Just to clarify why I've "Non-fiction" in the other thread's title. The volume of authors attempting this in the last decade seems to have exploded: Robert's Harris's series on WW2 and Ancient Rome, Conn Iggulden on Genghis Khan and Caesar, Simon Scarrow's Wellington series and Manfredi on Alexander and yet again, Ancient Rome. I even saw one book attempted on the Aztecs but predictably, not as good as the above. Aa usual, pick your best, average, put on the scrapheap.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Historical fiction
Collapse
X
-
Historical fiction
There are different kinds of historical fiction though aren't there?
1) Stories set in the past that are more or less congruent with known facts.
2) Stories which stylistically replicate literature from a particular period — they may or may not be set in that time. Charles Palliser's The Quincunx is an example.
3) Alternate histories that re-imagine certain events in order to construct a story. (Some would argue #1 inevitably does this.)
There may be more.
Jack Finney's Time and Again is one of my all time #1's — although as a "time-travel" novel it's usually (and wrongly) considered a #3.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
I greatly enjoyed Christian Jacq's Rameses novels, of which I think there were five. Also Edward Rutherford's done a few my mum absolutely loves. I introduced her to him with London, which was enjoyable enough.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
I read a very good one recently about Samuel Colt's pistol factory in London, The Devil's Acre by Matthew Plampin. One of those books where I couldn't put it down, and then as soon as I was finished was straight on Google to look up all the facts behind the book. I think that's what good historical fiction should do to you.
Also read Spies of the Balkans by Alan Furst, which was intriguing, mainly because he doesn't really explain half the stuff that happens in the book. But enjoyable nonetheless.
I'll heartily concur with the person who mentioned War and Peace, too.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
I'll second Q as being great. I'm a little suprised that no one has mentioned Flashman yet.
Oh and In The Name Of The Rose, stunning book.
Has anyone got anything to say about Amin Maalouf? I keep nearly buying Samarkand and the Rock of Tanios.
My other half loves the Robert Harris roman books but I've not got round to reading them yet.
There is a massive vein of historical crime fiction isn't there? I like the Marcus Didius Falco books and enjoyed some of Cadfael.
Does the Three Musketeers count?
Comment
-
Historical fiction
Gangster Octopus wrote:
10^7 guests wrote:
I'm a little suprised that no one has mentioned Flashman yet.
Oh and it's funny too.
I was lent on of Boris Akunin's books recently and the rent-a-quote compared it to Flashman and Dosteovsky. I can only imagine that the reviewer had read neither.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
Echoing Amor's point, I'm never sure where "historical fiction" ends and "fiction set in the past" begins, if there even is a distinction. Are, say, Catch 22 and Slaughterhouse 5 historical fiction? If not, why not? Is (intended) realism a necessity?
Comment
-
Historical fiction
An insular Possession by Timothy Mo. Excellent stuff. I'll also repeat the recommendation I made on another thread for the the Graves Claudius books, second the shouts for Mantel and Furst, and throw in Amitav Ghosh and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie.
Harris goes on the 'OK' shelf for me, along with Mary Renault and Sebastian Faulks' Birdsong and Charlotte Gray.
Anything Faulks wrote subsequently goes straight in the recycling bank without leave to appeal.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
Open Book had a good discussion on historical fiction the other day. Iplayer link. Possession, by AS Byatt is mentioned. I wouldn't automatically class it as historical fiction but I suppose it is and can be filed away as a Type 2 on the Amor de Cosmos scale.
Currently I'm reading a Type 1 book though. Not just any historical novel, It's The Greatest Historical Novel Ever Written, as it says on the front. Man on a Donkey by HFM Prescott, a novel about the rising in the North of England protesting against Henry VIII’s dissolution of the monastries. It was written in 1952 and I’m assuming all the glowing reviews on the back are from that era. But I checked out some more up to date reviews online and they also equally fulsome in their praise.
I can see why it’s so highly rated – Prescott can really write and she was also one of the most highly regarded Tudor scholars of her day. It’s beautifully written but very dense. The prose is evocative and historical detail is to the fore. But my God it’s long. I’m on p 325 and not even half the way through. Many’s the time I have turned to Kelly in bed and said I’m going to give it up. But at more than 300 pages in, it would be stupid to give up now, wouldn’t it? (Or at least that’s what I tell myself).
I also find it asks a lot of the reader in terms of prior knowledge of the religious upheaval that was happening during Henry VIII’s reign.. I have a rudimentary understanding of what was going on in this time. But many key events happen off-stage and are just mentioned in passing. I find I have to rush off and check my facts, which is making it an even longer read.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
This is as good a thread as any to say:
I dont want to read it... because, my historical knowledge is practically nil. I dont want to know about dead queens, or murdered sociopaths, unless I can place them to somewhere NOW, or possibly a future now.
However, I have noticed that the people who write these tropes, tend to be decent, or better at writing, whereas, when I read pulp fiction, I could throw some of that shit together.
Sorry, no help. I cant be arsed with history, generally... Colour me 'disimaginative dickhead'.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
Gerontophile wrote:
This is as good a thread as any to say:
I dont want to read it... because, my historical knowledge is practically nil. I dont want to know about dead queens, or murdered sociopaths, unless I can place them to somewhere NOW, or possibly a future now.
However, I have noticed that the people who write these tropes, tend to be decent, or better at writing, whereas, when I read pulp fiction, I could throw some of that shit together.
Sorry, no help. I cant be arsed with history, generally... Colour me 'disimaginative dickhead'.
Maybe you've been unlucky with your choices so far?
Second MsD's shout for Faber btw. What did anyone think of the recent TV adaptation of it?
Comment
-
Historical fiction
I loved it, one of the best adaptations I've seen for ages, and a visual feast, apart from the gruesome bits, and they were well done.
I don't know how likely Sugar, in the book or the TV series, was as a Victorian girl - she's nothing like our usual idea of a Victorian girl, 'tis true, but then that idea is generally not a "true" representation, either.
I was happy with it, overall
Comment
-
Guest
Historical fiction
re Maalouf, I've only read The First Century After Beatrice, but that was pretty good, and I do think I'll read more at some point.
If you have Flashman then you have to have patrick O'Brian.
Thirded on the Quincunx and TCPATW. Love both those books.
For Roman stuff, Steven Saylor is very good. Makes a nice contrast to Lindsey Davis (whom i also love). The list of Roman-era crime is very long - I like David Wishart and the new ones about some guy called Ruso especially. For mediaeval monkish type crime, Susanna Gregory or Edward Marston are great. Just as good as CJ Sansom - it's weird that those are the ones that have been pushed so much. Like the way they're pushing Jo Nesbo as the new Stieg Larsson - sure, they're good enough, but they're by no means the best of the Nordic crime authors.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
MsD wrote:
I don't know how likely Sugar, in the book or the TV series, was as a Victorian girl - she's nothing like our usual idea of a Victorian girl, 'tis true, but then that idea is generally not a "true" representation, either.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
In the book, the narrative moves from character to character, often through the device of their own writings, so you learn why Agnes is as she is, for example, from diary extracts. And other characters have greater roles in the book e.g. Mrs Fox.
It is slightly surreal, yes, as there are all these different layers, and some things are left open. I loved the way they made the adaptation slightly trippy.
Comment
-
Historical fiction
Ah, yes I sensed there was more of back-story to Mrs Fox than the TV production made clear. I love Shirley Henderson in that role BTW, then I like her in almost everything she does.
@Lyra
Have you read Sophia McDougall's Romanitas trilogy? It's basically alternate history with a divergence at AD193, so the Empire survives to the present day.
Comment
Comment