historical novels s and d

search: I, Claudius and Claudius the God (my two favorite books when I was 12)

destroy: everything else (not that I've read it all, but it's not a genre I particularly like in general)

Can someone define the historical novel? Does it require factual accuracy about the period and characters in question, or can it just mean a novel set in history, such as The Name of the Rose?

I think anything set before recent years - maybe before the author's lifetime, or something. I mean, does it count if it's a WWII novel by an 80 year old?

I quite like Mary Renault's Greek novels, but I think my favourites are Larry McMurtry's old-west novels. As well as the strong virtues you find in his contemporary novels like wit, lovely storytelling and memorable characters, plus the common historical novel virtue of convincing you that he's done his research, they really feel as if they are getting at how people were different - the very different pace of life, for example, the narrower set of options. And they are an utter joy to read.

I'm loathe to include the Postmodern type, like Pynchon's Mason & Dixon, Barth's Sot-Weed Factor or the even less good fit of Steve Erickson's wonderful semi-historic semi-F stories such as Tours of The Black Clock or Arc d'X.

Dorothy Dunnett remains my favorite -- her Lymond and Niccolo books roxor muchly, while her take on Macbeth was a lovely one-off. I confess a fondness for alternate history novels too though I'm not entirely sure about Harry Turtledove's domination of that field, at least in North American English terms.

Thread revival! My current favorite books on the standard of FUN are The Sot-Weed Factor and Neal Stephenson's Baroque trilogy. They may not actually be historical in emphasis, but anything that makes you learn more about a period than you did in high school counts in my book.

oh yeah. what else?

recently, someone was telling me about the josephine b trilogy by sandra gulland - that it's really good.

the only reason i don't have more recommendations is because i feel like i'm saving the historical novel genre for when i'm older, but the real reason is because i know i'd turn into total read-all-day person with these kinds of books. i do not have enough life structure for that; nothing would get done, everything would collapse. (e.g., not historical novel but, i read all 3 parts of this yesterday afternoon. did not finish 'more important' things. worth it.)

I stick by Dunnett of course. This year I enjoyed David Anthony Durham's Pride of Carthage -- not perfect but still a good, varied read.

No Walter Scott, no credibility.

Q is U and K.

Xpost: Was about to suggest Waverley myself. GREAT novel.

i finally read gore vidal's "lincoln" this year, and while i enjoyed it i kept getting distracted by the fact that every single character talked just like gore vidal.

I'm currently reading the late Harry Thompson's 'This Thing of Darkness', and it is magnificent. Read Pompeii earlier in the year, and it was actually pretty good, it evoked everday Roman life very well.