Historical accuracy - recommended authors?

I haven't read much historical fiction since I was much younger, but I would like to read more. My problem is I just know I would be very upset with historical inaccuracy. I know many people just ignore it, and that's fine, but personally I just know I would feel the need to look everything up if I was getting suspicious. So I'm wondering, are there any particular authors that you know you can trust as far as this goes? (Include under "historical inaccuracy" the annoying anachronistically feminist female character phenomenon.) Thanks!

I once heard Sharon Kay Penman speak at a writer's conference & she told in great detail her quests for information about the historical periods she wrote about, when various kings ruled, their personalities, how the people regarded them, also dress & social life & living standards of all classes. I believe that most (& probably all) sucessful historical novelists take great care to insure the accuracy of their work. If their work contains anacronisms, these are usually spotted quickly, & word gets around.
An author who has published many works that are well-received can be counted on to be historically accurate. Those who scimp on accuracy are soon weeded out.

Try Steven Saylor's Roman books. He weaves his mystery series around major historical events in the last generation of the Roman Republic, and he always lists his sources in the afterword. If there's anything glaringly wrong about his invented characters, this Latin B.A. has yet to catch it.

Robert Graves seems to get it right. Try I, Claudius or Wife to Mr. Milton.

I'll echo the mention of Sharon Kay Penman. I've read all but one of her books and have read plenty of others on medieval England and her facts match very well with those in history.

Additionally, I'd be on the lookout for more fiction from Alison Weir, since she writes regular history as well; she has one fiction book out, Innocent Traitor, which I highly recommend and is very accurate.

My personal favorites are those that keep very close to the history and explain when they've had to go away from the facts and/or fill in the facts in an author's note at the end.

George MacDonald Fraser, The Flashman papers. The history is accurate, and he even has footnotes. :-)

I have not read any of her books yet, but I've heard that Margaret George writes very well. Any thoughts on these anyone?

I agree with myshelves--Flashman is always a good choice. :)

I've heard Margaret George writes well as well (although I haven't read any of hers either). However, I haven't heard either way about the historical accuracy of her books.

>2 MarianV: MarianV

I wouldn't be quite so sure about that. After all, Phillippa Gregory has been pretty well received amongst readers, but her works contain glaring inaccuracies. That part just doesn't necessarily get around.

Thanks everyone!

Philippa Gregory is actually the reason I posted this thread - I know she's incredibly popular, but I also have heard about some series inaccuracies. I came very close to reading some of her books before I found this out, and I know that if I had, now I would be kicking myself because those inaccurate details would be haunting me (is that true? well then, is that true? how much of this should I look up and how crazy am I going to go doing it?).

Anyway, keep them coming, because of course I need more things to put on the TBR list.

David Liss started writing his first novel in the middle of his doctoral dissertation on 18th century British literature and culture (which he didn't finish). His historical fiction published so far are the first two Benjamin Weaver books (early 18th century detective stuff), A Conspiracy of Paper (the origins of the stock market) and A Spectacle of Corruption (election practices), and a semi-related book called The Coffee Trader about the commodities market in Amsterdam in the 17th century.

I'll second the Liss recommendation; the books are excellent. I haven't read Penman's books in a few years, but my recollection of them is positive as well.

Definitely give Margaret George a try.

Of Margaret George's books, I would recommend the autobiography of Henry viii or Memoirs of Cleopatra. Recently read Helen of Troy which was good. Tried reading Mary Queen of Scots and the Isles but had a tough time getting into it, so put it down. A friend really enjoyed it, so will try it again one of these days.

(touchstones not working right for author or Mary Queen of Scots)

Is there a particular historical period you're interested in? Or a country, a war, a person?

I'm mostly interested in times/places I don't already know very much about, so that would generally be medieval Europe and Asia pretty much anytime before WWII, but especially before, say, the 19th c. But it doesn't actually matter that much because I am just as happy to find a good novel set in colonial America, the antebellum South, the ancient world, etc etc.

I've enjoyed Philippa Gregroy's books, but they are shot full of historical inaccuracies that drive me--a scholar of the Tudor and Stewart periods--absolutely mad. The Constant Princess and Earthly Joys were the worst on that score.

I'd highly recommend Jude Morgan. The first one I read, Passion, is about the lives of the women loved by the Romantic poets, and he did a fine job of creating interesting characters while maintaining historical accuracy. The King's Touch focuses on Charles II's illegitimate son, the Duke of Monmouth. Right now I'm reading Indiscretion, which is set in the eighteenth century and accurately portrays the social manuevering. I also have Symphony, a novel about Mozart, but haven't started it yet.

How about a mystery novel about history? (Not one set in an historical period.) I mean Josephine Tey's The Daughter of Time, about Richard III.

There may be one or two instances in which the interpretation of a source could be questioned, but the research was solid. (I know because I duplicated it, ending up with a bookcase full of history books. *grin*)

Cariola, can you be more specific about the inaccuracies you've found in Philippa Gregory's novels? The Other Boleyn Girl seems to arouse particular controversy, with the unsympathetic portrayal of Anne Boleyn coming in for the most criticism. To me, that seems a matter of interpretation rather than inaccuracy.

Ellis Peters is good for accuracy.

Long ago, I read the novels about the American Revolution by Kenneth Roberts. I later read the collection of journals, a major source for one of the books, which he edited and published. Some of the more dramatic (obviously fictional!) episodes came straight out of those journals. He gets high marks for accuracy.

#18: Well, I suppose you could consider it interpretation rather than inaccuracy. No one other than Katherine, Arthur, and Henry REALLY knows if her first marriage was consummated or not. But I found the idea that Katherine and the dying Arthur plotted to assert her virginity and marry her off to Henry rather a stretch--one I'd doubt you'd find agreement with among many historians. It's much more likely, if she was not a virgin when she married Henry, that he kept it quiet to keep hold on her dowry. During her trial, there were verbal reports by toadies that indicated that Arthur and Katherine cionsummated their marriage on the wedding night--but I've never seen any mention of the traditional showing of the sheets. I'd have to go back to the book to pinpoint other specific inaccuracies--but I'm more interested in what I'm reading right now.

A major irritation I had with Earthly Joys had to do with the affair between Tradescant and Buckingham. Again, I suppose you could call it an interpretation rather than an inaccuracy, but I don't believe that someone in Buckingham's position (he was the king's favorite and lover) would have placed his standing in jeopardy to have an affair with a commoner, a gardener. And he was certainly a man who could manipulate an underling with methods other than sex.

#10 and 18: Just to add, it really spoils a book for me if the leaps the author takes are so outrageous that they seem to be done for sensationalism or to sell the book rather than to shed light on the period and events.

