[bigbry]

Just pondering as I am reading Cornwell's Archer's Tale right now and just finished Pressman's The Gates of Fire........

Historical Fiction gets much more respect than straight fantasy...I mean if I am in the lunch room reading a book and someone asks what I am reading I get the following:

Them: "What are you reading...."

Me: "A fictionalized account of Sparta's defence of a pass in 480BC in which 300 Spartans held off a Persian army of 2.5 million for 6 days.."

Them: "Wow, sounds interesting, weren't you reading something about Rome last month......"

--OR--

Them: "What are you reading?"

Me: "Oh, it's a story of a young girls' quest (actually the daughter of a king) to find an legendary fighter to help her father's army hold off a barbarian horde...."

Them: "Kinda like that movie with the midgets???"

Me: "Yea, with the midgets........"

It boggles the mind......Several of the fantasy books I have read (The Black Company, Whyte's Camelod, Kearney's Monarchies Series, Malazan Book of the Fallen) could be placed in our past when people beleived in the supernatural in daily life, when priests, doctors, leaders were mythical/magical people........when Bones of the Saints healed people and ritual and sacrafice brought abundant crops and healthy children.......

The two genre's are put in so seperate categories, yet share most of the same qualities......and are viewed much differently...........while I view them as almost the same.....and sometimes find it hard to seperate the two.........

[Ouroboros]

Dunno man, seems straightfoward to me.

Historical novellists like Pressfield do not write books containing fantastical elements. They do not privillege magic as being a historical force. They can mention the importance of ancient Gods without actually positing that they in fact existed etc.

The historical and fantasy genres may share preoccupations with swords, shields and heroics, but there's enough there to make a clear distinction between the two, IMO.

[bigbry]

Ah but there lies the rub........many historical novels I have read do include magical elements and ancient Gods..... Apollo appears to the main character in Gates of Fire and the gods predict that a king must die for the city to survive, that is why the Spartan King will not retreat.......in Cornwalls novels many a 'fantastical' thing occurs with no logical explanation......any historical novel based in Eqypt is full of magic and gods and 'miracles'...........

People in ancient times believed in magic and heavenly intervention........while I understand the difference between the two, I personally enjoy them both the same and just wondered why some people 'poo-poo' fantasy as 'Young Adult Fiction' while they would read and enjoy historical fiction.....

The main reason I bring this up is that at my local library many a fantasy series is in Young adult (lots of Robin Hobb including her new ones, Tad Williams, Jack Whyte, JV Jones) like they equate the Farseer Trilogy to Narnia.........while Pressman, Shaara, Tarr, Llyerlyn are located in regular fiction........I mean the Baker Boy has an attempted rape in the first book and some of Hobb is quiet bloody...................

{/rant}

Thanks for listening though........

[Bear]

I think this relates to the word "dork" more than anything else. When people think of Fantasy, they bring up images of pimple-faced teenagers playing dungeons and dragons and arguing about the one-hundred sided die's impact on the game. And to be fair, a lot of fantasy fits that bill (dragonlance, forgotten realms, etc.). Not that there's anything wrong with those particular series, but they probably aren't going to change a naysayer's view of Fantasy as a whole.

But there are Fantasy books out there that a lot of people--even those who can't stand the thought of an elf in their story--enjoy. A lot of urban Fantasy folks like Gaiman and Carroll are more excepted outside the fantasy community, in large part because of their relation to our world and their lack of the Fantasy staples. Harry Potter's a good example too. Plenty of people I know who genuinely don't like Fantasy love Harry Potter. In a personal friend's words: "I loved Harry Potter, and I'm surprised. Most fantasy feels cheesy to me. It seems like a lot of authors use the fantasy elements as a way to cover up the weak points of the story, namely dialogue and believable character development."

Quick note: though I do like a lot of fantasy, I agree with his last statement.

But in Fantasy's defense, there are some wonderfully told and concieved fantasies that would probably appeal to lots of people if they would only give them a chance. But I think a lot of folks have trouble getting that D&D/comic book fanatic image out of their head. And image is a powerful thing.

(And this happens with sci-fi too. Think Trekkies.)

[Pluvious]

Originally posted by Bear
Most fantasy feels cheesy to me. It seems like a lot of authors use the fantasy elements as a way to cover up the weak points of the story, namely dialogue and believable character development."

Quick note: though I do like a lot of fantasy, I agree with his last statement.



Yeah, I only like some fantasy myself, although I love what it represents (hope to me). The ultimate to me would be a combination of fantasy and historical fiction. If I could get the sense of realism and general writing style from historical fiction (some of it anyway) and the endless potential/possibilities that fantasy allows, then I would be quite pleased.

