Historical Fiction vs Historical Fantasy, Using “Hild” As Context
Last week I posted on how much I was enjoying reading Nicola Griffiths’ Hild.
I also remarked on a “moment of puzzlement”, ie that Hild was shortlisted for the “…Nebula Award this year, which is given by the Science Fiction Writers of America for works of science fiction or fantasy. But as above, I am currently a good three quarters of the way through this novel and so far can detect no sign of it being anything but historical fiction.”
Seregil of Risingshadow.net commented that: “the Science Fiction Writers of America may consider this novel to be historical fantasy and that’s why it was nominated for a Nebula Award.”
Of course, that got me pondering on the line between historical fiction and historical fantasy, which led me to conclude that in order to be fantasy a book not only has to contain magic, but the characters in it have to believe in that magic—or disbelieve yet be proven wrong through the course of the unfolding story.
The novel Hild is set in the sixth century British Isles, so the characters in the book believe in signs, portents, and magic (as folk did in those times), including that the main character, Hild, is a seer. Yet there is no sense, as the story develops, that what occurs actually is magic. In my view, therefore, the novel is unquestionably historical fiction—and very good historical fiction, at that—but not historical fantasy (in any way, shape, or form.)
So I remain puzzled at the Nebula Award shortlisting. Personally, I think Hild should have been shortlisted for, and won, the Booker.
.
.
It definitely has a fantasy “feel”, with regard to the world-building and detail, but then I’m not very familiar with historical fiction as a genre.
The problem, for me, with calling it historical fiction is that the story itself, and in large parts the character, seems to be a work of fantasy based on extremely careful research. We barely know anything about Hild as a person before the middle of her life (whereas with a lot of historical fiction there are presumably a lot more primary sources to go on). The events of the book are in many cases extrapolations. A lot of the characters, outside the major royal figures, did not (as far as I know) exist. So to what extent is “Hild” a fantastical creation, despite the world she inhabits being real?
I would also say that it seems to at least be “in conversation with” the fantasy genre.
I agree though. It should so win the Booker. I loved it.
Thanks for commenting, Louise.:)
I am very familiar with both historical fiction and fantasy generally, and one observation I believe is pertinent is that the author making up stuff is integral to any sort of fiction. So with historical fiction, the further back we go and the less is known about an era, the more the author has to make up—but despite that the work still counts as historical fiction. As your comment suggests, historical fiction authors also have to world build, particularly where our knowledge of an era is only “partial.” A difference between historical fiction and fantasy in that respect is that the fantasy author can make up his or her own rules with respect to the world, whereas the historical fiction author is constrained by whatever we do know of the real timelines, characters and events. So the fact that Nicola Griffiths has done meticulous research and built us a credible historical world still does not, imho, take her novel out of the realm of historical fiction and into fantasy: it more confirms her historical fiction writing street cred—which is awesome!
And in the end, we’re really only splicing genre hairs here: the important thing is that Hild is a fantactic read and should have been up for the Booker! 😉