I recently read an interview with Bernard Cornwell, done by George Martin – I mentioned it when talking about writing in the dark – in which I I found the same thought that I have had for years. GRRM: It has long been my belief that historical fiction and epic fantasy are essentially brothers, that the two genres have a lot in common. BC: You're right, fantasy and historical fiction are twins, and I have never been inclined to the fantasy label, too vast and of extravagant quality. It seems to me that you write historical novels in an invented world based on historical reality.
Years ago, in a forum or newsgroup, where we were talking about The Lord of the Rings, I dared to talk about the Middle Ages, meaning, however, not the historical context, since it is an invented world, but the iconography of the setting. I was answered: “But Special Data which Middle Ages are you talking about?” Swords, armor, castles, villages, ways of living, social fabric, objects: everything, in fantasy, leads back to the Middle Ages. By reading A Song of Ice and Fire you can witness a real cross-section of medieval society. It is indeed a fantasy novel, even if the fantastic element is almost skimped on, but it has a solid and distinct historical background.
Fantasy and historical fiction So is Cornwell right when he says that Martin writes historical novels in invented worlds with an underlying historical reality? Are historical fiction and fantasy really twins? Going back in time, to The Arabian Nights, for example, what can we find? That the stories reflect the historical times and fashions of the peoples involved. Can't Ovid's Metamorphoses perhaps be considered an archaic form of fantasy? The writer of fantasy novels must work on double documentation: that relating to the chosen narrative genre, which he must know well, and that on the historical, or pseudo-historical, background of the events he will narrate.