I really enjoy historical fiction (and historical biographies/non-fiction) but to me there is always a sense that it already happened, while fantasy is more like being there and actually experiencing it. I think it would be pretty cool if there was a historical fantasy category (divided into time periods). That way people could just check out the historical period they are interested in and find a corresponding fantasy novel of their choice. That's where my interest lies anyway. I don't know if there is a market for that sort of thing.

[eekOrvus]

Originally posted by Pluvious
I don't know if there is a market for that sort of thing.

Well there's at least two people :) Sounds like something I'd enjoy.

I actually haven't read any historical fiction. Where/who would be a good place to start?

The closest to historical fantasy that I've read would probably be some of Guy Gavriel Kay's stuff. It's not quite there, but a lot of his books do have a historical flavour to them that I enjoyed.

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by bigbry
]Ah but there lies the rub........many historical novels I have read do include magical elements and ancient Gods..... Apollo appears to the main character in Gates of Fire and the gods predict that a king must die for the city to survive, that is why the Spartan King will not retreat.......in Cornwalls novels many a 'fantastical' thing occurs with no logical explanation......any historical novel based in Eqypt is full of magic and gods and 'miracles'...........

If Apollo turns up in 'Gates of Fire', then the novel belongs in the fantasy section alongside Gemmell's novels on ancient greece.

I would argue that not all historical fictions contain this sort of content, though, so my definition works. :D In fact, the majority doesn't. Even westerns and period dramas etc. could be regarded as historical fiction, they are no different in concept from novels set in medievil settings or antiquity.

[Llama]

I'm with Ouroboros. I enjoy historical fiction and I enjoy fantasy, but for different reasons. Not only is there no logical link between the genres, it's quite the opposite. Readers of historical fiction seek in the genre a believable, REALISTIC re-creation of a past time and place that rises above the typical dry factual recitaton of most history books. In many ways the historical realism they seek is the very opposite of fantasy, not its counterpart. I don't see how you could respond to someone who tells you, "Wow, Hilary Mantel's A PLACE OF GREATER SAFETY is a superb recreation of eighteenth century France during the Revolution. Her research is absolutely impeccable and she really succeeds in bringing a number of historical figures to life" with "Great! On the basis of what you've said you'd really enjoy this novel about elves!"

[bigbry]

Originally posted by Ouroboros


If Apollo turns up in 'Gates of Fire', then the novel belongs in the fantasy section alongside Gemmell's novels on ancient greece.



Now why would you say that.......many a historical figure have had visions/sightings.......one of th echaracter was visited by Apollo who told him to take up the bow.......Ceaser visited Oracels (sp?), Patton saw ancient Romans on the battlefield, heck even Nixon talked to Lincoln ghost, does that mean that any account of their lives belongs in fantasy.........

To clarify I was speaking primarily of historical fiction based on Greece, Rome, Europe and North American up to and including the Revolutionary War (late 1700's) for the technology in say Erikson and Kearney could easily place those stories in the 1400-1600's........


eekOrvus......depends on what you like....Shaara's Civil War stuff is excellent (as is his new Revolutionary War series)......

Try some alternate history stuff (here) (http://www.uchronia.net/), to find a period you like........Turtledove is a good start there.......

Personally I am a Civil War buff (General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson would be my Great, great, etc.....uncle) and have read many non-fiction books on the subject, then started to enjoy some fiction about it then when further into history and enjoy just about any period...........

[Ouroboros]

Originally posted by bigbry

Now why would you say that.......many a historical figure have had visions/sightings.......one of th echaracter was visited by Apollo who told him to take up the bow.......Ceaser visited Oracels (sp?), Patton saw ancient Romans on the battlefield, heck even Nixon talked to Lincoln ghost, does that mean that any account of their lives belongs in fantasy.........

Yes, but we do not actually believe these things occurred, they are not privilleged as actual historical events.

At least, no serious historian does.

Caesar may well have visited Oracles (news to me), but it is a different thing to mention his visiting what was believed to be an Oracle than to actually write as fact in the novel that a supernatural force guided him and so on.

History records individuals alleging dealing with the supernatural, but does not record it as fact. Proper historical fiction does not, either. Fantasy does.


To clarify I was speaking primarily of historical fiction based on Greece, Rome, Europe and North American up to and including the Revolutionary War (late 1700's) for the technology in say Erikson and Kearney could easily place those stories in the 1400-1600's........

OK, that's a narrower definition.

I would say that just because the history of peoples in antiquity contains pantheistic religions, belief in the supernatural and so on, does not make a novel on these periods intrinsically fantastical or similar to the fantasy genre: why would it? There's a clear distinction between writing a fantasy novel and recording the actual historical beliefs of a previous period.

The technological similarities which might exist between Erikson and periods of our history to me are totally irrelevant to whether or not the genres are closer together.