I greatly enjoyed An Instance of the Finger Post by Iain Pears. It certainly came off as accurate, though that is not my period. I am an historian and tend to avoid things written about my own material.

Thanks, Cariola. I haven't read Earthly Joys or The Constant Princess. I'm inclined to agree with you that it's a stretch to contend that Katherine could trick Henry into thinking she was a virgin when she wasn't. It was probably possible, although the simpler conclusion would be that Henry knew and wasn't concerned about it until years later when he felt the need for a male heir and believed Anne Boleyn could give him one.

I also tend to agree that sensationalism for the sake of sensationalism can be annoying. On the other hand, I found Gregory's take on Anne Boleyn in The Other Boleyn Girl particularly interesting, perhaps as an antidote to the many novels that go too far in the other direction by making Anne out to be an innocent girl who simply wanted to preserve her virtue. As a courtier raised in a family of courtiers, it's very unlikely she was so unsophisticated, even at her young age.

It seems to me that one of the important things a well-written historical novel can do is serve as something analagous to one of Einstein's "thought experiments" - a way to test a theory about how some historical event might have unfolded. So I value authors who are willing to go out on a limb and test a theory that's a little different from the usual one.

>margad

I certainly didn't mind the scheming take on Anne Boleyn. I find that considerably more plausible than the innocent girl nonsense. But I did feel (and it's been a while, so I may have forgotten details to the contrary) that Mary was portrayed as significantly more naive, wholesome, and out of place amongst her courtier family than was plausible (to me).

Not that I felt her rebellion against being used by her family or her feelings of powerlessness were a problem... It just seemed that Gregory used the same trite 'young innocent' trope and applied it to Mary instead of to Anne.

I agree that historical novels often serve as 'thought-experiments' and the good ones certainly bring history alive, but I simply couldn't stand the main characters in either of the Gregory novels I have read. (Other Boleyn Girl, Virgin's Lover)

(And thanks for the civil discussion! I enjoy hearing your take on matters in this and the Gregory thread)

I found Gregory's portrayal of Mary Boleyn in The Other Boleyn Girl to be very odd--by most accounts I've read, Mary was sexually active at the French court, to put it mildly, and in Gregory's novel she's apparently been with no man but her husband when Henry VIII takes her for her mistress. But it's been years since I've read it. On the other hand, I didn't find any jarring inaccuracies in The Boleyn Inheritance, a book I enjoyed thoroughly.

I agree with those who have listed Sharon Penman, Jude Morgan, and Margaret George.

Jean Plaidy's books are fairly accurate, at least in accordance with the popular history of her time.

I'd add Reay Tannahill also, based on the two books I've read by her.

And I'll put in a modest plug in for my own book, The Traitor's Wife: A Novel of the Reign of Edward II, which was carefully researched.

> 3

You may know this, but Saylor has just published a stand-alone historical novel, Roma, a thousand years of Roman history, from its founding.

Of all the Gregory novels I've read, I enjoyed The Boleyn Inheritance the most, largely because the three main characters--Anne of Cleves, Katherine Howard, and Jane Boleyn--have been the subjects of fewer historical novels and are therefore fresher, but also because it had fewer historical inaccuracies and stretches of the facts as we know them.

As to The Other Boleyn Girl, I agree that the old portrayal of Anne as an innocent is downright silly, based on what we know about her. However, I think she was smart enough to stop fooling around once she caught Henry's interest. The story Gregory creates about Mary was engaging--but also highly improbable. The rumors ran rampant about both women at the French court.

Good point about Mary Boleyn. I was so taken by the freshness of Anne's portrayal that I was willing to suspend disbelief about Mary. And I can understand why Gregory was willing to stretch to make Mary as engaging to the typical reader as possible.

I am perhaps straying into a discussion more appropriate to the Writer-Readers group, but this thread has become so interesting, I'm curious what all of you think about where the boundary should be drawn between sticking as strictly as possible to historical accuracy and creating a protagonist sympathetic enough for modern readers to identify with. It can be quite difficult, especially when working with royal protagonists, to gain reader sympathy if the portrayal is accurate enough to be really plausible to a historian of the period.

I'll have to put both The Traitor's Wife and The Boleyn Inheritance on my to-be-read list. The latter is one of Gregory's most recent, so probably benefits from the cumulative research she's done for her other novels.

> You may know this, but Saylor has just
> published a stand-alone historical novel,
> Roma, a thousand years of Roman history,
> from its founding.

I've not read it, but I have to laugh at its scope given its size - or lack thereof. A week of Roman history? Maybe. 1,000 years? Uh... :)

#27 and 30 Just a comment ~ I recently read Roma (touchstone not working) by Steven Saylor and found it uncompelling. For historicals of that style (following a number of individual's and their descendants down through the ages), I am going to stick with Edward Rutherfurd from now on. For Mr. Saylor, I hope he returns to writing about Gordianus, where he shines.

According to Steven Saylor's website, Gordianus is going to be back next May in The Triumph of Caesar.

No one knows what happened with Theseus and the Minotaur. :-) But I've seen the bull-leaper murals at Crete, and I think that if anyone comes close to getting it right, it is Mary Renault in The King Must Die. She has an afterword mentioning some of the archaeological evidence.

-->29 margad:

I can only speak for myself, but, generally, the more I know about a historical period, the less willing I am to tolerate historical inaccuracies. You raise a good point about royal protagonists and other fictionalized persons in novels. I was much more willing to suspend my disbelief, for example, with the wholly fictional character of Hannah in Philippa Gregory's The Queen's Fool than was the case with Elizabeth in The Virgin Lover or Buckingham in Earthly Joys. And if I know even less about a period, I'm likely willing to accept even more stretches of the imagination.

I do think it's possible for a writer to get inside 'real' persons AND create appealing characters. They don't have to be flat or unauthentic just because we know a lot of facts about them. But I also think the writer has an obligation to do his or her research. Reading contemporary accounts, letters, etc., can give one a vivid impression of what the person may have been like, and readers are (I believe) generally willing to accept some exaggeration and innovation, as long as it stays true to the essence of what we know. I think most people who read historical fiction like to get transported to another time and place, and I don't think they expect an Elizabethan character, for example, to exhibit a twenty-first century personality or outlook. Readers try to put themselves into a character's sociocultural milieu and understand that often they simply cannot act as we might today.

Whenever I think about going too far to appeal to modern readers--or viewers, in the case of film, stage, and TV adaptations--the unpleasant memory of Demi Moore as Hester Prynne comes to mind. Sheer sacrilege!

I know what you mean, Cariola, about knowing more making you tolerate less in the way of inaccuracy. It's hard to get into the "fictional dream" if you keep stubbing your toes against something you know couldn't have happened.

