things like that.

Another highly regarded one that I haven't read recently enough to trust my opinion on is Down the Long Wind by Gillian Bradshaw.

Also, one that Joe mentioned on the Meet and Greet thread was Marion Zimmer Bradley's series of Arthurian books. I've only read one (The Mists of Avalon), which I was given to review for some literary magazine or another about 14/15 years ago and I have to say I wasn't terribly impressed but I know a lot of people rate them very highly.

Thanks Terri for the new thread! To me, George R.R. Martin is second only to Bernard Cornwell in what some might call Medieval fiction (though Martin's is a totally fictional setting that's similar to the Middle Ages (in part)). But his novels draw you in just like Cornwell's and Martin's characters are brilliant.

I highly recommend A Game of Thrones for anyone who hasn't read it. I resisted it for a long time because, probably like Terri, I just adored true historical fiction. But once I saw the trailers to the HBO series for Games of Thrones, I knew I needed to jump into the pond, and now I'm hooked.

A few others that I'd like to throw out for consideration. I think The Mists of Avalon is just one step on the fantasy side away from Bernard Cornwell's Warlord Chronicles. I preferred Cornwell's series, but for me it was a fairly close call.

Also, The Book of Splendor: A Novel, about the Golem of Prague, is great historical fantasy. Most of the characters were real people (Rabbi Loew, Emperor Rudolph II, John Dee and Edward Kelley), but, of course, there's a golem. It has a love story element, but I don't think it runs too afoul of the wonderful guidelines of this group.

Then there are books like Kingdom of the Grail. It's about Roland, Charlemagne and the Battle of Ronceveax Pass, but it quickly veers into "pure" fantasy. It's probably not for everyone, but it's a good example of how broad the spectrum can be in historical fantasy.

I'm looking forward to future posts on this thread, and am just tickled I found this group.

RE Mists of Avalon
I know a lot of people on GR who don't rate it well. So we balance the scales, my friend.

Funny thing is, I always thought The Mists of Avalon wasn't fantasy...
BY fantasy do you mean set in England but the rather fantastical version of the Athurian legend? The sword charmed, merlin magical? Is that what makes Mists of Avalon fake?

Joseph wrote: "... once I saw the trailers to the HBO series for Games of Thrones, I knew I needed to jump into the pond, and now I'm hooked.."

I LOVE the Game of Thrones series and can't wait for season 2 in March.
Having watched the series, now I won't get to the books for a very long time.
I rarely watch books after I have seen the movie/tv series, or vica versa. To me, even though there is so much in the book or the book will be different to the movies or series', I still can't do it.
I am weird like that.

p.s I am tickled you found this group too. :) Good to have another historical fiction aficionado around. It adds even more flavour to the pot of aficionados we have already got cooking here. lol

Terri wrote: "RE Mists of Avalon
I know a lot of people on GR who don't rate it well. So we balance the scales, my friend.

Funny thing is, I always thought The Mists of Avalon wasn't fantasy...
BY fantasy do yo..."

I loaned away my copy. Otherwise I could give more specific examples. But Avalon itself is shrouded in these magical mists that the priestesses of Avalon can raise and lower. I think the priestess are presumed to have some form of magical powers. And I think the Excalibur in that book may have been more of a "magic" sword. Of course, in the Warlord Chronicles, Excalibur was supposed to have supernatural origins, and Merlin performs what may be some "magical" feats, but Cornwell keeps the explanation sufficiently in question such that it could be completely non-magical. I think Bradley freely crosses that line.

Terri wrote: "RE Mists of Avalon
I know a lot of people on GR who don't rate it well. So we balance the scales, my friend.

Funny thing is, I always thought The Mists of Avalon wasn't fantasy...
BY fantasy do yo..."

There's magic, it is fantasy. Most of the people I know who love it raved about it for it's neo-pagan themes. I loathed it not so much because of that as it militant feminism. As you say though, room for lots of different opinions.

Joseph wrote: "Terri wrote: "RE Mists of Avalon
I know a lot of people on GR who don't rate it well. So we balance the scales, my friend.

