Another interesting meeting of the Devon Chapter of the #HNS this week, at which one of our members told us the she is hoping to conclude a three-book deal in the near future.

Amongst other things, we discussed historical fiction as a genre and its sub-genres.

There has also been some discussion of ‘hard’ versus ‘soft’ historical fiction on Reddit this week, comparing it to science fiction where the distinction is often made – though, in the absence of a clear definition, it is difficult to categorise many works as one or the other. In historical fiction hard = sticking closely to accepted versions of history, while soft seems to be playing fast and loose with history. Where ‘soft’ fiction ends and fantasy begins, I have no idea, let alone where ‘alternate reality’ fits in. Equally, what is ‘hard’ historical fiction? If it’s sufficiently hard, is it history, rather than historical fiction? Where does, for example, Wolf Hall fit in? Mantel has stuck very closely to agreed historical fact, but her portrayal of the thinking and motives of Thomas Cromwell is not that of most historians – but we cannot know what really went on in his mind, so does this make her work ‘softer’?

What do you think?