I think what was bothering nperrin who started this thread, at least in part, is the nagging feeling that one was being led down the garden path by an inaccurate representation of a period one didn't know much about, and being led to believe things that simply weren't true. We read historical fiction, I think, specifically because it can be such an exciting introduction to a historical period we don't know much about. It seems to take us inside the minds and hearts of people long-dead with a completeness that history books, with their obligation to stick to what is documented, can never do. So, in a sense, we enjoy historical fiction because of its inaccuracy.

Of course, historical fiction can fill in the blanks between documented facts while sticking close to what is known, or it can show things happening that conflict with documented facts. I suppose what we mean by "accurate" historical fiction is the former.

I have to go -- more reflections later.

I find it difficult sometimes to read novels in a period I'm very familiar with because even minor inaccuracies jump out at me. On the other hand, I read Nefertiti by Michelle Moran the other day, and I found it highly enjoyable, not only because it was a good read in itself but because it was set in a period of which I knew nothing. Therefore, I could just relax and enjoy it.

Personally, I think that I. J. Parker's novels (Black Arrow, Rashomon Gate, The Hell Screen) set in Heian-era Japan are pretty culturally accurate, if you're interested in that period. They don't go into specific historical personages or events much, but the world she creates is authentic.

Last spring I started The Agony and the Ecstasy, by Irving Stone. Unfortunately, other commitments demanded my time and I haven't returned to it yet. The part that I read, though, was very historically accurate. I studied Renaissance art at university, and Stone wove information and quotations from source documents into his story seamlessly.

Historical inaccuracy really grates on me too.

I have Irving Stone's novel on Mary Todd Lincoln, Love Is Eternal. Looking forward to starting it.

Little known anymore, but ranking with the best historical novels ever written, are the short, spare novels by Bryher, written in the fifties and sixties. Also magnificent is Kristin Lavransdatter by Sigrid Undset, most accessible in the new Nunnally translation. I also recommend The Ivory Mischief by Arthur Meeker. You can trust the historical accuracy on any of these.

Novelists I admire who have also done historical fiction:
Gore Vidal, six fine fictions spanning 200+ years of US politics, starting with Burr;
John Barth, The Sot-Weed Factor, colonial Maryland;
John Fowles, The French Lieutenant's Woman, Victorian Britain, and A Maggot, 18th century;
George Garrett, Death of a Fox, and The Succession, Elizabethan era;
Ford Madox Ford, The Fifth Queen, Katharine Howard and Henry VIII

Another great Irving Stone book is the Van Gogh bio-epic: Lust for Life. Wonderfully detailed and alive.

(touchstone to different book)

Edited to add tip:
Tip on reading Stone's books: pick up cheap art books on the subjects so you can refer to each work described. It really enhances the experience of reading his books. In my case, didn't buy a cheap Michelangelo book, but instead, a hugely expensive coffee table book!

#42: Tip on reading Stone's books: pick up cheap art books on the subjects so you can refer to each work described. It really enhances the experience of reading his books. In my case, didn't buy a cheap Michelangelo book, but instead, a hugely expensive coffee table book!

-------------

Yes! This goes for reading any book with an art theme. Really, a necessity, I think. I also did this with The Girl with the Pearl Earring, and recently with The Passion of Artemisia.

By the way, has anyone read Susan Vreeland's The Passion of Artemisia? What did you think? I read it last week and was expecting it to be horrible, but it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be. (And if anyone is wondering why I would read a book that I expect to dislike, it's because I bought it years ago thinking it would be good. I then read the same author's The Girl in Hyacinth Blue which was extremely disappointing. So I wasn't in any hurry to read anything else by the author. But I wanted to work on my TBR pile instead of always reading library books. So there you go.)

Edited to activate touchstones.

#43 I skipped The Passion of Artemesia. Although I liked the structure of Girl in Hyacinth Blue, as well as the idea of a painting itself as the link between the stories, I thought it was uneven--some good, so not so good. I just read Vreeland's Luncheon of the Boating Party, which was a HUGE disappointment.

#43 and 44 I read The Passion of Artemesia a couple of years ago and then went out and got a book of her art so I could see what her painting was like. :) Actually, it's the first and so far only Vreeland novel I've read & I really liked it a lot!

I didnt see my book suggestion right off...but sorry if this is a repeat:

AZTEC - Gary Jennings
* there are four other books to this series that are just GREAT!
Aztec Rage, Aztec Automn, Aztec Blood, and Aztec...arge I forget the last one....see my library page to get the names of them all!

They were just great. The first book starts with Mixtli as a small boy and moves throughout his life (the series) and finally ends with his death and the story continues on to his son....awsome books

I'm reading Heyday by Kurt Andersen and I've been impressed by both the quality of writing & the historical accuracy he depicts of 1848 America

For hsitorical accuracy you can't go past ((Elizabeth Chadwick)). I know her and her stories of researching are amazing.
She writes medieval.
Anne.
http://www.annewhitfield.com

Just noticed that no one has mentioned Cecelia Holland yet. I know that some of her historical novels contain elements of fantasy (The Soul Thief, for instance, which I read and enjoyed), but others are purely historical, though not necessarily about actual historical figures but more the story of fictional people in a well-researched historical setting. (I read a review of Great Maria that said her writing is as spare as Hemingway's ~ daunting thought! From what I've read, I don't think it's quite so terse, though it definitely isn't as wordy and/or flowery as many historical novels.)

Ann Rinaldi's books are excellent and she's written several dozen. So far the only one I haven't really thought was completely accurate was Mutiny's Daughter, but some of the other ones I've read-The Staircase, The Secret of Sarah Revere, Cast Two Shadows, A Break With Charity, Taking Freedom, Girl in Blue-are realllllllly good.

You're right, Storeetllr, Cecelia Holland is great. Her psychological realism is amazing. The average historical novelist almost always portrays characters in a way that makes them a little more modern than they really ought to be. Holland doesn't, which may be why her novels have never been wildly popular - but they are greatly prized by those who do appreciate them.

I have mixed feelings about Cecelia Holland. I liked Lords of Vaumartin but then did not at all get on with City of God despite being very interested in the Italian Renaissance.

Destiny's Child- Gaius Julius Caesar by D.J.Anley It charts the early life of Caesar which is rarely told. you will question some of the bizzare parts but they really did happen!! allowing just a small % for character fiction as, in many cases, their personality was rarely, if ever recorded. But if you like the Roman era, you should appreciate this. Available at Amazon, etc.

You might try any of Bernard Cornwell series of books. He is most famous for his Sharps Rifles, Sharps Gold ect. (I think there are over a dozen books in this series). He also has a King Arthur Series, a Grail series a Saxon series and so on.
What I like about him is he is very accessible writer and his books are very accurate historically, and he makes clear where he has taken literary licence for the sake of the story.