Funny thing is, I always thought The Mists of Avalon wasn't fantasy...
BY..."

A good point Joe, Cornwell did toe the line pretty close in those books. I think he's admitted that himself somewhere, although he must have also relished the challenge of that freedom.

One other author I should have mentioned is Morgan Llywelyn. She's written pure historical fiction, such as Lion of Ireland about Brian Boru, but then there's books like Bard: The Odyssey of the Irish, which is about the mythical founding of Ireland and involves the Tuatha de Danaan. A lot of folks would consider this more historical fantasy, but when you're dealing with mythical times long past, the line gets really blurred.

I look forward to adding to the proverbial pot :)

Thanks for explanation, Joe. That is not quite what I always thought it would be.
Of course, it is Marion Zimmer Bradley and I should have expected it was a fantasy take on the legends. lol

Militant feminism, Lee. Erg. There are not too many forms of feminism I do enjoy reading about. Feminist overtones really do put me off a book.

This is why I couldn't get passed the first few chapters of The Owl Killers. (historical fiction)

And the feminist undertow in the historical (mystery) fiction writer Ariana Franklin books are not my scene either. I read one and that was enough.

After reading all this, I think I'm a little confused as to what qualifies as Historical Fantasy.
Why would A Game of Thrones be historical in any way? Did I miss something about how it fits into our history or is it just 'cause it's set in a world that reflects our medieval one?
And The Mists of Avalon I thought seemed more an alternate history of popular myths or is that a definition of this genre? Would Lord of the Silver Bow by David Gemmell be another example of this?
And how about a book like Rhinegold by Stephan Grundy or is this a regular historical fiction as it is a fleshing out of the few facts we have of this particular part of history?

Now, this could all be me being stupid from lack of sleep and using all my energy to keep warm in weather more suited to Calgary than Vancouver but please explain away my confusion!! :)

Dawn - I think part of this is just the problem of trying to segregate everything into genres. I helped spark this by linking to an interview between George R.R. Martin and Bernard Cornwell, who basically viewed the two as "twin" genres. His reasoning was that Martin's novel take place in a Medieval setting and otherwise read like historical fiction (i.e., political strife, intrigue, knights, kings, etc.). I think there's some truth to this, because both Martin's novels and Cornwell's novel feel "real." I can easily see why some might want to wall off George R.R. Martin's novels into pure fantasy, but I think his work appeals to folks, like us, who adore historical fiction -- at least of the Kick-Ass Ancient and Medieval variety!

When you delve into Arthurian fiction, you already have one foot off the wall of history. First, King Arthur is more legend than fact, though there are several historical figures who could have been the real Arthur. And second, the closer one delves in the realm of "myth," I believe, its much more likely that magic or the supernatural rears its head. By way of example, I recently finished Black Ships, which is a more "historical" retelling of a post-Iliad tale. But there is still enough interaction with "gods" and "goddesses" to push the book, in my opinion, into historical fantasy, But that might be true of most novels set that far back. Gods, goddess, monsters and magic were part of the way those people - at least if you credit the myths - perceived the world. Still, Black Ships is largely historic, takes place in Troy, Greece, Egypt and Italy, and is otherwise fairly realistic. Even if Aeneas is one of the main characters.

Another example is The Book of Splendor: A Novel. It takes place in Prague, most of the characters were real historical figures, and it concerns a rather famous legend of the Golem of Prague. The Golem is clearly fantasy (unless they really exist), but otherwise the story is entirely "historical."

Hope this helps. I'm tired too, so I may try to elaborate tomorrow.

Thank you, that has explained it some.......

