CCBC-Net Archives
historical FICTION or HISTORICAL fiction?
- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]
From: Barbara Tobin <barbarat>
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:44:03 -0400
Monica wrote: I recollect reading an article some years ago
(I believe it may have been in The New Advocate) in which the author reported his/her study of several familiar historical fiction works set during the American Revolution. What the researcher discovered was that each was very much of its time noting that Johnny Tremain had a viewpoint that was in keeping with the WWII time period in which it was written while My Brother Sam is Dead reflected the sentiments of the Vietnam era.
---------- The article Monica references sounds like Lawrence Sipe's excellent piece in The New Advocate (what a great loss that the NA has folded--that was one of my favorite journals!); although this issue has been written about in multiple sources. Here's the citation:
Sipe, L. (1997). In their own words: Authors' views on issues of historical fiction. The New Advocate, 10 (3), 243%9.
I highly recommend this article to those who have not read it. Larry lets authors of historical fiction speak for themselves about their craft in his content analysis of articles written by 19 authors, including Joan Aiken, Leon Garfield, Scott O'Dell, Katherine Paterson, Rosemary Sutfcliff, and Jane Yolen. His discussion centers around four themes that emerged from his analysis: the teaching function of historical fiction, perspectives on history, issues of authenticity, and the socio-political implications of this genre.
He talks about the different types of historical fiction and narratorial perspectives, and the strengths and weaknesses of each in depicting history. He urges teachers to use a critical approach to historical fiction with their students (as Monica and others have outlined), discussing these distinctions to help their students learn what elements of history are trustworthy in the novels they read.
I found interesting Larry's discussion of narratorial stance, particularly that of multiple perspectives-- where various characters may express different perspectives on historical events. "Are there clues about which perspectives the author seems to valorize? ... Which voice, if any, is the authoritative voice?". He describes books that attempt to be 'multiply authoritative' (like Paul Fleischman's Bull Run, that weaves together sixteen characters' first-person narratives about their involvement in this significant Civil War battle) -- yet the multiple viewpoints are all "filtered through one (hidden) voice: the author's". Can students detect a particular ideological perspective of Fleischman about the issues surrounding the Civil War?
It has been really helpful to hear practical classroom examples like Monica's of how to give young people a sense of what Larry calls "the multi-layered-ness of the search for historical truth".
Barbara Tobin
Received on Fri 07 May 2004 11:44:03 AM CDT
Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 12:44:03 -0400
Monica wrote: I recollect reading an article some years ago
(I believe it may have been in The New Advocate) in which the author reported his/her study of several familiar historical fiction works set during the American Revolution. What the researcher discovered was that each was very much of its time noting that Johnny Tremain had a viewpoint that was in keeping with the WWII time period in which it was written while My Brother Sam is Dead reflected the sentiments of the Vietnam era.
---------- The article Monica references sounds like Lawrence Sipe's excellent piece in The New Advocate (what a great loss that the NA has folded--that was one of my favorite journals!); although this issue has been written about in multiple sources. Here's the citation:
Sipe, L. (1997). In their own words: Authors' views on issues of historical fiction. The New Advocate, 10 (3), 243%9.
I highly recommend this article to those who have not read it. Larry lets authors of historical fiction speak for themselves about their craft in his content analysis of articles written by 19 authors, including Joan Aiken, Leon Garfield, Scott O'Dell, Katherine Paterson, Rosemary Sutfcliff, and Jane Yolen. His discussion centers around four themes that emerged from his analysis: the teaching function of historical fiction, perspectives on history, issues of authenticity, and the socio-political implications of this genre.
He talks about the different types of historical fiction and narratorial perspectives, and the strengths and weaknesses of each in depicting history. He urges teachers to use a critical approach to historical fiction with their students (as Monica and others have outlined), discussing these distinctions to help their students learn what elements of history are trustworthy in the novels they read.
I found interesting Larry's discussion of narratorial stance, particularly that of multiple perspectives-- where various characters may express different perspectives on historical events. "Are there clues about which perspectives the author seems to valorize? ... Which voice, if any, is the authoritative voice?". He describes books that attempt to be 'multiply authoritative' (like Paul Fleischman's Bull Run, that weaves together sixteen characters' first-person narratives about their involvement in this significant Civil War battle) -- yet the multiple viewpoints are all "filtered through one (hidden) voice: the author's". Can students detect a particular ideological perspective of Fleischman about the issues surrounding the Civil War?
It has been really helpful to hear practical classroom examples like Monica's of how to give young people a sense of what Larry calls "the multi-layered-ness of the search for historical truth".
Barbara Tobin
Received on Fri 07 May 2004 11:44:03 AM CDT