Kenilworth, by Sir Walter Scott (read 2 May 1969) When I read it I said: "Slow beginning, then hit its pace...but a precipitous and disappointing ending. It deals with the Earl of Leicester's marriage to Amy Robsart, but rearranges events of history to suit the story. The story is laid in 1574 and 1575; but Amy actaully died in 1560! Will
Shakespeare is freely quoted, and appears in the story, but he wasn't even born when Amy died! I was impressed while reading this book, but now feel cheated." This has remained in my mind as the worst case of historical inaccuracy I know of, but I suspect there is considerable such in Scott. Am I wrong? Or doesn't anyboy read him any more?

We were forced to read Ivanhoe in 9th gradewith daily quizzes to make sure we read the asigned pages. That will ruin any book. I was reluctant to see the movie after that experience, but the movie was good. Don't know about the historical accuracies, tho. Later, on my own, I read the Talisman by Sir Walter Scottbecause a boy I was dating said it was good. It was good, & as I remember, Scott portrayed the Saracens very sympathetically & the Saracen leader, Salah-ad-Din (whom Scott calls "Saladin" throughout the book) is more heroic than the crusaders who are all larger than life. I don't know how accurate Scott was. It was the story of the 3rd. crusade when Jerusalem was retaken by the Muslims. It was a good adventure story with plenty of action.

Ivanhoe didn't feel accurate, but I don't think it was meant to be entirely. If you go into the story knowing that, it's okay. If you're in the mood for up-to-the-year accuracy, you may not want to read Scott.

#53 - I know what you mean about the more bizarre historical episodes and customs being, quite often, the biggest credibility challenge for readers of historical fiction. I finally revised a scene out of a manuscript altogether, because the readers in my critique groups simply found it too big a credibility hurdle to get over. I reworked that section so it was consistent with the period but glided over the part readers refused to believe. The scene wasn't central to the novel's theme, and I felt that leaving it in as written would draw too much attention to it and detract from the novel's thematic unity. If the scene had been thematically important, I would have added a lot of supporting details earlier in the story so readers would gradually get used to the idea of a custom that seems very strange to us today.

I would recommend Patrick O'Brian's Aubrey-Maturin series for rich detail of English life (both ashore and in the British Navy) during the Napoleonic era. In addition to creating convincing dialogue, his narration sounds contemporary with the period.

I recommend both of the Dorothy Dunnett series, namely the House of Niccolo series and the Lymond Chronicles series. The first is set in the 15th century European merchant world. There are eight novels in the Niccolo series, each as good as the one before, yet each demands about fifty pages before one becomes re-immersed in the story. The Lymond series is comprised of six novels and, although written before the Niccolo series, actually deals with a later era, 16th century Europe. All of her novels are long (600 pages), filled with characters historic and fictional. All include an extensive character list. Elspeth Morrison has written an invaluable The Dorothy Dunnett Companion that helps with the zillions of historical references. Only the Patrick O'Brian series holds a candle to Dunnett IMHO!

I'm very fond of the mystery series by Sharan Newman, who is an authentic medievalist -- I got to sit next to her at a banquet full of Cistercians once! The first one is probably the least true to the spirit of the age, but I like it anyway. I especially love the one with Aelred of Rievaulx, which draws a lot on Brian McGuire's (historical) work on Cistercian friendship. Abelard, Heloise, John of Salisbury, Bernard of Clairvaux, all make appearances now and again in her books, and the social and intellectual history is all terrific.

Another good and accurate author of medieval mysteries is Caroline Roe -- the series set in the Call (Jewish quarter) of Girona in the years after the Black Death.

For those of you who have ready Plaidy and Penman....is Plaidy as entertaining and as accurate as Penman? I saw some of the Plaid novels today at Books A Million while I was looking to see if there were Penman novels I hadn't read. Sadly I have too many unread books on the shelf at home to take a chance on one that may not be worth it.

I can vouch for Penman for any of you who haven't read her novels. After the first Penman novel I devoured, I researched as much as I could to see how accurate she was and was very pleasantly surprised....right down to mentions of how fidgety and hyper Henry was. She's left me with an undying desire to visit Wales, though!!

I have read about 25 Plaidy books and for the most part, she seems to be pretty accurate (or at least as accurate as the history was at the time she wrote the book). I wouldn't say her books are as entertaining as Penman though and I found some of Plaidy's books to be rather dry.

They are good though to get a basic historical storyline of a certain period and who the players are. Penman's The Sunne in Splendour was one of the first Richard III books I read and I was really lost. I wish I had read Plaidy's first (which was a lot shorter) because I'm sure I would have understood and appreciated more of Penman's attention to detail.

I have to agree that I think Penman's resarch is spot on. The Sunne in Splendour is my favorite of hers, and turned me into a Richard III fan, though I have read from critics of her book that her version of Richard III was so saintly it wasn't to be believed. But, despite that, her books are considered to be the gold standard in accuracy for historical novels. Yes, she probably overdid it with Richard, yet it probably only in succeeded in making me love the book even more!

I've found that after reading her books, starting with Here Be Dragons and the next two in the trilogy, I feel like I know that period well, whereas before I read them, I knew nothing, except for seeing the movie Robin Hood! LOL! I'm now reading When Christ and His Saints Slept and even though I'm only about a third into it, I have no doubt, I'll feel like an expert on Stephen and Maude's fight for the throne, leading up to the reign of Henry II. I'm eager to read the sequel to this Time and Chance that covers Eleanor or Aquitaine.

#64 - I found Time and Chance a little disappointing after the wonderful When Christ and his Saints slept. Still looking forward to the third one, Devil's Brood, though (the wrong book touchstones here).

Sunne in Splendour is magnificently detailed and a wonderful read as well, though her view of Richard III is an over-romantic one I cannot share. Her Welsh trilogy is equally great. Somehow her murder mysteries never sparked off so much, though; they are reasonable reads, but lacking the sparkle and grandeur of her straight historical novels.

John

I am currently reading Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey's 'A short History of the World' and think that most fans of historical literature will enjoy his work. It is easy to read without being overtly subjective.

Great research
The Killer Angels
Rise to Rebellion - American Revolution
Gary Jennings if sex and violence does not bother you. Main characters are total fiction but the history surrounding them remains intact. The Journeyer follows Marco Polo and makes up personal details. Historical Fiction is fiction so, you have to weed out things the authors use to advance the plot.

I highly recommend "Marie Antoinette - The Portrait of an Average Woman" by Stefan Zweig.