I did read that article and while I understood the concept from an authors point of view, as in, either of them would and/or could write, or want to write what the other does, as the types of story's they are writing are similar in essence. But I'm not sure I agree with this as a reader.
There will always be those stories that combine genres, for a most obvious example, Star Wars. It's a combination of Fantasy and Science Fiction and if you really wanted to, a Western. But just because a book melds in something medieval.....I don't think I would match it up with a historical fiction just because they are both medevial. I can see the corelation between the mythical and the historical or even alternate history and real history and calling them historical fantasy as they take real history and change it to a world that never existed. But a basis in some kind of reality is essential for me.
Most fantasy books have some relation to our own world or there would be no connection for most readers to the story. By the basis we're connecting A Game of Thrones we could add Threshold as it has a basis in ancient Egypt, the Discworld series as they are our world, Sharon Shinn's books which are also set in a medival type world, Jaran as it is based on a nomadic people much like many on earth or The Broken Crown which takes from both gypsy and oriental culture. To me all these books are fantasy, realistic or not, drawing from our world and culture or not, it doesn't make it similar enough to consider these genres related.

Wow, I didn't think I actually had such a strong opinion on this until I started to write! :)
Now I want to see what everyone else thinks.

That all made perfect sense, Joe.

May I add some more thoughts?

For me personally I have always regarded that historical fantasy style that takes place in our world in known lands as alternate history, and
books that seem like our world, such as Game of Thrones, but they aren't our world, as historical fantasy.
This is, however only how I view it, in order to have a round peg in a round hole. I am likely wrong, but it helps me segregate and it has been my view on it for a while.
I guess that would make Mists of Avalon an alternate history.

Another one that I want to mention which I read last year is King of Ithaca. It is a book that can be found referred to as hf or h fantasy. Our world where the Gods do exist and interact with the people regularly.

King of Ithaca

Oh, Dawn posted while I was compiling my message. i have some thoughts on your thoughts, :-) but unfortunately I have run out of time to respond right now. i shall though next time I'm online. Ciao for now.

See how fun this thread is? :) (Thanks again Terri!) This is a great debate. But regardless, we all LOVE the gritty historical fiction of the likes of Bernard Cornwell and similar authors. So if a little fantasy is sprinkled into an otherwise historical setting, I think all the better. In Agincourt, which we'd all consider to be historical fiction, were those two talking dead saints - St. Crispin and St. Crispinian - figments of Nick Hook's imagination? Or were they actually talking to him? In other words, had Cornwell crossed the fine line between historical fiction and historical fantasy? And does it matter? We loved the book and it clearly fits within the broad genre of Medieval fiction.

As for George R.R. Martin, the "feel" of his novels is so close to the type of fiction so many of us love, why not include him? At least in a minor thread of this otherwise historical fiction group?

Terri wrote: "That all made perfect sense, Joe.

May I add some more thoughts?

For me personally I have always regarded that historical fantasy style that takes place in our world in known lands as alternate hi..."

Terri, I don't claim to be an expert on genres, but I always think of "alternative history" as novels that pose questions like, "what if the Germans won WWII?" Or, "what if JFK has been saved from assassination?" (I understand Stephen King may be releasing a book on this topic soon- 11/22/63). Now, there are some well-known novels (that I've admittedly not read) such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter. I have no idea whether they should be considered "alternative history" or just historical fantasy.

All this probably proves that these "genres" get more blurred the more you think about them. But this certainly is more stirring of your proverbial pot :)

Wow, this all really kicked off after I went to bed! I'm basically with Joe on this - there will always be novels that defy categorisation, although even these often get shoehorned on the basis of an overriding feature. Historial fiction has several fuzzy edges, most notable for us (since we're ignoring romance) with historical fantasy on one side and with magical realism (a genre name I despise for its oxymoronicity, but which I can't pretend doesn't exist) on another. One of those that defies categorisation is, I think, Baudolino, which spends the second half of the book firmly planted in a magical realism world born of the mediaeval imagination. Since the protagonist begins in the real mediaeval world though (and eventually returns to it) it is generally classified as historic fiction.

So, if genre borders are fuzzy, sub-genre borders must by necessity be even fuzzier. This group is dedicated to a sub-genre. Historical fantasy is another which, I think, is separated from high fantasy and swords and sorcery by a large absence of magic and magical creatures. This is where A Game of Thrones comes in.

