Anyone else tired of Tudor HF?

Lisa · Post by **Lisa** » Thu November 29th, 2012, 9:52 am

[quote=""Antoine Vanner""]"By What Authority?" by R.H. Benson[/quote]

DianeL wrote:"When Knighthood Was In Flower"

Excellent, thanks guys! I hadn't come across either of those before, and since they're both out of copyright they're free on Kindle on Amazon UK. Now I just hope Santa Claus brings me that Kindle I've been hinting about all year...

Brenna · Post by **Brenna** » Thu November 29th, 2012, 1:35 pm

[quote=""Lady of Bennachie""]Excellent, thanks guys! I hadn't come across either of those before, and since they're both out of copyright they're free on Kindle on Amazon UK. Now I just hope Santa Claus brings me that Kindle I've been hinting about all year...[/quote]

I picked both of these up as well! Thanks for the insight and suggestions

Nefret · Post by **Nefret** » Thu November 29th, 2012, 8:52 pm

I had a Tudor phase a few years ago. The novels (I still have several) were entertaining, as I hadn't read much in that era before. Now I've decided that I'm most interested in the ancient world (still!), and 5th to 14th century Europe.

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Fri November 30th, 2012, 7:47 am

As with any historical period that becomes suddenly popular with readers, a lot of mediocre novels set during the Tudor period have been published. I think that's why readers get really tired of a particular historical period - if one were to read only the really outstanding Tudor-era novels (which are also to one's personal taste), I don't think one would get tired of the Tudors. I thought I was pretty tired of them, myself, until Hilary Mantel came along with Wolf Hall and now Bring Up the Bodies. She made them fresh and new again for me. I also really enjoyed Margaret Irwin's trilogy about Elizabeth I (before she became queen), starting with Young Bess (see review).

That said, I particularly enjoy a well-written novel set in a time period that is new to me. I've just posted David Maclaine's reviews of Harry Sidebottom's "Warrior of Rome" series (see series review, which has links to the individual reviews), set during the third-century crisis period of the Roman Empire, which to my knowledge has not been the setting for any other novels. It takes a daring novelist to tackle some of these settings, because publishers generally want "marquee" names that are familiar to readers - Cleopatra, Caesar, Napoleon, Mata Hari - and those familiar historical figures are naturally absent from the unfamiliar settings. Sidebottom has been successful because of his excellent research (he's a classics scholar who also publishes nonfiction) and the you-are-there battle scenes in his novels, which are breathlessly suspenseful. One can't entirely blame publishers for wanting to focus on publishing the novels that will sell best, but it's always nice to see a novelist succeed who writes well about the less trampled settings of history, because we get to read his/her novels!

Helen_Davis · Post by **Helen_Davis** » Sun December 2nd, 2012, 3:40 pm

[quote=""Margaret""]As with any historical period that becomes suddenly popular with readers, a lot of mediocre novels set during the Tudor period have been published. I think that's why readers get really tired of a particular historical period - if one were to read only the really outstanding Tudor-era novels (which are also to one's personal taste), I don't think one would get tired of the Tudors. I thought I was pretty tired of them, myself, until Hilary Mantel came along with Wolf Hall and now Bring Up the Bodies. She made them fresh and new again for me. I also really enjoyed Margaret Irwin's trilogy about Elizabeth I (before she became queen), starting with Young Bess (see review).

That said, I particularly enjoy a well-written novel set in a time period that is new to me. I've just posted David Maclaine's reviews of Harry Sidebottom's "Warrior of Rome" series (see series review, which has links to the individual reviews), set during the third-century crisis period of the Roman Empire, which to my knowledge has not been the setting for any other novels. It takes a daring novelist to tackle some of these settings, because publishers generally want "marquee" names that are familiar to readers - Cleopatra, Caesar, Napoleon, Mata Hari - and those familiar historical figures are naturally absent from the unfamiliar settings. Sidebottom has been successful because of his excellent research (he's a classics scholar who also publishes nonfiction) and the you-are-there battle scenes in his novels, which are breathlessly suspenseful. One can't entirely blame publishers for wanting to focus on publishing the novels that will sell best, but it's always nice to see a novelist succeed who writes well about the less trampled settings of history, because we get to read his/her novels![/quote]
I'm hoping I can start a new trend with my alternate history series-- maybe a women's alternate history genre!

annis · Post by **annis** » Wed December 5th, 2012, 4:25 am

Posted by Margaret

..the third-century crisis period of the Roman Empire, which to my knowledge has not been the setting for any other novels

Nick Brown has done a couple of historical adventures set in the East around the time of the Palmryan rebellion. They are more lightweight than Sidebottom's books, though, more in the traditional macho blood 'n' guts style.

SCW · Post by **SCW** » Wed January 27th, 2016, 10:48 am

The Tudors are still more interesting than the Hanoverians....

Prove otherwise- I dare you

Historical Fiction Online

Anyone else tired of Tudor HF?

Re: Anyone else tired of Tudor HF?