For a bit of fun, which scribblers of historical fiction do you enjoy the most, and the least?

It is a difficult choice, but I think I would pick Bernard Cornwell and Colleen McCullough as my favourites mainly because they are consistently good, interesting and historically accurate.

My prize for the worst I've read, so far, would go to Dan Brown and Conn Iggulden, mainly because they are consistently boring.

I thoroughly enjoy Lindsey Davis, especially on a beach, under an umbrella with a long cold drink to hand!

I was compelled to read one Dan Brown, never again. I don't mind his ridiculous plots so much as his appalling writing.

For naval subjects, I rate Fullerton - except when he goes off on one about secret agents - as about the best, followed by Forester. Kent/Reeman is patchy - really, like Alistair Maclean, only one basic storyline in different settings, and I can't get on with O'Brien. Maturin just doesn't make sense as a character and is too much of a paragon we are supposed to admire. If, ;ike me, you don't, then there is nack all left.

I've always enjoyed reading the Flashman stories of George Macdonald Fraser.
[except Flashman and the Tiger, a collection of short stories where GMF was just going through the motions]

Trike.

Have you read his Pvt. MacAuslan stories? A hoot.

I have Ferval, though quite a while ago. They were terrific.

Trike.

"Pyrates" by GMF is another good read.

Trike.

I've been thinking of this and my first thought was that Georgette Heyer was my favourite. But defining a historical fiction writer is a little difficult - I think mostly here people are talking of lighter fiction, but you could argue that people like Thackeray and Trollope were historical writers. I've enjoyed the Flashman books I have read too. At the moment I am reading through CJ Sansom's Tudor crime series and they are very good, I think. Seem to be well researched and the characters are interesting. Generally like crime books, so Cadfael series and others appeal.

NZ writers tend to historical fiction, and usually write serious works, so Maurice Shadbolt, Lloyd Jones and CJStead are all authors I like.

The problem with the least is that if I don't like an author once I tend not to read them again, and I don't often choose books I don't like anyway. Refused to read Dan Brown, even though people said he was very entertaining. I read a Nigel Trantor recently and while I think his history and geography were no doubt excellent, they didn't really read as novels at all. The characterisation was very basic, definitely told not shown (not that to my mind that is an automatic fault) and we were told every inch of the journeys they took over Scottish land, and they took a lot of journeys. I might have to try someone else to get a handle on Scottish history.

Cheers, Caro.

I'm not a great consumer of historical fiction and I've never read Gregory, Weir etc but I wonder, if all these books lie on a continuum from works of pure imagination to those which are well researched reconstructed narratives*, at what point do they cease to be 'fiction' and become just history? If any account of history beyond a recitation of data must encompass selection, evaluation and interpretation, is the only distinguishing factor between fiction and history the invention of dialogue?

*OED - an account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account)

I sometimes think, ferval, that some authors use fiction so they don't have to bother with a bibliography! I've read a couple of NZ historical novels where it has been hard to work out which are fictional characters and which were real. I have been contemplating asking a question based on this a bit in a separate thread. Might get to it this afternoon.

The book I read recently had an author's note at the front, saying, "The greater part of this novel derives from events on a remote coast of the then British colony of New Zealand during the years 1868 and 1869. The few people familiar with these events (which are still in search of an historian) may note some highlighting of essentials, condensation of incident and fusing of historical dramatis personae. Others need only know that most of this happened, and much in the manner described."

ferval wrote:

I'm not a great consumer of historical fiction and I've never read Gregory, Weir etc but I wonder, if all these books lie on a continuum from works of pure imagination to those which are well researched reconstructed narratives*, at what point do they cease to be 'fiction' and become just history? If any account of history beyond a recitation of data must encompass selection, evaluation and interpretation, is the only distinguishing factor between fiction and history the invention of dialogue?

Hi ferval,

Or is all history (apart from "data") just fiction anyway ("the real is as imagined as the imaginary")?

I do think your questions are interesting. Worth a thread!

