At what point does a book become historical?

[debbiebee]

I've often wondered about this. For me the cut-off point is probably ones set before the 1950s, but then, a book on contemporary life WRITTEN in any time period doesn't qualify as historical - or does it?

[Cee-Jay Aurinko]

Considering that Historical deals indefinitely with all things before "yesterday", I would surmise that a book (fictional novels; not autobiographies ) becomes historical based on how far back, more than fifty years ago or more, the book is set in.

[CataclysmicKnight]

I never fully grasped what exactly made a book historical, but to me it's any book that takes place in another time period, which would include long ago as well as, say, world war 2. I'd agree, around the 50s would be the most recent.

[DATo]

I think one has to differentiate between the terms "historical" and "period". A "period piece", in my estimation, is a story which takes place in a setting which is richly described by its period in history. The Sherlock Holmes stories, for instance, are quite specific to late 19th century London. The reader is immersed in this richly described setting but the setting itself does not figure prominently in plot of the tale. In contrast (and this is just my own opinion) a "historical novel", or story, is one in which the historical background setting dramatically impacts the events of the story. An example might be War And Peace, or Grapes Of Wrath.

I do not believe it is necessary for a story to be told within a setting of some pre-established length of time to be considered "historical". A novel based upon specific, real-life events of the Vietnam War could be considered "historical", and a novel such as Pride And Prejudice, though it describes events taking place far in advance of the 1960's, might be more properly referred to as a "period novel".

This is just my own take on the matter.

[CataclysmicKnight]

That's a great point, I always forget about "period pieces", and this is a great way to differentiate the two.

[csimmons032]

I could agree with you. I would probably consider the mid twentieth century or earlier than that to be historical. When people are in a time where they act and speak differently. I like reading a lot of stories from the nineteenth century. I think it's a lot of fun to experience a story in a different time.

[jackblack360]

Personally i consider the period before world war 1 as the cut off point. But i think it really depends on an individuals perception.

[EMichelle]

I believe it depends on the readers age, because each person would consider something historical differently.

[Beth Davids]

I would agree with the differentiating between historical and period novels although I wouldn't have thought of it myself. I really enjoy historical fiction.

[bookowlie]

I think historical books would be anything set before the mid-Twentieth century. Anything from the 1950's and forward seems like it's not really "old", although I guess a book set in the '50's might be considered a period piece.

[memory]

I generally think that something needs to be from the 70's and earlier to be historical. I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that I was born in the 80's.

[along0207]

I agree with anything before the 1950s & I was born in 1986

[Tusa Lark]

I think any piece of literature that is written with the intent of appearing "before the current age" would count as historical. I mostly base this off of that writing rule where you try your best not to date a piece of work by adding references to your time period (i.e. mentioning cassette tapes as the main instrument in listening to audio).

So I thought, if it's a rule not to do that so as to keep your story as current as possible, then maybe taking the opposite of that rule is what brings you to historical fiction. In that case, books centered in as near as the 1990's might be considered to be in this genre. But then again, this might just be my novice two-cents.

[DennisK]

I can't bring myself to define a historical event as anything occurring prior to a specific point in time. I would think of a period novel as a book dealing with any specified point in time between the Big Bang and sometime tomorrow. To me, an historical story is anything that may paint a path that explains how we became the people that we are today. For instance, the last book of Ken Follett's Century Trilogy deals with events starting with the 1960's and ending with Obama's election. That period of time witnessed several wars, the fall of the iron curtain, the massive movement for human rights, the decline of the Industrial Age and the rise of the Information Age – the time when the human race reached out beyond earth and actually touched the moon! As current as it is, it is part of our history and it defines us.

[Literature-Minded]

I agree with DennisK that a historical book has to do with leading to the point where the society is now at. It is a way to see the stepping stones that have led the world to its current place. I don't think it has much to do with how aged the book itself is, but what of the book's time period tells us about the progression of the human race.