Blogger: Etta Wilson
Location: Books & Such Nashville Office
Weather: mid-70s and dry
Reading a review of Ken Follett’s Fall of Giants, the first book in his new historical trilogy, I found this quote from Follett: “Almost all the books you see on the bestseller list are basically novels in the Victorian tradition, stories with plot, character, and conflict and resolution.” The reviewer Alden Mudge is not quite at ease with Follett’s very general statement and relates the intricacies, the large cast, and the enormous research the author has invested in his newest work. Opening in 1911 and closing in 1924, the book uses World War I as the historical setting, and the trilogy plans to move forward through the century.
Which raises the question–will book three be a historical? That depends on how much time each novel covers and how far the last book reaches beyond World War II, a generally accepted breaking point between historical and contemporary novels. (Although some publishing houses view the 1950s as historical.)
I have begun to think that the 1960s may really be the breaking point between the two genres. Listening to a recent discussion among friends, I heard them talk about all that happened to change Americans in that decade–race riots and desegregation, the Vietnam War, the growth of communes, the decline of the traditional family, and the start of the Green movement.
If you were writing a novel about a Vietnamese war bride adjusting to life in the U.S. in 1972, would you think of it as a historical novel? The answer may depend on both your perspective and that of the readers. Thirty-year-olds might automatically consider it a historical novel, while those of us who lived through that conflict would not. In fact, the Vietnam war is a part of American history that many authors and readers still avoid because of the way that conflict affected Americans’ psyches, which may say something about whether it’s historical or contemporary. I do notice children’s books seem to relegate events to “history” a little faster than adult books, which is understandable.
Quoting Follett again, “The research and effort at authenticity is more difficult when you’re writing about history that is within living memory.” I’d say he got that right! If you remember the slang, music, radio programs, hairstyles, and other cultural expressions, you put a lot more care into accurately portraying those details.
I’d like to know what you think is the breaking point between historical and contemporary. What periods of American history do you find most fascinating?
In trying to understand what we mean by “historical,” it helps me to define “contemporary.” Does contemporary mean that the story happened within some readers’ lifetimes? If so, then even a decade or two before WWII could not be historical, as some will remember. Or is a contemporary story one that could feasibly happen now? If that, then a Vietnam story or even a Cold War story might be considered historical. Since the world changed so much after 9/11, the aspects that define what is contemporary may have changed as well.
Personally, the story of my heart is set during the Great Depression. I understand that isn’t a popular era. After all, it’s…depressing. But that was the period when a nation heady on success was suddenly humbled. It hammered us so that we were steeled for WWII. I’m not sure if we could have overcome had we not first been tried and strengthened. The echoes of those lessons could teach us much today.
I remember the Vietnam war but would still regard a novel set in it as historical, because it relates to a particular period of time that we would see as an “era” – a finished thing, not stretching into the present.
As for American history: the earliest years are the most interesting, I think, because almost anything could have happened – America could have become French or Spanish, or the settlers could have made true peace with the Native Americans and they could still be living as our neighbors.
Interesting question, Etta. I teach history to students who were in kindergarten at the time of the 9/11 attack and barely remember anything about it. I remember my grandmother repeating the story of sitting on Theodore Roosevelt’s lap when she was so young her father had to tell her about it later. In between, we have a hundred years to which I am somehow personally attached, but which gradually recede into HISTORY. I teach history from a book that has pictures of people I have met, like Earl Warren and Shirley Chisholm. From a non-fiction perspective, they are now history. For YA fiction, they would now be history, but for adult fiction, I think they only become historical as quickly as the readers will let them become so. (I am hoping that will soon include 1966.) It is much like judging a clothing store by what decade is playing on the “oldies” music selection. I think as authors, it comes down to how we treat a story, what we feel we need to explain or what we feel our readers will understand without the explanation.
As I think about this more, it occurs to me there is a strong aspect of place, as well. I have a critique partner inside China who is writing a screen play about a Hmong pastor who was martyred in the 1970’s. This will definitely be treated as an historical.