I just finished rereading Anya Seton's The Winthrop Woman thanks to someone in another thread who helped me figure out which of Seton's novels I was trying to remember. What a fine novel! I had remembered it as a somewhat atypical historical romance, but in fact it's an exhaustively researched and very well-written biographical novel about Elizabeth Fones, a niece of John Winthrop, a severe Puritan who was a founder and governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. Seton writes very well about the loves and lustful yearnings of respectable (more or less) women, which is what I responded to as a teenager, but the novel is really about the distortions that repressive religious attitudes introduce into relationships.

#21 - As far as I'm concerned a novelist can do whatever he/she wants with whether Katherine's marriage to Arthur was consummated, though the whole plot between them to make sure that she married Henry was pretty far-fetched, but what annoyed me the most was the idea that she stayed in love with Arthur for the rest of her life and didn't really think that much of Henry. I think even her worst enemies at the time would not have denied that she loved Henry deeply, probably even before they were married.

Then there was the idea of her making a little Moorish-style love nest for Arthur in Wales, which was pretty laughable. I'm sure that some Moorish customs and attitudes percolated into the Spanish court, but not to that extent.

I think I liked The Boleyn Inheritance best too of the ones I've read. I enjoyed The Last Boleyn Girl and there weren't any errors that set me off, and I'm moderately knowledgeable about the period, though no scholar, to be sure. There may have been some that didn't get my blood pressure up, but if so I don't remember them.

I agree with earlier posts, Sharon Kay Penman and Dorothy Dunnett are two of my favorite authors. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Colleen McCullough here. Her historical accuracy in her Ancient Rome series has to be among the best. Every book includes an extensive glossary in the back that even has drawings of how the togas were wrapped. She is an author who seems to be meticulous about her facts.

#71 - of course, how could I forget! I love all of her McCullough's Man in Rome books - one of my favorite series! And I felt like an expert on the period covered after finishing the books. I'd love to go to Italy one day and follow in Caesar's footsteps!

I've just finished reading Maria McCann's As Meat Loves Salt and highly recommend it for both historical accuracy and all-around good reading. It's set in seventeenth century England during the Civil War between Cromwell's army and the royalists. It's not for readers who want their history prettied up, because it's quite frank about the brutality of the period. But it's one of those rare novels that is extremely well written from a literary perspective and also has a plot that never lets the suspense drop. I was rooting for the protagonist all the way, even though he did a lot of bad things, because she portrayed him as capable of remorse, love and personal growth. This is her first novel. I can't wait for her to write the next!

Message #59

I'm glad you mentioned the Patrick OBrian books. The amount of research involved in describing the politics, geography, natural science and the Royal Navy at that time is astounding. I think it is one of the best series of books I've read in any genre.

Sharan Newman's Catherine LeVendeur series seems to be historically accurate - Newman is a medievalist turned novelist and has presented at medieval history conferences.

Alison Weir, known for her Tudor-era biographies including The Six Wives of Henry VIII, has published two The Innocent Traitor: A Novel about Lady Jane Grey and The Lady Elizabeth. I haven't read the latter, but the former was well written and seemed pretty accurate.

Thank goodness somebody finally mentioned the Masters of Rome series. Those are really good and have exhaustive notes, indexes, and glosseries included. These books were enough to make me do a little more research and learn more about the early Roman Republic. Any novel that moves a reader to do more research has accomplished its task. I have As Meat Loves Salt on my TBR list. Glad to hear that somebody liked it and recommends it. Proves I didn't waste my money.

A long time ago I read Tenants of Time and Year of the French by Thomas Flanagan. Tenants of Time was one of the best books I ever read. I came to love the characters. I had never heard of Charles Parnell and after reading that book I wanted to know more about him and his life. Both books had a list of sources and they looked like a fairly comprehensive list to me. Has anybody else read them and what do they think about the accuracy of these books?

ON-the-other-hand, I just finished slogging through Europe Central by William Vollmann. I wanted to like this book because it was touted as a fictionalization of some famous artists working in totalitarian states. Shostakovich and Kolliwitz were the main two in the novel. I hated this book. Didn't understand it and found it pointless, but my goodness the source notes for this book are at least a hundred pages long. The book is incredibly boring and hard to read but judging by the length and breadth of the source notes (even has direct quotes from letters, diaries, etc.) it is historically accurate. In short - bad book - good research.

In college, a long time ago, I did an extensive paper on the historical bases of Kenneth Roberts's novels of Benedict Arnold: Arundel and Rabble in Arms. I found them to be very accurate (and a wonderful read).

Sorry - I can't seem to get the Touchstones to work right. I tried!

Ken Follett's Pillars of the Earth is my absolute favorite work of historical fiction. Of course, World Without End recently came out as the sequel but the original will always hold a special place for me. I studied art history as an undergrad and really enjoyed his detail on medieval times and cathedrals.

Margaret George is excellent, I agree with the others on that.

I have my degree in Classical Studies (the history of Greece and Rome) and so I'm very picky about my historical fiction as well. Inaccuracies make me abandon books.

So, for historical accuracy I LOVE:

Pauline Gedge. Eagle and the Raven deals with the celt's fight against Rome. Amazing. One of my favourite of all time. All of her others are based in ancience Egypt. Also amazing. I honestly can't praise this woman's writing and research enough.

Colleen McCullough. She has many but I like her series based around famous men throughout Rome's history. Excellent attention to detail, very accurate.

>81 nicolemaddock: I understand completely about historical inaccuracies. I was a history major (modern European) and it drives me mad when books or stories play with the truth for dramatic effect or just plain get it wrong. As an ex-teacher I really feel this does a disservice to those who don't know the real story. The reality can oftentimes be stranger and more wildly interesting than anything fiction can dream up.

jcmilley's post about Pillars of the Earth reminds me of another amazing and historically well-researched series about cathedral building in the 13th century: The Heaven Tree trilogy by Edith Pargeter, who is probably better known as Ellis Peters of Brother Cadfael fame. She also wrote A bloody field by Shrewsbury which is a brilliantly told story of the confrontation between Hotspurs and Kings Henry IV and V in the 15th century.

>83 Storeetllr: I'm excited to try her out!

The Heaven Tree is one of my favorite novels of all time.

Agreeing with all who have recommended Margaret George. My favourite of hers is Mary, Called Magdalene. And I'm with you about Pillars of the Earth and An lnstance of the Fingerpost too.

How about also: Louis de Bernieres; This Thing of Darkness by Harry Thompson, Joseph O'Connor, especially Star of the Sea, Faber's The Crimson Petal and the White, Umbertos Eco and Charles Palliser just for starters?

I second the recommendation for Elizabeth Chadwick. She takes a lot of care to be as accurate as possible given the resources available.

