Seegee:
I have at least 3, but I think the OP has read them all and posted his thoughts on them.
Well yes that's probably so, but I'm pretty sure that the OP isn't the only one reading and participating in this thread.
barretthunter:
I think there's a distinction between fiction set in the past but not involving great historical events or persons; fiction in the past about great historical events but not famous names (for example, a story about a second world war soldier coming home on leave and finding his wife having an affair) and fiction in which historical characters such as George Washington appear.
Thank you! When I kicked off this thread, I blithely assumed that we all agree on
MY definition of "Historical Fiction" I quickly discovered that's not the case. So checking on the 'net, I find various definitions. They fall into two vague groups:
1) "a literary genre in which the plot takes place in a setting located in the past." VS,
2) "historical fiction is a work of writing that reconstructs the past. ... writers of this genre will incorporate past events or people into their fictitious stories.
To me, a story that is merely set in the past, such as many Victorian novels, is a "period piece". If you add in actual historical events and historical characters, then a "period piece" becomes something you can call "historical fiction".
However, after a bit of research I must agree that definition #1 above is perfectly correct. That said, I still prefer the narrower definition #2.