In some critical writings on the premodern Chinese novel, one can come across annotations proposing to define in numerical terms the relationship between what is true or false in a piece of writing. These numerical proposals, a form of rhetorical reassurance in the face of the challenges posed by fiction and authenticity, reveal the need for a safety threshold in navigating the discomfort associated with the fictional. This aspect is particularly salient in yanyi (演義) narratives, a form of narrative writing that was very popular in premodern times and variously related to the narration of historical events and characters. This contribution proposes an analysis of this specific category, starting from the prefatory writings accompanying yanyi works, especially from the 16th and 17th centuries.

In her seminal essay “In Praise of Gossip” (1982), Patricia Meyers Spacks reminded her readers that the characteristics traditionally associated with gossip have also been used to describe the novel, though the latter is not seen in such a negative light. Be that as it may, fiction has often been frowned upon and taken as a frivolous, at times “feminine”, enterprise. Novels borrowed their form from narrative historiography, which modern historians dismiss as, at best, lacking in rigour and, at worst, apocryphal. Historical fiction is oftentimes seen as a perpetrator of unfounded rumour and therefore an enemy of “Science”. It does not bode well on the literary side of the aisle, either, where its plot constraints are taken as a hindrance to originality.

In this paper, I would like to start by examining the critical reception of mid-20th century novels about the Roman Empire, especially the example of Robert Graves’s Claudius novels (1934, 1935) which were not taken seriously neither by the literary establishment nor by the classical historians. What makes historical fiction, even if by a renowned author, such a tough pill to swallow? According to Dudley Fitts’s NYT review of Gore Vidal’s Julian (1964), it’s because it is often “self-indulgent and irresponsible”. While conceding it is a well-written book, the reviewer argues that is in spite of the genre. He even suggests Vidal might have learned a thing or two from Graves. Yet the pitfalls of genre fiction ultimately weighed on the reception of both novels.

I wish to ask why and in which ways the genre causes such unease in both critics and historians. On the one hand, one notes an inherent suspicion of genre conventions (which have to do with plot rather than form) ; on the other an exaggerated focus on inaccuracy and anachronism. While it is true that the positivist ethos had positioned itself against narrative histories, and 20th century historical fiction was the ultimate betrayal to 19th century scienticism, one must not ignore the potential of historical fiction as a vehicle for propaganda and revisionism. In an era of “fake news”, what can a reader-focused model teach us about narrative histories and the onus taken on by historical fiction? Barthes (1967) himself did ask what the difference between the discourses of history and fiction could be, arriving at the conclusion that there are no discursive differences. Yet it would be absurd to suggest that all fiction is therefore irresponsible. The paper will then conclude by recommending some reading strategies which might help to ontologically reframe these ethical issues, much in the same way proposed by historical fiction.

Le parti pris de Claude Lanzmann envers la fiction est bien connu : les critiques virulentes qu’il n’a cessé d’adresser à l’égard des œuvres de fiction qui vont de la série télévisée Holocauste (1978) au roman de Yannick Haenel, Jan Karski (2009), en passant par le film de Steven Spielberg, Schindler’s List (1993), montrent clairement son hostilité, sinon la peur, envers la fiction. Que reproche-t-il à la fiction ? Celle-ci est d’abord considérée sous l’angle de la falsification. Le roman de Haenel est à cet égard qualifié de « faux roman » en raison de sa partie fictionnelle où le héros, un personnage historique, s’exprime à la première personne. Le droit à l’invention que revendique le romancier ne procède, selon lui, que de l’ignorance et d’un manque de respect pour les faits. Lanzmann critique également les valeurs cognitives et émotionnelles de la fiction, notamment lorsqu’il fustige Holocauste : il se montre particulièrement sévère à l’égard des « identifications consolantes » avec les personnages-martyres que la série américaine aurait permis aux téléspectateurs. C’est donc la catharsis liée à l’immersion fictionnelle qui est ici mise en cause. Or, le cinéaste ne condamne pas seulement la fiction, mais il s’en réclame également – et paradoxalement – pour son film documentaire. Ainsi, dans Shoah, les témoins ont été invités à se transformer en acteurs qui jouent leur propre histoire afin d’« irréaliser » celle-ci. Cette mise en scène qu’il appelle « fiction du réel » a pour objectif d’abolir la distance temporelle entre le passé et le présent et de montrer le « réel », qui n’est pour lui que « la configuration vraie de l’impossible ».

C’est sur cette conception lanzmanienne de la fiction que nous souhaiterions revenir dans cette communication. Elle a donné lieu à une esthétique qui, insistant sur l’irreprésentable et l’« unique singularité » de Holocauste, confère à l’œuvre d’art le statut d’une singularité absolue (on peut penser par exemple aux travaux de Shoshana Felman). En revanche, les études récentes sur la littérature des camps ou les images d’archives (Catherine Coquio, Georges Didi-Huberman, etc.) proposent de considérer le rapport entre l’art et le témoignage dans une perspective moins spéculative qu’anthropologique. En nous référant à ces travaux, nous essaierons d’éclaircir les enjeux à la fois esthétiques et politiques du rapport entre la fiction et le témoignage.

Ma Boyong, one of China's hottest fiction authors, combines thrilling plots with historical detail to craft stories that are both compelling and plausible. Since beginning his writing career online in the late 20th century, Ma has explored a wide array of genres, including historical fiction, martial arts, science fiction, supernatural tales, detective stories, and anime. His early involvement in the development and professionalization of Chinese Internet literature paved the way for his eventual recognition by both mainstream literary awards and popular markets as a distinguished author of historical fiction.

Ma's fictions, often referred to as "historical possibility novels," delve into historical possibilities through fictional narratives and characters while maintaining fidelity to the broader historical context. He does research and finds inspiration by reading professional dissertations relative to his novels, talking to experts, and visiting museums and historical sites. However, before solidifying his unique approach to historical fiction, Ma's work occasionally sparked controversy for its historical inaccuracies. One notable example is his 2005 short story "The Xiaozhuan (the small seal script) War," published online, which reimagines Qin Shi Huang's chancellor, Li Si, simplifying and standardizing the non-alphabetic written script across the six kingdoms during the Qin dynasty (221–206 BC). In 2016, scholarly critiques pointed out several historical inconsistencies in the story, igniting widespread debates among Chinese netizens about Ma's grasp of history and the historical literacy of the general readership. In response, Ma defended that his original intention was to follow the Chinese literary tradition of retelling old tales with absurd nuances and plots through his fictionalization.

This paper examines the discussions and critiques surrounding "The Xiaozhuan War," highlighting the tension between historical accuracy and artistic reproduction. It argues that the determination of frontiers between fact and fiction cannot be left to individual judgment, and the boundaries of fiction are dynamically shaped by discursive environments and historical developments. The decade-long gap between the story's creation and the controversy itself underscores the contextual differences in interpretation.

Furthermore, this paper reveals how the controversy over "The Xiaozhuan War" prompted Ma Boyong to reconsider the formal boundaries between fact and fiction in his subsequent works. His "historical possibility novels" employ more self-reflexive narrative strategies and symbolic distinctions. Additionally, Ma's cross-media interactions with experts, scholars, and online readers demonstrate the contemporary need for more interactions and democratic negotiation in the writing of historical fiction.