Comments on Best Historical Fiction - page 2

Thanks, that's what I thought.

Susanna wrote: "Good point, Charlotte.

For example, I love Pride and Prejudice, but I didn't vote for it, as it is not a historical novel - Jane Austen was writing about her own time."

There seem to be several books on the list that are like that -- books that are old now, but were modern fiction during the time they were written.

I'm even seeing some memoirs on this list that aren't fiction at all!

The Bible ,Illiad, Oddessey. All written at much later dates than the time when these actions took place, or not - as you wish.
MacBeth. Most of Shakespeare's work was supposedly historical fiction as writing regicide of a contemporary monarch MacBeth, Hamlet etc) would have been unhealthy, no?

The Diary of Anne Frank is definitely NOT historical fiction. It's the actual diary of a young girl hiding from Nazis. It is strictly non-fiction and does not belong on this list whatsoever.

Courtney wrote: "Is it historical fiction if it was contemporary at the time it was written? Some stuff on this list really confused me."

Agreed. Contemporary fiction is not historical fiction. Does Steinbeck belong on this list? He wrote about his own society about events and a time that he had just experienced or was still experiencing. The Icelandic sagas are historical fiction at the point they were written and earlier after evolving through generations of oral story-telling. BUT: IF a WWII-era writer is writing fiction today about that era is he writing historical fiction? His grand-daughter would be if she wrote about the events of the era. If you experienced the times/events when can you ever be far enough removed to deal with them as history? Can you be detached enough in your life-time to deal with the events as history rather than memoir? Or is it a matter of your method that defines your writing as historical?

Ok, this is without a doubt the most ridiculous, pointless thing I've ever read. First off, everyone's definition of historical fiction could be different, but just being based 50 years before it was written should absolutely not be a definition. The reason, in my opinion, that "historical" is used, is that the story evolves something or someone of actual historical significance. In the same respect, "science" fiction includes something of some advanced scientific likeliness, and is not simply based 50+ years in the future. To me, most of these books are simply fiction. They have no real link to the past except for the time period these stories are set to take place. By the -50 year description, what would be any real difference between a "historical fiction" book written today, and a book written 50 or more years ago, based in the than current day, classified simply as "fiction". I must admit I have not read most of these, however, seriously, "To Kill A Mocking Bird"? Fiction, just fiction, nothing more. I don't care when it was supposed to take place, it's fiction! And I have never read it, so I could be completely wrong on this, but it made my head hurt to think that the best historical fiction book of all time could be about a prostitute. I'm just saying, I believe that the #1 qualifier for a historical fiction novel is that the reader should learn something about the past of some significant. And no, I don't believe that "learning" that people were bigots 50+ years ago is significant. Just because a book is written staring a ficticious person during the great depression, about a fictious story, with no real information about anything during the time period other than dates, doesn't make it a historical fiction, IT'S JUST FICTION!

Jan wrote: "The Devil in the White City is NOT historical fiction. Eric Larson writes NON-FICTION!

And some of these others I question whether they are "historical fiction" - they take place at a certain ti..."
I completely agree with exactly what you are saying. You are not taking this too literally. Without your/my way of thinking, 99.99999% of all fiction books would be classified as either historical or science fiction, being based -50 or 50+ years from now. What a horrible classification system that would be.

I wouldn't define Dan Brown as "historical fiction," either.

Unless I were being really catty.

Charlotte wrote: "The Whiskey Rebels (by David Liss) should be on the list. Though I must say the list itself is sketchy. Just because a book takes place in some moment of time past does not make it historical ficti..."

I totally agree!

J wrote: "Ok, this is without a doubt the most ridiculous, pointless thing I've ever read. First off, everyone's definition of historical fiction could be different, but just being based 50 years before it w..."

Thank you for saying it so well.

Myra wrote: "I (and my husband) read, or actually listened to audio recordings, of all the Sharp series, and just loved them. Cornwell is the only author who ever made me "see" a battle."

Michael Shaara can really bring history to life. Not terribly accurate, but puts the reader in the action. NOT his son/s books.

Karen wrote: "who makes these lists anyway?"

The people who choose to vote on them.