While I enjoy Sharon Kay Penman, I think she romanticizes characters. The most extreme example of this is in Falls the Shadow. I think the real Simon de Montforte was not such a likeable man.

I would recommend Zoe Oldenbourg's novels:

The Cornerstone, The World Is not Enough and The Heirs of the Kingdom - they are very accurate in depicting the time, milieu and, like Cecilia Holland, show that emotions and mindsets were very different.

Oldenbourg also wrote at least two "straight" histories that have been translated into English, one called The Crusades and another one called Massacre at Montségur: A History of the Albigensian Crusade

I just joined the group, and would like to second the comments that the more one knows about a period, the harder it is to tolerate the liberties authors take with that period. Even emotional anachronisms can interfere with an aficionado's appreciation of a work. That is why I never got into Philippa Gregory's stuff. And I find Penman's work emotionally anachronistic as well.

No one on this thread has mentioned Winston Graham's great Poldark series, set in late 18th and early 19th century Cornwall. I found those books, as well as much of Norah Lofts' work, to be consistent with the period the author was writing about.

I can also recommend Sheila Bishop's The Durable Fire as an excellent work about Elizabethan England.

Another great book is Beloved Exile by Parke Godwin -- a totally different, and highly accurate (in terms of period and detail, at least) take on Guinevere. Forget the mystical treatment that great authors like Marion Zimmer Bradley have specialized in -- Parke Godwin's Guinevere was a woman I'd love to have known.

And Nicholas Guild's The Assyrian was terrific, as well. The sequel is also great.

So was The Devil in Velvet, an adventure during the time of Charles II. While reading it I felt I really was treading the muddy streets of London during the Merry Monarch's reign. And if you don't mind combining adventure with history, or treading a different historical path than the usual romances, do dig up some of Rafael Sabatini and Samuel Shellabarger's stuff. I highly recommend all the Captain Blood books (start with the first one, Captain Blood), and you can't do better than The Prince of Foxes or Lord Vanity. Try Lawrence Schoonover's books, too -- I especially recommend The Spider King, a fictional biography of King Louis XI.

My final (thus far) recommendations are Valerie Anand's Gildenford, and all of Mary Renault's works on ancient Greece -- particularly The Mask of Apollo, The Praise Singer, and The King Must Die. And last, but certainly not least, the still excellent To Have and to Hold by Mary Johnston, about the first English colonists in Virginia.

And has anybody read those old but still wonderful chestnuts, The Prisoner of Zenda and The Scarlet Pimpernel?

I read The Scarlet Pimpernel when I was about ten and it was a touchstone of mine for many years, in spite of the "Oh Percy, you lovable but inane fop" style. I loved Scaramouche, too. Does anybody here remember a book titled My Lady, My Love? It was about the child bride of Richard II. I read it years ago and enjoyed it, though I can't vouch for its historical accuracy.

Isn't historical fiction sort of an oxymoron? It would seem that no matter how you looked at it the fact that it is fiction means that some parts have to stretched in order to make a story.

Benitastrnad -- I see the word "historical" as more of a descriptor than anything else. Historical fiction is supposed to mean that the world of that time period is portrayed as accurately as the author was able, including all events and major characters. The fiction part is supposed to indicate that some characters, most dialogue, and minor events are authorial creations. Now we all know that some authors stretch that definition out of sight, but that is the general rule of thumb. I do cringe when I come across gross anachronisms in historical fiction -- that usually indicates a lazy author and darned poor scholarship.

You mean, like, in a historical novel set in, say, the late Roman Republic, some woman will stand "ramrod straight?" lolol

Ashe Stil in his Dutch Lootsman series (http://www.crime.nl/auteurs/stil.html ), is very accurate about seventeenth century Amsterdam. Some books are translated in German.

I'm in 1939 Warsaw, Poland in The Zookeeper's Wife.

>91 benitastrnad:

Nothing has to be "stretched" if the fictional parts are woven around the historical record.

I was amused by the "ramrod straight" reference. However, I think that sometimes we get lost in historical accuracy to the point that it has to be a reenactment. There is no doubt about it that details need to be correct, but how detailed do these details need to be?

I have read all of the original Richard Sharpe books and thought the descriptions of some of the details fascinating. They were just part of the story and added to rather than detracted from the story. However, bending or blending some events in order to put your character there in at the time only adds to the story. For instance, Richard Sharpe probably couldn't have been everywhere he was at the exact time that he was in real life or have conceivably participated in all of the things that he did in the books. There is no doubt that Bernard Cornwell has stretched the life of his hero to write the books.

I think that it is the duty of the reader to learn some of the details and it is also the duty of the reader to be discerning and wise about what he is reading.

Most of the books that I have heard criticized for being historically inaccurate were just plain poorly written in the first place and I have to wonder how they got published. Historical accuracy is a by product of quality writing, editing, and publishing. Historical accuracy is also equally dependent on quality reading.

I don't think anyone has yet mentioned Geraldine Brooks' novels in this thread. She was a journalist before she began writing historical fiction, so she knows something about research and getting a story right. I've just finished reading People of the Book, her most recent novel, which is about a haggadah (a Jewish prayer book) created in medieval Spain, and the Jews, Muslims and Christians who protected it from destruction over the years. It's inspired by the Sarajevo Haggadah, which really was protected from destruction in World War II by a Muslim, and again by another Muslim during the recent war in Bosnia. Brooks includes an afterword in which she explains what is and is not known about the real Sarajevo Haggadah. What I especially love this book is that, while the factual historical background is solid, she really brings the people's stories to life, making them both interesting and moving. No stereotypes here! (I've posted a longer review on my historical novels website at www.HistoricalNovels.info).

Brooks also wrote Year of Wonders about a town that made the altruistic decision to close itself off from the outside world when people there got the plague, and March about an idealist (the father from Little Women, although I felt that was incidental) in the Civil War.

All three are very good, though I think she gets better with each book.

I've just returned from the 2009 Key West Literary Seminar, which focused on historical fiction this year. They had an exceptional cast of speakers, and I had a grand time. The big question that almost everyone discussed was where a novelist should draw the line between fact and fiction. Almost everyone had a slightly different take on this, although there was general agreement that fiction is a different animal from nonfiction. I've reported on some of the authors' specific comments in my blog at www.HistoricalNovels.info.

#77 -
I read The Year of the French when it first came out and then while living in Ireland used it as a reference to follow the path of the French from Mayo to Ballinamuck. A very well researched book with a well told story via a great narrator character. Tenants of Time had a greater challenge in its story but still did it reasonably well. Thomas Flanagan actually wrote a third book to create a trilogy The End of the Hunt which I haven't read but will get around to.

