Comments on Best Historical Fiction - page 3

Try Rebel Puritan. Outstanding new author. Well researched, and it IS Historical Fiction!

The Shakespeare Stealer trilogy by Gary Blackwood should be on this list. They are by far the best historical fiction I have ever read.

You could add them.

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."

It is historical fiction because it is set in a historical period, even though it iis base on Jane's life.

It was not "set in a historical period" for Jane Austen! Miss Austen was writing about her own time. If you're writing about your own time, how is it historical fiction? It isn't.

Loved 'Pillars of the Earth'

I absolutely love Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series so far(only read up to #4). I can only imagine the countless hours of research it must have taken to write these wonderful stories!

I like this list because I know some of the books! Most lists I don't know any of them so I can't vote on anything!!! And this is for Courtney, to be honest, I have absolutley no idea!! Sry!!

MBP - you want me to remove the stuff that violates the "written at least 50 years" after the book is set rule?

Susanna - I'm really puzzled that I'm down as the creator of this list! I've never started a list that I can remember; just voted on them. Anyway, I'd vote for you to clean up the list, if you don't mind doing it. Thanks!

Well, yours was the first one listed, so I assumed you created it!

Can somebody explain to me how "The Host"is historical fiction?

Removed for not really being historical fiction per the rules:

Huck Finn
Anne of Green Gables
All Quiet on the Western Front
Tom Sawyer
Pride and Prejudice
Jane Eyre
A Farewell to Arms
Angels and Demons
Cannery Row
Suite Francaise
The Great Gatsby

People really don't understand what 'historical fiction' means, do they? George Martin, Tolkien, J.K. Rowling??? My goodness!

Alexandre Dumas wrote historical fiction. Any book with a monster in it is not historical fiction.

Susanna wrote: "Well, some of Dumas is historical fiction - like The Three Musketeers - but a lot of it isn't. The Count of Monte Cristo, for example.

Shannon - I think only the creator of the list can edit it (..."
The Count of Monte Cristo is based on the actual historic life of Pierre Picuad, the main difference being that Picuad was killed and his revenge was even more nasty if you can beleive it. Here is another example, Ali Pasha was a real person who was really betrayed, and one of his wives really was
Vasiliki. Everything written by Dumas is historical fiction.

Coalbanks wrote: "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 fictio..."

Oddessey is obviously not historical fiction since although it describes a historical time there are no historical elements in it, it is all mythological. Since it is accepted that Agamemnon was a real person the Iliad should fit into this list, but barely since no one else in it is, and there is evidence of a Trojan War but no solid proof (as of yet).

Gail wrote: "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 specif..."

I like this definition.

Other definitions have this insistence that the author live in a different era. By that definition if I wrote a fictionalized version of the pull out from Vietnam by the U.S. it would not be historical fiction since I was alive at that time. That completely ignores the fact that I was 3 at the time and knew nothing of what was going on in the world.

James, you are my hero - Any book with a monster in it is not historical fiction.

Best line of the week .anywhere.

Bettie wrote: "James, you are my hero - Any book with a monster in it is not historical fiction.

Best line of the week .anywhere."

;)

Though I would still put Temeraire on my personal historical fiction shelf - right alongside 'fantasy', 'period-piece' and 'dragons'.

Yes I do have a shelf for dragons, haha, also have one for trolls. Life is fun.

Bettie wrote: "Though I would still put Temeraire on my personal historical fiction shelf - right alongside 'fantasy', 'period-piece' and 'dragons'.

Yes I do have a shelf for dragons, haha, also have one for t..."

Haven't read it but if I understand the synopsis, it's the Napoleonic Wars but with dragons in it? Personally I would call that Alternate History.

I think Chime by Franny Billingsley should be up there too.

I understand that this list is open to a little bit of interpretation, but how the hell does a science fiction book about the future (Ender's Shadow) end up on this list in even the most far fetched definition of Historical Fiction? What's next, Dune?

