There are, in fact, two discourses in the historical novel: that of history and that offiction. Therefore, in order to read a historical novel as such, we need to be able to iden-tify both, but especially the historical elements. If we cannot see them, then we will readthe historical novel as a fictional work. We can still historicise it, and read the projects thatinform it, and so forth. In fact, many fine analyses of historical novels have taken thisroute.19 But we still need to account for the process through which the reader differentiateshistory and fiction. Jonathan Culler coined the term ‘literary competence’ to explain theknowledge of literary devices and conventions that a reader needs in order to make senseof a literary text.20 I suggest that the historical novel requires a reader to have ‘historicalcompetence’, the minimal knowledge necessary to identify history in the historical novel.In this context, ‘history’ is not the unproblematic record of the past, but rather what ismost commonly accepted during the reader’s time — the agreed-upon historical record.This ‘historical competence’ will allow a reader to understand the historical references ina historical novel — although not without some hesitation — and, at the same time,‘historical competence’ will make the reader aware that he is reading a historical novel. Ifthis is so, then we have two effects. The immediate is that the reading of the historicalnovel is a hermeneutic act. In other words, the historical novel depends on the activeparticipation of the reader to ‘be’ a historical novel, which explains why previous attemptsto define the historical novel without considering the reader were bound to be incomplete.The second effect is a new problem
is this your experience when reading the texts? Can you recognise 'history' and 'fiction'?
