I don't separate my books into historical novels and the rest. To me, they're all made-up worlds, and both kinds are borne out of curiosity, some investigation into the past.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
We've all faced the charge that our novels are history lite, and to some extent, that's true. Yet for some, historical fiction is a way into reading history proper.
My books fall in the wobbly middle between historical fiction and historical romance.
All my books are made up of other books. They're all deeply structured on other fiction, because I was a student in fiction and I didn't have much actual living to draw on. I suspect a lot of other people's novels are like that, too, though they might be slower to talk about it.
As much as I love historical fiction, my problem with historical fiction is that you always know what's going to happen.
Historical fiction is actually good preparation for reading SF. Both the historical novelist and the science fiction writer are writing about worlds unlike our own.
I don't write historical novels but novels that wonder, 'And what if it happened in this way and not in this other one?'
I really hate the term 'historical novel' - it reminds me of bodice-rippers. But I'm hooked on research, and I really, really enjoy it.
I'm not a great reader of historical fiction; it's not my favourite genre.
My history writing was based on what I saw in strange, exotic places rather than just reading books.
I just love historical fiction.