CCBC-Net Archives
historical FICTION or HISTORICAL fiction?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Jonathan Hunt <jhunt24>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 21:40:51 +0000
I don't read historical fiction to learn about subject matter or time periods. If I want to learn about the Revolutionary War, for example, I'm much more likely to read informational text than historical fiction. I think too often, however, that adults want historical fiction to serve as surrogate history, and I think that's unfair to both genres. I dislike the practice of selecting literature novels for a particular grade level simply because they match the social studies curriculum (e.g. ISLAND OF THE BLUE DOLPHINS for California history in 4th grade, MY BROTHER SAM IS DEAD in either 5th or 8th for American history) and I'm not at all convinced that reading such texts enriches a study of history.
On a similar note, I've noticed the increasing presence of author's notes in historical fiction titles. The author's note seems to me to be too much concerned about the utilitarian purposes of the book rather than just letting the work of art speak for itself. I often wonder whether they are read by children and young adults as much as they are read by parents, teachers, and librarians. Sometimes I really think they are written for the latter audience. It's not that I don't treasure this information because I do. I just don't want to read about it in the book. Tell me in a lecture, or an interview, or a magazine article, or a speech, but don't tell me in the book. Inside the book I just want to be engrossed in the story.
Susan Cooper has written about some of the old?shioned it-was-all-a-dream fantasy endings and how false they are, and I've been pondering whether the author's note in historical fiction isn't something akin to that. The author creates this magical world, and then proceeds to deconstruct it for you afterward. Blech.
That said, some of my favorite recent historical novels (ESPERANZA RISING, THE RIVER BETWEEN US, and BUD, NOT BUDDY) do have such notes, and they are very well done, too. I don't mean to make a big fuss over something so little. I'm just wondering if it doesn't speak to the larger issue of how historical fiction is commonly perceived to have some sort of symbiotic relationship with history.
Jonathan
_________________________________________________________________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
Received on Tue 04 May 2004 04:40:51 PM CDT
Date: Tue, 04 May 2004 21:40:51 +0000
I don't read historical fiction to learn about subject matter or time periods. If I want to learn about the Revolutionary War, for example, I'm much more likely to read informational text than historical fiction. I think too often, however, that adults want historical fiction to serve as surrogate history, and I think that's unfair to both genres. I dislike the practice of selecting literature novels for a particular grade level simply because they match the social studies curriculum (e.g. ISLAND OF THE BLUE DOLPHINS for California history in 4th grade, MY BROTHER SAM IS DEAD in either 5th or 8th for American history) and I'm not at all convinced that reading such texts enriches a study of history.
On a similar note, I've noticed the increasing presence of author's notes in historical fiction titles. The author's note seems to me to be too much concerned about the utilitarian purposes of the book rather than just letting the work of art speak for itself. I often wonder whether they are read by children and young adults as much as they are read by parents, teachers, and librarians. Sometimes I really think they are written for the latter audience. It's not that I don't treasure this information because I do. I just don't want to read about it in the book. Tell me in a lecture, or an interview, or a magazine article, or a speech, but don't tell me in the book. Inside the book I just want to be engrossed in the story.
Susan Cooper has written about some of the old?shioned it-was-all-a-dream fantasy endings and how false they are, and I've been pondering whether the author's note in historical fiction isn't something akin to that. The author creates this magical world, and then proceeds to deconstruct it for you afterward. Blech.
That said, some of my favorite recent historical novels (ESPERANZA RISING, THE RIVER BETWEEN US, and BUD, NOT BUDDY) do have such notes, and they are very well done, too. I don't mean to make a big fuss over something so little. I'm just wondering if it doesn't speak to the larger issue of how historical fiction is commonly perceived to have some sort of symbiotic relationship with history.
Jonathan
_________________________________________________________________ Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage!
Received on Tue 04 May 2004 04:40:51 PM CDT