I'm trying to get hold of a book by Simon Schama at the moment which sounds good. It's called "Dead Certainties" and it's apparently an experiment with a more literary, if not 'poetic', approach to history. Schama claims in "Dead Certainties" (a book about two supposed historical "certainties") to have written "a work of the *imagination* that chronicles *historical* events". Schama's critics have accused him of having in this way deliberately obliterated "the difference between archival fact and pure fiction".

I am intrigued and want to know more. Have you come across this book?

Not really related, but a quotation from Beverley Southgate's book "History: What and Why" which made me laugh - it's from Hayden White. He wrote:"The so-called 'historical method' [implies the avoidance of] imaginative excess (i.e. 'enthusiasm') at any price."

That reminded me of the mocking of Professor Murray Kendall's biography of Richard III. This biography reads as a gripping adventure story - it's *brilliant*, but, apparently, not history as she should be written. One snooty historian has sneered at the good professor's embarrassing enthusiam for his subject, commenting that one of Murray Kendall's private fantasies would seem to be that he was actually at Bosworth himself, there at Richard's side, fighting valiantly and in vain for his beloved king!

Never mind that Murray Kendall's writing is so good you can almost hear the noise of battle and smell the fear! And - what's perhaps more important - that such writing can trigger a *passion* for a historical subject or period.

My favourite writer of historical fiction is Margaret Irwin, but I also devoured everything I could find by dear old Jean Plaidy. I loathe Gregory - she bores me. I've not actually read any of Weir's *fiction*, but I have enjoyed her non-fiction.

Temperance wrote:

Hi ferval,
Or is all history (apart from "data") just fiction anyway ("the real is as imagined as the imaginary")?
I do think your questions are interesting. Worth a thread!.

Yes, I agree Temp. Ferval's comment was thought provoking indeed and I've been mulling over it ever since, but haven't yet managed to come up with an answer.

The dialogue, descriptions of normal people and everyday life is an aspect I enjoy immensely in historical fiction but where does fact finish and story begin? Mmmmmm

I have been contributing to this thread on historum, I must admit not for a wee while, I need to catch up with it, but it was one of the better ones over there http://www.historum.com/general-history/35283-history-fiction-science.html
There's some valid points and it has some relevance to the 'What is Art' thread here as well.

Here's your book, 1p!!!!!!! http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=dead+certainties&tag=googhydr-21&index=stripbooks&hvadid=7879974289&ref=pd_sl_8zzqmsbnfy_e

1p!!!

It was £73 for the paperback when I looked. I've ordered it from the library anyway.

It must be awful to have your book for sale on Amazon for 1p - the ultimate humiliation for any author.

Triceratops wrote:

"Pyrates" by GMF is another good read.

Trike.

I don't think 'Pyrates' gets the publicity it deserves. Possibly Flashman knocks it off the pedestal all the time (well, he would, would he not? ). I rate it as one of the all-time funny books; fall-off-the-chair-with- laughter-humour. It was strange how 'The Reavers' (note spelling) did not match up, where I was hoping it would put the Pyrates watery humour fairly and squarely on the reivers' wild border-country. Was this G Macdonald Frazer's final book?

Apart from that, I have been an enthusiast for Bernard Cornwell's writing since 'Redcoat'. I never took to his Ancient- British based novels, but then I am not an enthusiast for the period. His 'Grail Quest' was superb, and I'm not surprised that 'Azincourt' is being mooted as a movie. I think it's a shame that 'The Starbuck Chronicles' somewhat died after three volumes; but in a way, I felt that although his hero starts out as an interesting hybrid of a confused 'copperhead', he soon transmogrified into a clone of Rifleman Sharpe. Sharpe is good, at least he is fallible, but an American Civil War version became the same in a different uniform.
I await a Bernard Cornwell 'take' on Roger's Rangers.....

ferval wrote:

I'm not a great consumer of historical fiction and I've never read Gregory, Weir etc but I wonder, if all these books lie on a continuum from works of pure imagination to those which are well researched reconstructed narratives*, at what point do they cease to be 'fiction' and become just history? If any account of history beyond a recitation of data must encompass selection, evaluation and interpretation, is the only distinguishing factor between fiction and history the invention of dialogue?