Robert A. Mosher

Sandra Gulland ("The Many Lives and Secret Sorrows of Josephine B." "Tales of Passion, Tales of Woe" "The Last Great Dance on Earth") and Sharon Kay Penman ("When Christ and his Saints Slept" "Time and Chance" "Devil's Brood") are probably the most historically accurate novelists I know of...

Re. Margad's earlier post about this year's Key West Literary Seminar, some of the talks by both writers of historical fiction (including Gore Vidal and Andrea Barrett) and historians (including Eric Foner and David Levering Lewis) are available as free podcasts at the Seminar's website: http://www.kwls.org/lit/kwls_blog/podcasts/

It's hard to pick favorites but the talks by Allan Gurganus and Eric Foner were especially good.

I tend to go for a little more recent history- late 19th and early 20th century stuff.

I LOVE Caleb Carr's early works. His more recent stuff, not so much. Like The Alienist and The Angel of Darkness. I like when an author can combine real and fictional characters so well, such as Teddy Roosevelt in these, and turn of the century NYC.

Devil In the White City of course, I adored. My husband hated it, and I'm still scratching my head over that one, since we were both art majors. He thought it bogged down too much in detail, whereas I ate it up.

I recently finished The List of 7 by Mark Frost, which was Arthur Conan Doyle caught up in some supernatural unpleasantness in England. I thought it was spectacular.

And right now, I'm working on Drood by Dan Simmons, which has Charles Dickens and Wilkie Collins.

Many years ago, Norah Lofts wrote a semi accurate and beliveable novel about Anne Boleyn and at the beginning of one chapter, where Anne decides to try to have a baby with someone other than Henry to protect herself, Lofts indicates that this is pure specuation. I liked that approach

I certainly hope Devil in the White City was historically accurate since it's nonfiction. But a lot of people I know have assumed it to be a novel. I'm going to have to read it one of these days. I like it, too, when an author fesses up to what's speculation and what's verified as much as possible.

I would suggest Margaret George. I've read everything she has written and find her very accurate and engaging. Her work can be a bit technical and her stories are lengthy, but I like a good long accurate book :)

Devil in the White City most certainly is not a novel. If you are interested to learn more about the Columbia Exposition, it's a great story. My only wish was that the book included maps and photos of the time.

> 109 bpolsky

My copy of Devil in the White City did include both maps and photos.

Historical accuracy is it? You can't go past Patrick O'Brien, but I see he is already mentioned. I recently started reading Steven Saylor, and he's rather good. Finally, I believe Alan Furst is exceptional, but his novels of espionage and shadow play in the years before and during WWII may be considered a bit too recent for some. Ditto James Elroy's seminal (and superb) LA Quartet LA Confidential, White Jazz, The Black Dahlia and The Big Nowhere.

I agree about Ian Pears. He knows his period. Peter Ackroyd does too, and has a pedant's ear for the language of an era. I'd recommend The Clerkenwell Tales for a clever way to handle 14th century idioms so they're intelligible today, although Ackroyd is so keen to convey the period's idiosyncrasies that the novel is sometimes hard going.

His Chatterton is a lighter read, and fun. So is the House of Dr Dee. Hawksmoor is impenetrable, except to an 18th century scholar. And as for Milton in America... I now fully understand why I loathed Milton at college! Ackroyd appears to hate him, as well.

Rose Macaulay's They Were Defeated is often cited as a prototype of the 'purist' historical novel. Her use of 17th century language is impeccable, and the novel is a very good read.

Alas, Anya Seton's classic Katherine - although impeccable in its historiography - wouldn't satisfy a purist. She has the 14th century Katherine use the term 'molly coddle' in direct speech. Yet that is a 19th century idiom. Seton's pages are also littered elsewhere with linguistic anachronisms.

A rule I've found useful in writing my own historical novels, which try to stay close to the period idioms, is to use a neutral or liminal language for the narrative: one that is neither anachronistic nor especially close to the period. And to drop authentic usage unashamedly into direct speech or dialogue.

Pedantic it may seem, but there always is a reader who delights in picking up an author on apparent points of anachronism. (One chided me for using the term 'go cart' in the 17th century. I took a childish joy in pointing out to him that Ben Jonson used the term. It meant 'a child's walking frame'. Amazingly, he's now one of my avid readers...)

It does seem odd, however, that Philippa Gregory has a PhD in 18th century literature, yet she disowns her own scholarship and keen intelligence when writing her Tudor novels. But, perhaps, if publishers were waving an $8 million advance at us, we'd let scholarship take a back seat too :)

Nigel Robinson aka John Yeoman

Author of 'The Apothecary's Tales': shortlisted in Amazon Breakthrough Novel Award 2009:
http://www.smashwords.com/books/view/2958
Website: yeomaniana.blogspot.com

David Liss was mentioned much further up the list, way before I had read much of him. I have found though now, having read four by him, that he knows his stuff pretty well (except dance.) Most recently he casts his skills back once again to the 18th century with The Devil's Company about the East India Company.

I've been meaning to read Liss but haven't gotten round to it yet. What's his problem with dance?

A couple times he made the mistake of having his characters have a private conversation. The halls are not so big that other dancers wouldn't hear and the dances of the period are not waltzes which give that privacy.

Hi caramellunacy and nperrin:

Your comments on Philippa Gregory remind me of something a high school French teacher told us about a certain author:

"A great writer, but a terrible liar."

His name? Alexandre Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron mask, and (the one we were reading a little of): The Count of Monte Cristo*. And he wrote many others, that are read only by his greatest fans. I suppose his "lies" --inaccuracies where he decided to ignore the truth, or perhaps more
often, just didnʻt know it -- have been worked over by academics enough to give him the reputation of "liar" --in a popular sense of that word, in conventional wisdom.

I havenʻt read any of Philippa Gregory, or even heard of her before being a member of LT, but perhaps she is a parallel case.

* I didnʻt like "Monte Cristo", even though the part we were reading wasnʻt the "revenge" part of it. (I donʻt in general, like revenge yarns.) I read a translation of "Iron Mask" which, over all, I did like, though it was dull in parts, and
did nʻt make me want to read "3 Musketeers" to which it is sort of a sequel.

Hi caramellunacy and nperrin:

Your comments on Philippa Gregory remind me of something a high school French teacher told us about a certain author:

"A great writer, but a terrible liar."

His name? Alexandre Dumas, author of The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron mask, and (the one we were reading a little of): The Count of Monte Cristo*. And he wrote many others, that are read only by his greatest fans. I suppose his "lies" --inaccuracies where he decided to ignore the truth, or perhaps more
often, just didnʻt know it -- have been worked over by academics enough to give him the reputation of "liar" --in a popular sense of that word, in conventional wisdom.

