Is History Bunk, Or Where Does History Live? 

I’ve been thinking (or more correctly over-thinking) about a comment made recently on Helen’s Blog [She Reads Novels] regarding Historical novels and when it’s legitimate to base them. This is, naturally, linked to the question: When is History? Now, you might think this is a strange question (and as a purveyor of strange questions I should know, right?), but consider this: psychologically humans tend to live in an eternal present – one second ago is the past and lost forever, one second from now is the future and forever unobtainable. So, the past is history, right? So, History begins one second ago, which means, naturally, that EVERYTHING is History and therefore all time – right up to a second ago – is the home of the Historical novel. Of course, you don’t need to waste that second thinking about how ridiculous that idea is. But where does that leave us (or, actually, me). 

Let’s look at things from another angle for a moment. I think it's beyond argument that the 19th century is History and clearly a place to locate a historical novel. As Bust follows Boom it's clear, therefore, that any period before the 19th century is likewise both History and the home of historical novels. But after the 19th century? Now clearly both World Wars (and the so-called ‘peace’ in between) are History and periods legitimately able to host historical novels. But what about after 1945? It that legitimate too? I think it’s at the very least arguable that the 50’s through to the 80’s (again) can be considered both History and (yet again!) a period where legitimate historical novels can live. After the 1980’s things get, I contend, a little more problematic. But here I’d turn to something I came across in my youth – the need for historical perspective and distance. 

Like many people I’m short-sighted and require glasses to see any great distance. But even being short-sighted I still need a minimum distance to see anything clearly. If I get TOO close to something (even in good light) I really can’t see what I’m supposed to be looking at. What makes it worse is the tree/forest conundrum. If you get TOO close to a subject – like History – you inevitably lack perspective and you can’t see things too well. Things that happened recently are very difficult topics for historians because it's difficult to know if they’re important or trivial or where they fit into the historical dynamic. This is why you might get a ton of history books about the 1960’s but you don’t get so many on the events of 2022 or 2023! So, how does that help? As far as I recall, historians tend to shy away from things that happened too recently and by too recently I think they mean around 25 years. That quarter-century is needed to allow the historian to stand back and look at events with at least some detachment. The events may have passed but their echoes are still with us and it’s much clearer what’s important and what many of the antecedents were. I think this is a good guideline when thinking about legitimate time periods for historical novels – 25 years. Within that quarter-century we’re still living with the event – it's still contemporary with us. It has yet to fade into the historical background so shouldn’t, in my opinion, be somewhere where the historical novel can take up a cozy residence. Conveniently, as we’re presently in 2023, I’d draw the line, in my considered but arbitrary fashion, at the convenient point of the Millennium (the celebrated one in 2000 rather than the actual one in 2001). Anything based before 2000 is OK for historical novels and anything after 2000 essentially isn’t. Opinions?