I love Wild Swans, but it is a biography/autobiography, i.e. non-fiction. Surely not appropriate on this list?

I seem to recall that "History" is defined as being anything that happend over 50 yrs prior to the present date. Plus author's do take poetic license in order for the storyline to work so IMHO I don't see what the problem is.

Try, Legacy,Rhe Days of David Crockett Whitt and The Patriot, Hezekiah Whitt for real Historic-Fiction. Names places, events, and dates are kept accurate, but The people tell the story. By Colonel Charles Dahnmon Whitt

Mikki wrote: "I seem to recall that "History" is defined as being anything that happend over 50 yrs prior to the present date. Plus author's do take poetic license in order for the storyline to work so IMHO I do..."

That might be someones definition but it isn't the definition of history. History is anything that happened in the past. I learned about Vietnam in 1986, in History class.

There are WAY too many books on this list that aren't historical fiction. There are even some that seem to have reappeared after they were taken off (at least according to the comments section). I gave up after going through the top 600 and thinking that about 20% definitely needed to be removed and another 20% probably should be.

I have to disagree with this list in one regard: it's not historical fiction when it was written at the time it takes place.

I agree there are too many books on this list - historical 'romance' books are more romance and less historical and some I have glanced at when at book stores or book sections tend to lean more to the erotic and almost pornographic. I don't feel a detailed sexual act needs to be in the storyline and should be left to the readers imagination.

People need to be careful when they want to put out conditions like "it's not historical fiction when it was written at the time it takes place", since that isn't always the case. In "The Count of Monte Cristo" for example, the story takes place during the time that it was written, but it has details about historical events that do not take place at the same time such as Napoleon's return to power and the life of Ali Pasha. Dumas is writing about things that occurred 20+ years before he conceived the idea for his masterpiece.

There have been similar commets made regarding what is historical fiction. While I use Google a lot and realize that some information isn't always correct or the best source, I did find this and thought it would be a good referecne but to each his own:

http://historicalnovelsociety.org/gui...

There are problems with defining historical novels, as with defining any genre. When does ‘contemporary’ end, and ‘historical’ begin? What about novels that are part historical, part contemporary? And how much distortion of history will we allow before a book becomes more fantasy than historical?
There will never be a satisfactory answer to these questions, but these are the arbitrary decisions we’ve made.

To be deemed historical (in our sense), a novel must have been written at least fifty years after the events described, or have been written by someone who was not alive at the time of those events (who therefore approaches them only by research).

We also consider the following styles of novel to be historical fiction for our purposes: alternate histories (e.g. Robert Harris’ Fatherland), pseudo-histories (eg. Umberto Eco’s Island of the Day Before), time-slip novels (e.g. Barbara Erskine’s Lady of Hay), historical fantasies (eg. Bernard Cornwell’s King Arthur trilogy) and multiple-time novels (e.g. Michael Cunningham’s The Hours).

Other definitions:

There are a number of essays which aim to define or discuss historical fiction. These are the ones we have collected so far. Information or text for any others would be most welcome.

Jerome de Groot: Walter Scott Prize for Historical Fiction: The New Time-Travellers
Sarah Johnson: Masters of the Past: Twenty Classic Historical Novels and their Legacy (from Bookmarks Magazine, Jan/Feb 2006 issue)
Allan Massie: The Master of Historical Fiction
Oregon State University Seminar: What is Historical Fiction?

Guns of August is NOT historical fiction, it's very good non-fiction, as is Undaunted Courage and Eat, Pray, Love is not historical fiction.

Good lord, have those crept on?

Tell me where they are and I'll remove them.

Band of Brothers is non-fiction.

Where are they on the list? If I can find them, I can remove them.

