Historical Fiction Versus Contemporary Fiction

I love writing both, although I don’t read much historical fiction. It’s the same set of skills

for both: intense background research and strong plotting since I write thrillers. I’ve

written 2 historical fiction novels and 3 contemporary fiction novels so far.

Historical Fiction

In some ways, it’s easier to set the background because everything’s readymade. You

have enough information about the space in time, the characters, and background

events to form your plot. For instance, my first novel, Riders on the Storm (self-

published in October 2000) was set in Hampi during Krishnadeva Raya’s time, so I had

a wealth of information regarding the Vijayanagar Empire: the economy, administration,

the army, daily life, and so on. I had to bring it alive through the novel, but I had a solid

background even before I wrote a line.

Ditto the case for The Shakespeare Murders (published in 2017). There’s almost too

much information about the Elizabethan court and Shakespeare. I had to sift through

volumes of works to get to the important parts.

Contemporary Fiction

I find it involves a little more work for creating a sense of space but because it’s

contemporary, the language and pop culture references are easier to put in.

Contemporary fiction has a sense of immediacy and it’s much more popular since, I

suppose, readers find it requires less effort to immerse themselves into the background.

I love writing both but I focus more on contemporary themes since they’re easier to sell.

My Killer Kavita novels were set in cities: Delhi, Gwalior, Mumbai, Dehradun and so on.

Not difficult to recreate. The Valley of Lies required more research since I set it in the

remote Spiti Valley. Great fun, all of it.