*OED - an account of a series of events, facts, etc., given in order and with the establishing of connections between them; a narration, a story, an account)

following my previous posting, I'd say that Bernard Cornwell's latest (?) novel 'The Fort' falls into this category. It concerns something I know little about; I quote from the author's blog:
"THE FORT is about the Penobscot Expedition of 1779. A small
British garrison had been established in what is now Maine (and was then
part of Massachusetts), and the rebel government in Boston was
determined to expel that garrison. Seven hundred British redcoats were
in an unfinished fort, Fort George, and the harbour beneath the fort was
protected by three sloops-of-war. Against this the State of
Massachusetts sent an army of around 900 men and a fleet of 42 ships,
half of which were warships. In this early scene a handful of rebel
ships feel out the British harbour defences. The Lieutenant John Moore
who watches the fight is the famous Sir John Moore, of Corunna fame"

It could easily be a factual narrative much peppered with dialogue. I'n not sure what to make of it. I get the impression that Cornwell read up on the history, and saw a potential, but never realised it purely as a novel. It is like watching a documentary on TV with bits of dialogue-laced historical re-enactment. However, it filled a gap in my knowledge.

Sometimes Cornwell is a little too prolific Hugh, he doesn't concentrate on one series at a time rather he jumps all over the place and, occasionally, his work seems rushed as a result, imo. Even so, I am a huge fan, especially of the Arthur and Alfred series.

Robert Low's Oathsworn series is another good rollicking viking tale if anyone enjoys that era. He also has a new Kingdom series set in medieval Scotland which I'm looking forward to.

Islanddawn wrote:

Sometimes Cornwell is a little too prolific, Hugh....

I'd agree there; does any other historical novelist skip merrily backwards and forth through the timelines, like a pen-pushing Doctor Who? It could be that he is too clever for his own good, and possibly...it shows.

I do wonder if there are any periods remaining for the next generation of military 'historicalists' to get their teeth into.

Interesting question, and I can't think of another author who jumps so confidently (nor so often) through so many different historical eras. At least, none of the favourites on my bookshelf do anyway, they have all stayed within a loose time frame.

Well, I cut my history teeth on Classics Illustrated - the Danish version - when barely in my teens, discovered Dumas' Musketeers in the family bookcase, and was hooked, the CI then gave me G A Henty - who may now be found in the Project Gutenberg - http://www.gutenberg.org/ with many good yarns.

On the other hand I never got on with the Russians, my fault, probably for being too impatient.

I am a fan of Forester's Hornblower series, of Dudley Pope's Ramage series, and quite a few of Kent/Reeman's books.

Equally I like Cornwell on Sharpe, but never got on with GM Fraser's Flashman, but love his Pte MacAusland books, GMF's autobiography, 'Stationed safely out here', on his time in the XIV Army which gives some fine background material.

Still on the subject of military and Raj history, I have most of John Masters' works here beside me, and still read them when the occasion arises. previously I read some of Wilbur Smith's books on various African problems.

Recently - within the last 20 years - I've begun reading a Swede, Jan Guillou, with some political thrillers - rather left wing - and some historical fiction, which I tend to admire. He may give some gruesome details on violence yet some fine descriptions on good food and wines.

As for Gil, one of my favourites was Forester. I read a compilation of four novels from him or was it two books of 8 novels...

As Islanddawn I read Colleen McCullough: "Morgan's Run". Read also "The October Horse" from her Masters of Rome series, which I found more long winding...

Herman Wouk...

Gore Vidal: "Empire", which I appreciated. But his "Creation" about the old Persian Empire I found a bit I suppose not so historical...

I appreciated very much "The Egyptian" from the Finnish author...? (the Amercan spectacle film (1950?) is based on it.) He wrote also "The Roman" that I read from him...

