The history girls

   

    In an article in the press today novelist Sarah Gristwood, author of The Girl in the Mirror, writes that historical fiction has become "a highly lucrative publishing phenomenon" [D.J. Taylor made a similar point about his books of that genre substantially outselling his contemporary fiction when I talked to him earlier in the year]. Female buyers seem to account for most of the sales, and according to Sarah Gristwood the attraction of books of this type is that they are "respectable, almost intellectually improving [...] wonderfully exotic and simultaneously comfortingly predictable"; she terms them "guilty pleasures".

    I read historical fiction, and although I haven't thought much about why it appeals to me, I suspect one reason may be to do with the detail - typically there's lots of 'stuff' in these books for the mind's eye to look at and for the imagination to conjure with in the same way that a historic house or stately home is a rich source of interest and perhaps inspiration, its scale and lavishness often a contrast to that of our own more pared-down modern lives.

    I'm interested in sounding out the Cornflower readership on this subject, so if you have a moment, would you be so good as to leave a comment here telling us whether you're a reader of historical fiction or not, and if you are, roughly what proportion of your reading it makes up? You may also care to indicate - if it's not obvious from your name - whether you're male or female! Thankyou.

Comments

[Vivdunstan]

I read historical fiction, but it probably only makes up about 10% of my reading. I used to read more of it. I'm female.

[Stephanie]

Now that you’ve asked the question, I’ve done a quick split of the ‘historical’ vs ‘contemporary’ books that I’ve read this year. I was surprised by the result - 55% historical fiction. (I used WWII as the cut-off point for the classification as I figured very few of us would have lived through WWII as an adult). Current reading: ‘The alchemist’s daughter’ by Katherine McMahon (early 1700s) and ‘The death of the heart’ by Elizabeth Bowen, a novel set in the 1930s.

[Claire]

Mmmmm interesting. Initially I thought, no I don't read historical fiction but, of course, I do. Wolf Hall, Gillespie and I, The Siege of Krishnapur and Troubles being recent examples. A couples of Persephones as well - I suppose they count as historical fiction. Not to forget(how could I?!) a read along with DGR of War and Peace!! These were author led choices rather than choosing the historical genre. I know I have chosen to read these because of the writing rather than when they were set. I think I am probably around 60/40, contemporary/historical. Thank you for the question - it's given my brain an early jolt into the day!

[oxslip]

I don't choose it, but I am happy to read it when it comes as highly recommended as Rose Tremain and Michael Faber. I wonder if the split may be because women generally read less non-fiction than men, but historical fiction is a good way of bridging the gap from dry facts to pure plot.

[LizF]

I have always read a lot of historical fiction from when Jean Plaidy, Anya Seton and Georgette Heyer were staple reads as a teenager (YA books having not really been invented then).
I think you are probably right in your assessment of why women in particular like historical fiction - in my case I think it comes down to being incurably nosy about people's lives and homes and I do love the minutiae of everyday life rather than the big events.

Looking at my list of books read this year, and using Stephanie's cut off point of WW2, 50% of the books could be classed as historical.
I am currently reading Elizabeth Chadwick's Lady of the English about Empress Matilda, A Thread of Grace by Mary Doria Russell about wartime Italy and Bury Her Deep, a Dandy Gilver mystery set in 1920's Scotland by Catriona Macpherson - and I don't feel in the slightest bit guilty!

[Ruth M.]

I love historical fiction. The share of my reading it occupies varies wildly as I tend to go through spurts with any genre. In addition to its fascinating detail, the magic of another time and place coming to life, my theory of its popularity is also that it's safe. Whatever happens in the book has already happened. If it's tragic, it's not our own immediate world falling apart. Contemporary fiction often squashes all optimism out of the reader, at least it does me, and makes me want to crawl hopelessly into a hole because the world is bent on self-destruction. Reading history reminds me the world has always gone on. Historical fiction also, at least the books I choose, is generally more, how shall I say, tasteful, less gratuitously explicit.

[catharina]

Historical fiction is part of my reading too: Simon Mawer's The Glass Room and Colm Toíbín's Brooklyn come to mind. Probably 20% of my reading I guess.

[Sandy]

Left to my own devices, I read hardly any historical fiction. But prodded by this group, I read Corrag & Wolf Hall with enjoyment and it's possible I will find more to like. Somehow I dont consider pre-war or even Victorian books as historical fiction. I would need to include Agatha Christie and 'Gillespie & I', and that does not seem right!

I'm male. I'm not sure I like noticing that I fit the pre-ordained stereotyping :-)

[Ruthiella]

I am female. I wonder, is there any difference between “Historical Fiction” and simply a book set in the past? I used Stephanie’s WWII demarcation and see I have read 10 books (about 18%) so far this year that could be distinguished as historical fiction. I am with Ruth M. on the tasteful bit. I liked "The Crimson Petal and the White", but some of it was too graphic for me.

