Ahh yes, it tells of what a typical experience would be like for an individual in that situation. I guess I could see the rationale behing having the sub-classification. Since sections of the novel are clearly made up, it can't be classified as non-fiction. But then again, so much is based in reality you can't really call it fiction either... So I guess "historical fiction" works well to describe it! The novel you describe reminds me of the made for TV movies they always have after a disaster. They usually pick about 4 or 5 individuals or groups of individuals and the movie switches back and forth between them. I always knew, that although the 1989 SF earthquake happened and is real, that the things I was seeing being depicted occuring at such and such's house just wasn't "real". On one hand, the events the movie was based on actually occured, but on the other, the little side trips they make into these people's lives is fake.......... which leaves one to ask, is this fiction or non fiction? Well, it's a mixture of both.... called historical fiction. .....Right?
It's fiction "based on a true story." The dictionary definition of fiction, in this sense, is that it's narrative storytelling derived from the imagination and not necessarily based on fact. That means it doesn't have to be completely detached from fact. If you take a factual situation and use your imagination to turn it into a dramatized account and fill in the gaps between the facts, that's still fiction. I think it's a bit of a stretch to call it "historical fiction" if it's about something within recent memory.
How do you define "recent memory?" Within the lifetime of some people still alive? I've written a couple of pieces that I would call historical fiction and they take place in the early 20th century (30's and 40's, respectively).
No, I was thinking "recent" more in the sense of within the past few years, just a little less fresh than "ripped from the headlines."
Okay, that's more understandable and I agree with you. That's what I figured, but you never know when someone thinks otherwise.
I have a really dumb question- what is non-fiction when it comes to Star Trek? The only thing I can think of would be something like a companion, or a science of ST etc., but isn't a lot of that technically fiction too- like if you tried to delve into the science of a replicator?
Well, yeah, something like the TNG Technical Manual or Star Charts is sort of "fictional nonfiction," in that it has the form of nonfiction but is actually about something unreal. But there's plenty of genuine Trek nonfiction, i.e. material that treats ST as what it is, a TV/movie franchise. Trek nonfiction includes such things as The Making of Star Trek and similar behind-the-scenes books; the series companions and Star Trek 101; biographies/memoirs of the actors or producers; critical analyses like The Physics of Star Trek or any of the hundreds of other works of media criticism or philosophy based on the show; or Voyages of the Imagination, the "companion"-type book for the novels.
Maybe kinda. If the movie draws from actual survivors who told there accounts in painstaking detail then yes. The book I'm referring to was drawn off of very traceable and accessible documents and accounts. I think movies like they take more leaps in storytelling than fact. They make the earthquake a little more dramatic at moments and use Hollywood effects and stunts. The book I'm talking about didn't really glamorize or beef anything up, it simply told an average story an average victim might have faced. There is no one character who is a hero or shows up repeatedly. So I get your point, but I don't think movies and things like that are historical fiction. I think once it crosses the line into storytelling and drama instead of factual and deliberate it becomes more fiction than non-fiction.
And when I was in college (2002-2006) "history" stopped at Vietnam and then became "modern history". I think we use wars as general markers and Vietnam seems (nowadays) to be the cutoff point for most history teachers and departments.
I'm going by the publishers I've been looking toward for a book set in WWII. That appears to be the general cutoff right now. Books set DURING WWII seem to be in a bizarre limbo.
Things such as the accountings of all the goings on that actually led to and were the production of ST. "The World of Star Trek" "The Making of Star Trek" "Inside Star Trek" "I Am Not Spock" "I Am Spock" "Star Trek Memories" "Star Trek Movie Memories" So on and so forth.
If you're talking about Star Trek as a TV series and addressing whether certain elements would actually work with laws of physics as we know them, that's not fiction. If you have Geordi LaForge explaining replicators to Lwaxana Troi as part of a novel, that is fiction. There are hundreds of nonfiction books about different aspects of Star Trek. There are works of analysis and criticism, autobiographies and biographies of people involved with Star Trek, collectibles guides, episode guides, books about fandom, books on the making of particular episodes, series, or movies, reference books, self-help and religious books, and more. (A few of those lists need to be updated because of books that have been published in the last month or so. With luck, I'll get to it later today.)
Thanks. Yep, that's my site. A bit old-fashioned, but then it was started long before there were wikis and whatnot.
The saddest part of all are the ones who actually write the books. They spend time dreaming of Star Trek.