If I look back on all this I prefer "Morgan's Run" from Colleen McCullough for her interesting writing and her close to the real history narration.

Of course there are also French historical authors that here are less known I suppose...

Kind regards,

Paul.

I wonder if all these books lie on a continuum from works of pure imagination to those which are well researched reconstructed narratives*, at what point do they cease to be 'fiction' and become just history? If any account of history beyond a recitation of data must encompass selection, evaluation and interpretation, is the only distinguishing factor between fiction and history the invention of dialogue?


I am not sure it is exactly a continuum, and certainly not that dialogue is the distinguishing feature. And I don’t think it is ‘just history’ – perhaps ‘purely history’ might be more accurate. I did find the last book I read interesting in this respect, though. The Black Death which I have mentioned before was basically a historical account using verifiable and verified data and historical people (though little known except for their mention in manor records) put into a sort of fictional frame. It had some dialogue but not a lot; nor, however did it have real characterisation or any great look into the inner life of the people (they couldn’t really be described as ‘characters’).


I have been wondering, too, why memoirs set in turbulent times seem less emotionally satisfying and less memorable than fiction in the same setting. Our book club just finished one set in Burma or in refugee camps and we all had the same reaction – that there was something in the style of the writing (and I think it’s common in memoirs) which made the events seem less dreadful than they would (and have) in a novel. It often seems to be mundane, very linear, and lacking spark. Things like The Kite Runner and Half of a Yellow Sun deal with similar events but bring their characters and the history to life far more effectively.


But good historical analysis is usually different from memoirs. The best ones I have read in recent years have been Agincourt by Juliet Barker, The Rose by Jennifer Potter, Heaphy [New Zealand VC winner, artist, early settler] by Iain Sharp, With the Jocks by Peter White and Alfred the Great by Justin Pollard. They all have detailed construction of the events they portray as well as the historical figures talked about, but at the same time they brought their subjects to live in a way lesser books often don’t. With the Jocks is different from the others because it is autobiographical - it is White’s account of him (an English officer) leading a Scottish company towards the end of WWII. But it was still full of detail and he wrote well of the different people in his company, their strengths and weaknesses. They’re all quite different from fiction, though, and not just because they don’t have dialogue (I think there probably was dialogue in some of them, anyway, to some degree.) It’s more because the people, however important they are, are shown from the outside; novels show (or should show – perhaps that’s what Tranter doesn’t do) the inner thoughts of their characters, and intensify events and feelings in a way non-fiction doesn’t do.


And where do books of edited diaries and reports lie? I read a couple a few years ago that I really liked – one of William Malone’s diaries and letters during Gallipoli and one called Soldier Boy of the letters of a young NZ soldier in one of the Boer Wars. Much more powerful than most memoirs where distance seems to lend a sort of lack of passion or vitality.


I hope I have got this in the right format. (I haven't and can't seem to change it. Sorry.) Where has the search bit gone? And how do I copy what I type here? This was done in Word - I'm not sure we have Notepad on our computer. Because I can't seem to copy what I have written here, I don't like to put long bits straight on in case it all disappears.

Re your queries:

Notepad can be found under Start / All programs / Accessories on a Windows PC, Caro.

You can copy text from inside a message box by highlighting it and then using CTRL and C.

More easily, if you re-edit a posted message you can also copy, delete, block copy, block delete etc using the usual commands or toolbar options.

Most importantly in your case, if you are pasting from a Word document you always have the option to "Paste special". Using this you can choose then to "paste without formatting".

Sorry for a lack of response about this, Nordmann. When I went to post the last post the mouse or keyboard took a hissy fit (my computer hates being left for a few days and the mouse often stops working). Worse than usual this time and it only started going again when we shifted the thing it sits in closer to it. But then the internet connection decided to go awol and it has just come back now.

So belatedly, thanks for that. I have put it somewhere I will remember and hopefully will do better in future.

Cheers, Caro.

Removed. Please may I have a real time copy of this total edit out facilty?