Periods of Time - Contemporary vs Historical and ...

[Puma]

Question: Historical fiction is supposed to describe something that happened at least fifty years ago. Is any non-any-other-genre novel that takes place in the last fifty years Mainstream/Contemporary? For example, if you write about something that took place in the sixties, is that contemporary (even though for the majority of people alive today it's historic)? Puma

[maestrowork]

Some people say within one oldest "living" generation... so that would probably put "mainstream" up to the 20s/30s. For contemporary, I think it would be within the last 20 years -- anything up to the 80s? Anything else from Titanic era and before would be historical.

[Puma]

Just for arguments sake, a novel set in 1963-4 that included as backdrop the deaths of John Kennedy, Robert Frost, and Pope John 23 would be mainstream not historical?

Second question - to me mainstream implies something that a wide crosscut of society would be interested in, not just a time period - is that thought falacious?

Just curious mostly, I'm not working on anything from the 60's (yet - but since that was my heyday I might). Puma

[AprilBoo]

Just for arguments sake, a novel set in 1963-4 that included as backdrop the deaths of John Kennedy, Robert Frost, and Pope John 23 would be mainstream not historical?

Second question - to me mainstream implies something that a wide crosscut of society would be interested in, not just a time period - is that thought falacious?

Just curious mostly, I'm not working on anything from the 60's (yet - but since that was my heyday I might). Puma

I would think it would be mainstream, not necessarily because of the time period, but because of the recognizability (is that a word?) of the events - there are people buying books right now who remember JFK as part of their lives, not as someone they learned about in a history class. By this same logic, I would agree with you on your second question - I think mainstream/contemporary applies to more than time.

[wrinkles]

I am in the very middle of the baby boom generation, so taking it upon myself to speak for that demographic, the 60s are still near and dear to us. The 50s are more problematic; older baby boomers undoubtedly remember it well, middle BBers, like myself, have a hazy recollection of it, and for the youngsters, it is mythical. So call the 50s the transition zone in the contemporary/historical continuum. As of now, anyway; soon, it will inevitably pass into in the historical period. For me, the 40s are definitely historical. When I was a boy, I regarded the stories about WWII as being told about a time far away, not realizing they occurred just a short time before I was born.