Some non-fiction on the list:
Guns of August - 1506
History if American Revolution - 1618
Band of Brothers - 2075
The Generals (and others by W.E.B. Griffin) - 2236
A Distant Mirror - 2323
The Age of Jackson - 2600
American Lion - 2688

Some fiction i would not consider historical :

Catcher in the Rye - 975
She's Come Undone - 1202
Eat, Pray, Love - 1850
A is for Alibi - 1947
Angry Housewives Eat Bon-bons - 2013
The Firm - 2013

I do love the list and will use it to choose my HF reading.

Removed:

The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down (non-fiction)
Makes Me Wanna Holler (non-fiction)
The Magnificent Century (non-fiction)
The Catcher in the Rye (fiction, but not historical fiction)
One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich (fiction, but not historical fiction)
Pride and Prejudice (fiction, but not historical fiction)
Persuasion (fiction, but not historical fiction)
The Devil in the White City (non-fiction)
Northanger Abbey (fiction, but not historical fiction)
Galileo's Daughter (non-fiction)
Rocket Boys (non-fiction)
Jane Eyre (fiction, but not historical fiction)

Did not remove A Passage to India, but doubt this is really "historical fiction." Ditto for The Awakening and Great Expectations.

How about the Thomas Fleming fiction books? The Stapleton series, etc? He's a prominent historian and writes factual historical fiction and strong women characters and history.

You could add them; it's easy to add books to lists. At the top of the list, at the tab next to "all votes."

Again I bring up "The Count of Monte Cristo"...The person that he based the character of Edmond on was actually arrested in Paris when Dumas was 4 years old and living in Haiti. The story is based on an account of events that was not made public until after 1828. Dumas wrote his story based on events that occurred in the past and that he only learned about. By definition he learned the HISTORY (anything that occurred in the past)of the events and then wrote a FICTIONAL account of them. In order for it not to be Historical Fiction he would have to be there when it was happening.

In the quote that Mikki provide the historical society actually admits that the decision that they made are totally arbitrary. It is sad that the book got removed because someone can't use a dictionary.

And is the book set in 1806? No, it is not. The majority of it is set in the very recent past of when it was written.

The story that the book is based on begins in 1807. . The story itself begins in 1815 when Dumas is 12-13...AND STILL LIVING IN HAITI.

The book was written 20+ years after Napoleon's return to power and after Ali Pasha's death. By definition what happened yesterday is history so what happened 20+ years ago is for certain history. The fact is Dumas was not in France when Napoleon returned to power so everything he wrote is his fictional account of what he heard. What he heard was the HISTORY of what happened. I don't know how to make this any simpler. This arbitrary 50 years is a BS number that doesn't matter. As I said earlier if I wrote a fictional book about the U.S. pullout from Vietnam then according to you it would not be historical fiction. Meanwhile I was 4 years old and thousands of miles away. Guess what? I learned about Vietnam in HISTORY CLASS. Guess what else? I could invent a platoon of fictional people and then throw them into the pullout, siting actual history and it would be historical fiction. If you can't understand this then I simply cannot help you.

i guess the definition of historical fiction has changed. stopped voting because so many of the books were not primarily historical fiction...

I really think those who are posting need to go back and look at the definition of historical fiction. From dictionary.com: the genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take place in the past and are characterized chiefly by an imaginative reconstruction of historical events and personages. Harry Potter books and Wicked SHOULD NOT be included in this list. Please people, these are FANTASY!

One more bit of advice, just because it mentions a historical event, does not mean the book is historical fiction. Nicholas Sparks's "A Walk to Remember" is NOT historical fiction merely because it mentions WWII. "Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry" is not historical fiction because it mentions civil rights.

Kasey wrote: "One more bit of advice, just because it mentions a historical event, does not mean the book is historical fiction. Nicholas Sparks's "A Walk to Remember" is NOT historical fiction merely because i..."

Agreed.

Kasey wrote: "I really think those who are posting need to go back and look at the definition of historical fiction. From dictionary.com: the genre of literature, film, etc., comprising narratives that take pl..."

Agreed also.

there is nothing to fear but fear itelf