Went to sleep last night with stars in my eyes, because FORGE has been granted its THIRD starred review. (I will disclose the source and the review itself next week.)
Woke up with butterflies in my stomach. Why? I leave on the FORGE book tour in one week.
I am probably better known as an author of contemporary YA novels than as a writer of historical fiction. This bums me out a bit. I adore working in both genres and feel they are equally important.
What makes me sadder is the bad rap that historical fiction gets from readers.
The phrase itself makes kids bolt for the exit or writhe on the floor in agony because between Johnny Tremain and the excruciating boredom of history class, they think all things historical are worse than chewing on barbed wire.
Help me change that.
Don’t call FORGE, CHAINS, OR FEVER 1793 “historical fiction.” Call them “historical thrillers.” Why?
“The narrators in these books have to cope with epidemics, executions, natural disasters, political upheavals, and family tragedies that boggle the modern mind.”
That quote is from my guest blog about historical fiction over at Rasco from RIF.
Here’s another taste:
“I believe historical fiction can become just as popular as fantasy. Both genres provide intense coming-of-age experiences that are set in different worlds and layered with fascinating detail about how that world works. Both genres feature narrators who are often in life-or-death situations. Both fantasy and historical fiction allow readers to examine the human condition from a safe distance, apart and away from their daily lives.”
Read the whole thing, please, and come back here to tell me what you think. Historical fiction or historical thriller?