For all that the plot may be based on the War of the Roses, the world is distinctly mediaveal. It is not our world though, so it cannot be classed as historic fiction. It is, however, a believeable world that could have been ours - magical devices are very few and far between in the text. This is why it has come to define the sub-genre.

Dawn you mentioned Discworld (I'm afraid I can't comment on the others you mentioned, as I haven't read them). Discworld books are not generally thought of as historical fantasy, although I can see where you're coming from. Ultimately they contain too much magic and magical creatures to be classed as historical fantasy: what Terry Pratchett does (still uniquely I think) is to create a world which is very obviously a fantasy world but which is sufficiently similar to ours to satirise it. So unlike many fantasy worlds which seem to be born in aspic, the Discworld has a developing society and history which runs almost parallel to ours - devices and industries are invented and politics are machinated. Ultimately though, all of those developments are made possible by magic rather than science so however similar to our own world it may superficially appear to be, the point is always forcibly rammed home that it is not our world.

And then there is the world building. To me, fantasy fiction involves World Building. Created by the imagination from scratch, given names, places, weather, lands and the like. For me fantasy fiction and world building go hand in pocket.
Historical fantasy seems to be where world building and real world can crossover. Coexist in a novel.

I like my historical fiction real world. Speaking to Saints, such as in Azincourt, well, to those who believe in Saints as part of their religion, talking to saints would sound completely real, not fantasy. Those who don't believe in Saints.....there is other realms of perspective.

I think if you include known religions and beliefs (from our world of course) in the picture, such as in the Warlord Chronicles, you are dealing more with magic as an 'illusion', and even hyper realism, more so than the magic as would be found in world building fantasy fiction.

Terri wrote: "And then there is the world building. To me, fantasy fiction involves World Building. Created by the imagination from scratch, given names, places, weather, lands and the like. For me fantasy ficti..."

I'm not sure I agree. In fact I mentioned world building in my review of The Lion at Bay. Whether the world is based on the real one or not, it is still a literal one and needs to be built in the context of that novel. That's one of the skills of the author.

With regards to magic, you're more on the right lines. The use of real-world belief systems as having very definite results is a feature of magical realism. The way that Bernard Cornwell uses them is rather different - he never explains things directly and the reader is left to decide for himself whether the "magic" has had a direct effect, an imagined/psychological effect, or no effect.

For the record, I don't mind if you don't agree. :) We can't agree all the time.

Terri wrote: "For the record, I don't mind if you don't agree. :) We can't agree all the time."

It does let everyone else have a look in!

hahaha! That's right!! lol



You all may be glad to hear, that our discussions today are making me want to read Game of Thrones this year.

Terri wrote: "hahaha! That's right!! lol



You all may be glad to hear, that our discussions today are making me want to read Game of Thrones this year."

Shame you've already watched it, otherwise you'd definitely enjoy it. Only you can guess how much that may curtail your pleasure (but at least after that you can look forward to the sequels!).

It would be breaking new ground for me that's for sure. I know what is coming. I know the sister and the brother (view spoiler)[are doing the wild thing (hide spoiler)] I know (view spoiler)[ Drogo dies of his wounds and the Khalesi loses the stallion that mounts the world and her dragon eggs hatch in the fire... (hide spoiler)]
My concern is that I know what it is going to happen. I know it was Colonel Mustard in the library, so to speak. Which leaves out the surprises, which I suspect make the books so good. The juicy scandals and goings on.

Obviously reading the stories blind is better. You know I usually have the same policy as you (watch don't read/read don't watch) since what you're getting is worse than a re-read - someone else's interpretation crammed into your brain - but as I say, at least in this instance you'd have the sequels to look forward to (although you may never get away from those other interpretations of the characters).

Hmm....the new season, Season 2 (book two, and some of 3 I think also) is due on tv in March....

I am looking forward to seeing what is going to happen to Jon Snow at the Wall. The Whitewalkers are very cool.

I can see how the books are addictive.

