You may think that I’m in strange company; that I’ve somehow wandered into the wrong group. After all, I’m a writer of Science Fiction, a dabbler in the future, in things to come. I base my work on things that have never happened and have to create not just the story, but also the setting. And to somehow make it all seem real.
In comparison; historical fiction writers have the ability to go and see the places where their stories are set, to read accounts by people who were there and to weave their magic around the tangible.
For me, the appeal of historical fiction lies in the fact that uncertainty about the past allows for so much freedom in the telling. There are so many possible outcomes to be imagined from one event. The fact is that the further you go back into history; there are fewer ‘facts.’ The accounts we have can be unsubstantiated and were after all written by the victors. They may not even have been written by observers of the events they describe; or at the time of the events when memories were fresh!
Everything is open to a wide range of interpretation. And the masters of the genre give their imaginations full rein, with stories that either stick to the recognised timeline or in some cases they create a whole new future in the past. And starting with what the reader knows, they take them on a journey.
Since I became involved with this project, I’ve been wondering how science fiction and historical fiction tie up. And I think I've got it.
The question is, "how will the future see the past?" How will the great events that have yet to happen be recorded and written about by the historical fiction writers of the future?
To help me do just that, I’ve invented a magazine of the future and asked the editor to consider my problem. You can read the full story over on my website, richarddeescifi.co.uk