One hundred years of solitude kicks ass. Nice list. :)

I'd have included the Mary Russell books by Laurie F. King, though they're about Russell's adventures with Sherlock Holmes. By one criterion offered earlier, that would make them something akin to mythic fiction, not historical fiction. Still - CS Forester's Hornblower series is not about a historical figure but I can't see it as anything but historical fiction. The lines are pretty vague. This is an interesting site - glad someone offered a link to it and I tried the link!

one of the best is Nigel Tranter. is he on the list?

Death at Sunrise

Goodreads Librarians can remove books. However, there are some scary warnings attached to doing so, so it's hard to know when to put your membership on the line, just to take a book off a list where it doesn't really belong. So, though it's a bit frustrating to have good books on the list that don't belong there, I usually save that sort of thing for books that are WAY off base.

I haven't read the whole list yet, but I'm sorely tempted to at least take off Anne Frank, as classifying that particular book as fiction seems especially insulting.

Who on earth voted
for "The Host" by Stephenie Myer? My heavens! How could that possibly be historical fiction? It takes place in the not too distant future and it is science fiction!

Jennifer wrote: "I just ran across this list and found it very interesting. I agree with many of the previous comments about not everything on this list REALLY being historical fiction, but it is a good list of bo..."

Six wives actually, not eight

What about the John Jakes series? The Kent Family Cronicles which I believe were fist released in the mid seventys?

I read a lot of historical fiction, and my recommendation for the best of 2010 is "Deep Creek" by Dana Hand, a terrific novel of race relations set in the Pacific Northwest, at the very end of frontier days. Great characters, well written, ambitious, intelligent, based on a true event. An important book, I think. (Maybe even lasting literature.) I read it because of the rave review in the Washington Post; very glad I did.

I think that most of you folks need to not be so critical about this list and just leave it alone.

add kitchen house kathy grissom

"The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down" is nonfiction and "Wicked" is not even remotely historical.

Jennifer wrote: "I just ran across this list and found it very interesting. I agree with many of the previous comments about not everything on this list REALLY being historical fiction, but it is a good list of bo..."

Jennifer wrote: "I just ran across this list and found it very interesting. I agree with many of the previous comments about not everything on this list REALLY being historical fiction, but it is a good list of bo..."

Henry the VII of england had six wives, and only two of them outlived him.

Courtney wrote: "Is it historical fiction if it was contemporary at the time it was written? Some stuff on this list really confused me."
I couldn't agree more.

Evelyn wrote: "The best. Couldn't stop until I had read the entire series."

I know this thread died about two years ago but I'm newer to goodreads and just had to comment... Henry VIII had six wives, not eight. I suggest Alison Weir (historical non-fiction author) for all matters British. Happy Reading!

Mrs. wrote: ""Night" is NOT historical fiction. It's not even fiction ... it's the true story of Elie Wiesel's experiences during the Holocaust. So historical non-fiction would be a better category for it, evne..."

I so agree. What a great NON-FICTION book. I wish they had a non-fiction section.. why not?

I removed every memoir and nonfiction book I saw - the books by Erik Larson, Diary of Anne Frank, Night by Wiesel, the Tipping Point by Malcolm Gladwell, also some fiction that is definitely not historical, such as "Wicked." I didn't remove anything that was borderline "historical." I didn't remove the Dan Brown, though I agree he is not historical fiction. Someone else can, if they wish to.

Jen wrote: "I don't think people are understanding what historical fiction is. If a book was written in the 1800's and it is based in that time frame, then would you consider it historical fiction? I would no..."

Exactly historical fiction and period fiction are two totally different things... Most of these are period fiction.

Not a bad list none the less just important to note the difference

Just reviewing this list...and maybe this has been previously mentioned...To Kill A Mockingbird does not qualify...set in 1935, published 1960(ish) not = to 50+ years

I'd agree with you, Debbie; but I don't think anyone has tried to "clean" this list.

MBP - you're the list starter, what's your take? You want me to try to clean it?

Susanna wrote: "To my mind - if it was contemporary at the time it was written, it is not historical fiction."

I agree. I also require it to be about real people or events and not just take place in the past.

There's already a "Best Historical Fiction" list with over 6300 voters: http://www.goodreads.com/list/show/15... .