So glad to see this post! I was surprised when I was told at a recent conference that my WWII novel should not be classified as historical. Since my grandparents were young during that time, I automatically assumed it was history! I recently read a novel set in the south during the 60’s–I couldn’t seem to think of that as contemporary. Maybe it is my age, because if I read a novel set in the late 70’s, I wouldn’t think of that as historical!
I find the first half of the 20th century most fascinating. My grandparents and great-grandparents were alive then. When I research this time period, I feel I’m understanding my family history at a deeper level. Thank you for the post!
Anything prior to 1982 is history… right? 😉 This is actually a really tough question. When I was in high school, Bill Clinton was in my history text book. But he was still in office! I guess this is where I would draw my arbitrary line – when a particular era is finished and the consequences of that era are plain, then it becomes history. WWI, roaring 20’s, Depression, and WWII would all clearly fall into that category. Civil rights and Vietnam are arguably there, too. 9/11? Not yet.
I love all periods of American history. I love to find a little corner of history I had never studied or heard about before and devour it, maybe first through a historical fiction novel, then through non-fiction accounts. I also find it interesting to read the literature and poetry that came from a certain era, once the context is appropriately understood.
So interesting to read these perspectives, some from younger bloggers and some from those more advanced in years. I recently went to an exhibit of French coutour (women’s styles) covering the period 1947-1958. It was certainly a trip back in time, and perhaps a trip forward as many viewers were 35 or younger with their sketch pads in hand. There is only so much you can do with a hemline and shoulder pads before you have to repeat. I wonder if what is true in style holdz for culture in total.
Interesting post, Etta, and fascinating comments. I tend to agree with Lynn’s definition of contemporary being something that could conceivably happen now. I certainly check the copyright date when I read an international thriller. I used to look to see if it was written before or after 1989 and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Now I also want to know if it is pre- or post-9/11. Both of those dates drastically affected the world and our expectations of national relationships.
A friend in my critique group is writing a YA novel set during a major flood in 1997. She has really struggled to make the kids feel real and have them not have cell phones or know much about the Internet. Less than fifteen years ago and yet it is historical to potential readers.
These posts are very interesting. I wonder how the speed of change in technology affects our view of history. You can look at the slow development of new technology before the industrial revolution and then since. The 1930 census shows that my mother’s household had a radio. That was the measure of new technology. Since then she has seen the development of air and space, radio, microchip and cellular technology.
My question is, as technology changes become more rapid, do we consider time periods as obsolete or historical, faster? I have tried to explain to students that I couldn’t watch a movie in my home when I was in elementary school. They wonder, “Were you really poor?” No, the ability to view a movie at home just didn’t exist! Then there is my old eight-track collection. It sure seems like the 60’s and 70’s are history!
When I was working on my teacher certification in 1989-1990, we were assigned group project that involved planning a multi-disciplinary unit on anything we wanted. After much discussion and an inability to agree on a topic, I suggested a unit on the Viet Nam War, “since we all lived through that.” My group members replied, “Lady, you may have lived through it but none of us did!” To them, 30 years ago was “history.”
A quick look at the Beloit College Mindset List shows me that today’s youth consider 20 years ago to be “history.”
The dictionary defines “history” as the “aggregate” or “record of past events.” This would imply that “history” is anything that happend before right now! So I think “history” is a moving target dependent upon the age of the person doing the defining.
An “era” is defined as a “period of time marked by distinctive character, events, etc.” Again, I think this is a moving target defined by what character or events one is speaking of.
Therefore, I believe a “historical” novel is, by nature, going to be defined differently for different readers. When I see that phrase, I know I will have to, maybe more than usual, use my immagination to get a feel for the setting and characters. I know they will be different than my own personal everyday life. And that is what most often makes a historical novel interesting to me.
Hard for me to see the decade in which I was born and grew up as history so anything before the 1960s works for me. I have no personal knowledge of it. Of course, using this methodology, history would be a moving point on a very long spectrum based on an individual’s perspective.
I guess I could push that back to the 1940s. We’re starting to see historical fiction that covers the turn of the 20th century and into the early 1920s. I enjoy reading about that time period, nearly 100 years ago, because my parents were alive then and it feels like a distant part of who I am.