I see how the different time zones work on this site. You go to bed and wake up to a new string of posts, so the discussion continues 24/7 :) One of the reasons I think a Game of Thrones is so addictive is that George R.R. Martin not only writes great characters, but because he shifts viewpoint so often, you really end up empathizing with his characters - even the one's you'd least expect, like the Imp, who may be my favorite character in the entire book. But Arya is a close second.

They do well with the tv series on that front, the Imp is the best character, and the guy that plays Tyrion Lannister is so good. Recently won an Emmy, and this week a Golden Globe for his performance. He is outstanding.
I like Tyrion. He is my favourite character and..... I do like a man who always pays his debts.

WOW! I had come across that book a time ago and added it to my TBR list, and now so many people are reading it. When ths happens, I usually put it far down on my list and try to ignore all of the hype, hoping that I'll read it once everybody else has forgotten what it is. I had no idea that it was a tv show! Now, I have to read these books so that I can read this thread without "spoiling" it for myself! Ha! I guess I'll be having to purchase some books ;D

Regarding reading A Game of Thrones after watching the HBO series, that's what I did and I wasn't disappointed with either the book or the series. In fact, the series was amazingly close to the book, in my opinion. I generally don't like watching a movie of a book I've read, because I've already imagined what the characters and places look like, and it's never what's portrayed on screen. But it's also true that the movie sometimes doesn't live up to the book. Fortunately that's not the case here. But I won't be reading the next in the series, A Clash Of Kings, for the reason given above.

Hi Darla,
Yeah it is a series that started last year. HBO I think, but could be wrong. Great series. There has never been anything as good. Like a movie. Very good quality.

Don't worry about Game of Thrones spoilers in the thread. Feel free to read the thread without fear.
I think I am the only one who mentioned any of the storyline and I hid it behind one of these (view spoiler)[ a spoiler shield (hide spoiler)].
The rest of the talk was about the author only in regards to the sub genre of historical fantasy. :)

Oh I see Vicki posted at the same time. I was right then. :) It is HBO.

Ah, I am so glad that I don't have HBO then! I do prefer reading over watching... besides it's a good excuse to have to buy some more books!

Darla wrote: "Ah, I am so glad that I don't have HBO then! I do prefer reading over watching... besides it's a good excuse to have to buy some more books!"

As good an excuse as any. :D

Wow, I go out of town to do some work for a couple of days and a new forum and thread pops up! I only briefly read through some of the posts and all I want to mention is that I received the Martin Song and Fire series for Noel and will be starting the books in the next week or so. I read that they where a great series and that is all I know about them. Thanks Terri for using the spoiler button!

Spoilers are the best. :D

Berbie Bernie! I was wondering what happened to you!

Left Tuesday and got back late yesterday. Had to go north do do some work. A normal 3 hour drive turned into five hours, massive snow storm, my eyes where so red from concentrating on not driving off the highway.

Methinks this thread was a good idea -- thanks Terri!

Thanks to you, Joe, for bringing it up. :) The thread distracted us from the other lengthy conversation we were having over in the eReaders vs Dead Trees thread.
It isn't a large group yet, (being still a new group) but most us won't shy away from good discussion and conversation. Luckily, we are mostly passive natures who know the difference between a discussion and an argument. It is a nice dynamic.

Bernie,
Well we are all happy you didn't drive off the highway. Welcome back!

Our great thread keeps slipping off the main page. This time I believe it was the new thread about Name Change that pushed it off the map. Maybe after all the historical periods we could have a new "page" or "chapter" (whatever it's called) to capture the related subgenres such as historical fantasy and historical mystery?

Uh oh ... I have a feeling someone will be creating the Kick-ass Historical Fantasy group soon! >8)

ib.

Well, as long as we don't start a historical romance thread.... :)

You know..I nearly did post a historical romance thread today and write JUST JOKING!! in it...but I figured some people might only see the thread title and run a mile without realising it was a joke. :)

I would have laughed with you. :)

It would mostly have been for you because I know you share my humour.
I thought, hmm is Dawn going to be around to see my little joke today??? I chickened out. I'm a coward like that. :D

See, without the K-A in the name look what happens, you aren't as bold. lol