A great deal, too much in fact, of this list, while fiction, IS NOT historical fiction!!

Not gonna even bother voting here - apparently some people have no clue what "historical fiction" is. Frankenstein? The Awakening? No.

People: a book is historical fiction if the author wrote a story set at least 50 years before his own life time.

The timeperiod not only needs to be 50 years before, historical fiction is "a Novel SET AMONG ACTUAL events or a specific period of history". And if it is GOOD historical fiction, the author has done thorough research that you can trust to be accurate and educational. As do Alison Weir and James Michener.

Now having quickly scanned other comments, there is a real and valid complaint about this list. It would be a really fine thing if someone would take the time and effort to divide this list into fiction, historical fiction, and whatever else is here. I am new to Goodreads, don't know how to create lists and do not plan to devote the necessary time to do all the work involved in what's needed.

Gail wrote: "The timeperiod not only needs to be 50 years before, historical fiction is "a Novel SET AMONG ACTUAL events or a specific period of history". And if it is GOOD historical fiction, the author has d..."

Absolutely, IMO

So many books, too little time. Sharon kay Penman's books on the Plantagenets were great; so was Edward Rutherfurds books Sarum, London, The Forest, New York, Russka; other books by great authors I have read are Morgan Llewelyn, Cecelia HOlland, Ian Morson, Sharon Newman, and others too numerous to mention at this time. I have too many books, got out of hand, didn't take the time to note title/author, so I've found a hand held scanner to scan the bar code and then download all my books and CD's, etc., into my PC for my records to not buy that book again and for insurance purposes.

Also, the two books on Ireland by Edward Rutherfurd.

Courtney wrote: "Is it historical fiction if it was contemporary at the time it was written? Some stuff on this list really confused me."

Any book is considered historica 'if written 50 yrs after the time covered; I think this is on the home page of Good Reads.

POSTED AT THE TOP OF EACH PAGE:

The best of historical fiction. Historical fiction are novels that re-create a period or event in history and often use historical figures as some of its characters. To be deemed historical, a novel must have been written at least fifty years after the events described.

HELLO!! VERY inadequate definition of historical novel. Hence the multitude of erroneous books on this list. To repeat myself:
historical fiction is "a Novel SET AMONG ACTUAL events or a specific period of history". And if it is GOOD historical fiction, the author has done thorough research that you can trust to be accurate and educational.

http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org...

What Are the Rules for Historical Fiction?

Sarah Johnson Assistant Professor, Eastern Illinois University


When you first read about this talk in your program, you must have had an idea in mind as to what “historical fiction” was. After all, it should be fairly easy. The obvious definition that comes to mind is that historical fiction is simply “fiction set in the past.”

Mikki wrote: "http://www.historicalnovelsociety.org...

What Are the Rules for Historical Fiction?

Sarah Johnson Assistant Professor, Eastern Illinois University

Mikki--Thanks for sharing this URL. Dr Johnson's comments are quite interesting. While I do not consider many of the books on this list to be "historical fiction," I know that sometimes the boundaries of a genre can seem fuzzy. I definitely do not see the novels of Jane Austen as historical fiction because she was writing about life in her own time. While many of the books here don't fit the definition, I've still enjoyed reviewing the list. There are some great books here for readers who love history.

The 50 year rule I don't really understand and makes it so that A Tale of Two Cities cannot be chosen.. In my mind, the best work of historical fiction ever.

Tiffany wrote: "The 50 year rule I don't really understand and makes it so that A Tale of Two Cities cannot be chosen.. In my mind, the best work of historical fiction ever."

I consider this more of a period piece than historical fiction, mainly because non of the characters were real people or interacted with real people. All of Dickens are period pieces, one of the reasons I have read him.

I am fairly strict in classifying something as HF. I need the events, some main characters to be real and the milieu to be accurate.

Whatever one wants to call it, it is a great book.

Thanks for clarifying. That makes more sense to me. I don't understand book classifications very much. I just read what I like and I love Dickens his books are some of my favorites, but I read Tale almost every year because I find it so inspring. :)

Nice list! I've only read a couple from here but I look forward to reading more!