Historical Novels are trash??

[boswellbaxter]

[quote=""Divia""].


Um, how did Dickens write historical fiction, when the time period he was writing about I believed was the Victorian Era? Anyone? help?[/quote]

He wrote two historical novels, A Tale of Two Cities (as MLE mentioned) and Barnaby Rudge (set during the Gordon Riots).

[rebecca]

I had to laugh at EC2 description because it is so apt and deserved! And also Villages 'chinless idiots.'

I also get the feeling that Stagg hasn't read Wolf Hall or its sequel, there are probably too many pages and no pictures. He made no in depth analysis of Mantel's books which is telling.

His idea that all historical fiction novels are the same is much like saying all Italian dishes are the same, because the recipes all originate from Italy. It is too silly.

Has he even read Sharon Kay Penman? Or Elizabeth Chadwick? Helen Hollick? Or Susan Kay? I doubt it.

I think the closest Stagg comes to reading Historical fiction is when he reads Hagar the Horrible.

Bec

[Mythica]

people read historical novels for the same reasons: easier than history or biography

I wonder how the many historical fiction readers who also read history books and biographies fit into his patronizing little stereotypes. Actually, I just realized I don't care.

[bevgray]

I'm sure I wouldn't care for his preferred reading list as it's probably filled with what I call pseudo-intellectuals.

[Margaret]

Frankly, a very small percentage of contemporary novels reach standards I would consider to approach the standard set by Hilary Mantel with Wolf Hall. Because far more contemporary novels are written, reviewers like this one, who tend to read the cream of the crop (or what they consider to be the cream of the crop) perhaps don't notice how many contemporary novels fall short of their standards.

A historical novel can be written in just about any of the genres contemporary novels fit into - mystery, romance, fantasy, glitz, etc. This reviewer is probably doing what many do who don't read a lot of historical novels: consider it a genre in itself alongside mystery, romance, etc., and then judge the whole "genre" by the standards they would use to judge the particular class of novels they like to read - Mantel's novels would be considered literary if they were set in the present day, and just as a relatively small percentage of contemporary novels are literary, a relatively small percentage of historical novels are literary.

[Telynor]

What a condescending prick that snob is! I'll be honest here, I don't much care for most historical fiction, so much of what is getting churned out these days I find rather light and filled with anachronisms. It's pretty damn clear that this person has never read Dunnett, or Chadwick or Penman or McCullogh. There are writers that I will make exceptions for, and wait with barely suppressed excitement for their new releases. When an author remembers that it is the characters that drive the plot and can make a book great, then I wholeheartedly support them. On the other hand, there are quite a few who dress up a dull story with fancy dress, modern attitudes and anachronistic attitudes, or worse, don't even bother to know the period of time that they're working in, and that's trash to me. And that's sad. Ok, sorry to rant on, but this fellow hit a hot button for me.

[Shield-of-Dardania]

Now, about this geezer named Guy. He does look like a smirkin juvenile snot, or maybe should that be snort?

And he doesn't really look like someone who would have the stamina to last through more than a couple of chapters of a good HF book. More like a fresh-out-of-school department store sales assistant or saloon assistant hairdresser better suited to some average run-of-the-mill coffee table mag, and who only got his job cos his father and the store/saloon manager are good mates.

Now, about his article. It reads just like the typical diss job of a mediocre, amateur critique who, for some reason probably best known only to him, did not, or could not, succeed in getting his grey matter fully engaged in the right gear, reviewing something that's clearly way out of his league. He'd better brush up on his critiquing skills as well as his overall competency fast, or he is going to be history fairly soon.

Just my tuppence.

[Justin Swanton]

Judging by his reliance on past classics, as opposed to contemporary works, I'm guessing the fellow used 'classic' as the criterion of a good book, i.e. a book people are still reading 50 years or more later. Most classics are not historical novels since most authors don't write historical fiction (too much hard work in researching and worldbuilding) and so the relatively few classic HF titles leads him to conclude it is not a genre that produces quality literature.

The only way to settle the issue of whether historical fiction produces proportionally fewer good books than other genres is to do a head count and some maths: how many HF books were written in the last 200 years or so and how many of those became recognized classics. Then compare that percentage to the number of non HF novels written over the last two centuries set against the number of classics that came from them. If you want to make sweeping statements in an article then you'd better do your homework first...

[Margaret]

The only way to settle the issue of whether historical fiction produces proportionally fewer good books than other genres is to do a head count and some maths: how many HF books were written in the last 200 years or so and how many of those became recognized classics.

Math is not my strong point, but I do recall a few HF classics, like Alexandre Dumas's The Count of Monte Cristo, Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities, Victor Hugo's The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace.....

[LoveHistory]

I haven't chimed in on this because everyone else has said everything I have to say.