If there is any genre I am drawn to, it is mystery (sometimes there is overlap. I read "The Instance of the Fingerpost" this year and I think it could classify as both mystery and historical fiction). I think I like historical fiction because it allows me to time travel; when books are really good, it is like the reader is really there.

[Jo]

An interesting question?

Looking at my shelves to read and thinking about what I have read this year about 15% are historical. Do you add in Agatha Christie because it is set in the early part of the 20th century so does that make it historical?

I like reading historical fiction I learn so much and it prompts me to then go off and look at a lot of no fiction about subjects that perhaps I would not have looked at before. Although I confess a lot of what I read is based around the subjects that I did in my history degree and at school e.g. Phillipa Gregory and the Tudors.

I know at the moment that I am itching to read some historical fiction.

[Lindsay]

The distinction Ruthiella makes is a useful one - things set in the past are not "historical fiction" as I understand it. For example, a novel about the wars of the roses, if (roughly) following real events, but telling them in a novelistic way, wd be historical fiction - but a novel just set in the period, with an invented family, probably isn't. This distinction seems to me important, becasue if you're not careful, masses of stuff goes into historical fiction that I don't think anyone really considers as hf: eg, I don't think Felix Holt is historical fiction, tho it was writted in 1866 about 1832. And what about Jane Asuten - now with a very period feel, but mostly written about periods very close to her own (a matter of a few years at most, I think?) - surely that's not historical fiction? I suspect the % above wd come down on these criteria.

For the record, I read no historical fiction by my definition, as little of it is as exciting as the real thing, and the inevitable inaccuracies and ditortions (however few) irritate me unspeakably (and I think most of it's not very good anyway, tho I am a victim of my prejudice here - I don't read it anymore (I did as a child) so I don't get the chance to find out that a new writer is really rather good!). However, I read a lot of books, including much fiction, whcih are set in the past or were written well in the past. I am male.

[Susan in TX]

I'm not sure about percentage, but I do love historical fiction and read quite a bit of it.

[Mystica]

I would say 20% of my reading. It would be sometimes a bit more depending on availability. Like all kinds. Not just one era.

[sakura]

Just bought C.J. Sansom's Heartstone today. I'm a big fan of historical mysteries although I used to read a lot more than I do now. I also used to read a lot of historical fiction set in Italy too. I never thought my tastes would change but apprently they do;P

[Ruthseeley]

One of the things I noticed early this decade was that the uber-contemporary fiction of the 80s was no longer being published, in favour of various kinds of historical or documentary fiction. In a way, Possession managed to combine both a contemporary and a historical novel, which was one of the things I liked about it. As a child I was a huge fan of Tudor historical fiction and I have to say, reading Philippa Gregory has become a bit of a guilty pleasure for my - erm - junk reading. :) Still, books like Wolf Hall and the amazing richness of the Canadian historical fiction scene is quite wonderful - writers like Michael Crummey and Michael Redhill, Wayne Johnston, Ami McKay. It's the combination of escapism and learning about another era that grabs me, I think. And yes, F and late middle aged. But then aren't most avid readers? ;)

[Janet]

I enjoy good historical fiction, that is contemporary books but set in a particular historical period. I used to read a lot - Jean Plaidy, Anya Seton, but read less now, I think, It probably amounts to about 25% of my total reading matter. And yes, I'm female but I'm not sure that age is relevant -The Crimson Petal and the White and Wolf Hall were popular with a wide age range. I'm not sure that authors like Agatha Christie, Dorothy Sayers etc are historical, as they weren't written from a historical perspective, nor were the titles being re-published by Persephone.

[Dark Puss]

I find it a confusing definition (like romantic novel) and am grateful for the clarifying comments of Ruthiella and Lindsay. I am a male cat and I don't think I currently read any books that would fit the "conventional" definition; Perhaps the Sutcliffe "Dolphin" series, beginning with Eagle of the Ninth are the only ones that come to my mind that I have read in the last 40 years.

[Jodie]

I read historical fiction, but not as much as I used to. Maybe 10% of what I read is historical fiction, though my shelves are full of the stuff.

Got to say I'm pretty bored of this current vogue for naming all of historical fiction as a guilty pleasure (and oh how nice to see some snobbery about the middle classes in the article as well and oh is that some chat about the problems of modern people connecting with sexuality and romance - gah). I'm well open to the argument that a rise in the interest in historical fiction may indicate that some readers long for days before there were so many freedoms for traditionally under represented groups, but the idea that historical fiction is some kind of perfect zone for the conservative reader is just...weird. If someone is talking purely in terms of style there's a potential case to be made (much historical fiction is written in linear, first person narrative now and there isn't a huge body of historical fiction that experiments with style) but it's quite capable of being as nuanced about character and outcome as any lit-fic. And there's this little thing called revisionism which can still be quite revolutionary (if placed in context) and takes place often in historical fiction. Sorry, I'm getting snarky in your comments, but it looks like historical fiction is about the become the next big genre bashing target and I'm egtting fed up with it.