I havenʻt read any of Philippa Gregory, or even heard of her before being a member of LT, but perhaps she is a parallel case.

* I didnʻt like "Monte Cristo", even though the part we were reading wasnʻt the "revenge" part of it. (I donʻt in general, like revenge yarns.) I read a translation of "Iron Mask" which, over all, I did like, though it was dull in parts, and
did nʻt make me want to read "3 Musketeers" to which it is sort of a sequel.

I once heard about Dumas that as he became famous he was able to employ a room of writers where he would walk between desks and tell the writers his plot, and they would pound it out. Then he would put his name to it.

Anyone else ever hear that?

Iʻve heard of Dumas having assistants who were more or less researchers. (as James Michener, author of Hawaii, Poland etc. did also.

I donʻt know if it reached the point of Dumasʻs doing no more than "putting his name on it.

I may be stating the obvious, but Stephen Lawhead? I'm reading his version of the robin hood atory, "Hood", and i'm very impressed with the research and interpretation. Granted I have not finished so I could be missing some huge flaw but I know some people swear by him. Steer clear of Ken Follet though. He's one of my guilty pleasures and a major perpetrator with the "anachronistically feminist female character". Good luck.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned Nigel Tranter, but for anyone interested in reading fiction about Scottish history, he is definitely the one to read.

You might start with The Bruce Trilogy about Robert the Bruce although over a lengthy career he covered much of Scottish history.

His research and knowledge of Scottish history was amazing.

Hi JR

I used to own Tranterʻs Macbeth the King, per hopes still do; I must look for it.

Started it and didnʻt like it too much, but I always wondered if he had a hold on "the real Macbeth." The publisherʻs blurb on the back (it is pb) started with "Forget Shakespeareʻs villain..."

But that Shakespeare got it wrong doesnʻt necessarily mean that a modern fiction writer will get it right -or even have the resources to base a revision on.

I have read his Culloden (non-fiction, and some would say too popularized). I really admired (I canʻt say enjoyed) Culloden, but I donʻt have enough background in the history of that place and era to say how accurate it is. His The Glencoe Massacre is also on my TBR list, as is a return to Macbeth the King.

Having read all of Sharon Kay Penman and Elizabeth Chadwick both take great care with historical accuracy and produce excellent page turners it's hard to put down.

#122

I'd agree with Sharon Kay Penman but surprised at the inclusion of Elizabeth Chadwick.

Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy her books, but I have to suspend belief while I read them. I refuse to believe that women at that time would act as independently, or even have the idea of acting like that as a serious and viable concept. Women weren't raised to be independent and marry entirely for love........so why does Chadwick give each woman in her stories this amount of feminism.

Without movies filling the big screen, what was love 800 years ago? Without psychological family counselors, what were relationships?

We have probably a different understanding of love and romance now, by time and culture, then they had then. What was dating? Marriages at so many levels were alliances of land, money, trade... I have this thought that some one twenty years ago had a series of books on the subject of love at various time periods... Certainly I agree with Lunacat, it would be a very rare woman who could go against the river and marry for love, or lust. Eleanor of Acquataine was larger than life in this regard probably because she was so rare...

The overlt feminist heroine is a bane of much historical fiction, good and bad. The challenge for an author is to reflect then existing reality as far as possible, while still creating interesting and sympathetic female characters.

The recommendation for Martha's Angel is for a book with 1 5 Star Amazon review, from a one time reviewer. Shauna Murphy has just shown up at LT and is going everywhere flogging this book, so someone else believes she is the author. When a novel set in the mid 1840's is recomended to the thread discussing the building of the Cathedrals from the Mid 1200 to 1400's it seems that thinking this is a self promotion post is correct.

By doing a little research, I would say stay away from this one, and that Shauna Murphy is abusing LT

I agree with Mweb (#122) about Sharon Kay Penman ~ a wonderfully accurate and detailed historical fiction writer! I also would recommend Susanne Alleyn, although the only ones of hers I've read so far are the historical mysteries. I haven't yet read A Far Better Rest, a retelling of A Tale of Two Cities, so can't be sure, but her mysteries are I believe historically accurate.

A further thought on my message #125 which illustrates this point. I am currently reading A Place Beyond Courage by Elizabeth Chadwick, about John Marshal. His first wife is such a wet blanket you could drown, his second is a strong, yet sensitive, stunner with every virtue. I think perhaps this shows the challenges of portraying realistic female characters without resorting to extremes.

The Tale of Murasaki seemed very accurate to me. It is based on historical documents and the author is an anthropologist specializing in Japan.

I also enjoyed Memoirs of a Geisha for the quality of rebuilding a lost world.

Arthur Macken wrote a series called The Irish Trilogy. I read one called The Silent People and learned quite a bit about Ireland in the second quarter of the 19th century.

I nearly always find anachronisms in historical fiction, and I never took any history classes in college, so the problem of inaccuracy is probably greater than I realize.

BTW, most Europeans married for the same reasons we do so today. The exceptions were the aristocracy. Age of marriage, family size, living arrangements, etc. were variable, but the biggest differences would have been in number of births and mortality rates. Remarriage for both men and women was probably the rule until some time in the 19th century. The "evil stepmother" may have been more the rule than the exception.

Of course, when a writer sits down to write fiction, they can pretty much create their own world. Having said that, after reading The Tea Rose by Jennifer Donnelly I couldn't help but wonder why on earth she took such liberties with history. I'll just say that the inclusion of Jack the Ripper was ludicrous and (I don't this is a plot spoiler) having Fiona invent both tea bags and ice tea was a bit much on the credibility scale. If you enjoy historical romance with a lot of creative license, you'll probably enjoy this book. I think I'll stay with David Liss.

Thanks, DWWilkin for your message, #127. It saved me checking on the book mentioned in #126. In checking amazon reviews one should check how many reviews a reviewer has done, and if it is only one or two the objectivity of the reviewer may be questionable. On the other hand, it may simply reflect great appreciation of a great book...

A very accurate writer is Ashe Stil, who wrote 14 historical detectives about 17th century Amsterdam and its inhabitants, sleuth is the water sheriff Willem Lootsman. Alas, these books are (still) almost only available in Dutch (three of his titles are translated in German Het schip met geld / Das goldenen Schiff, Het duivelskruid / Das Teufelskraut, Een herberg in de nacht / Die Herberge zur Nacht ). The one I liked most is about an early modern submarine, Het onderwaterschip.
Ashe Stil is a mediaevist.

I find Dan Simmons a good writer of historical fiction. He spins a good yarn of story so that we can't figure out which is fact and which is fiction, but at least he always lists the historical facts at the end. Try Drood for a slice of Charles Dickens' life in victorian London or The Crook Factory for an Ernest Hemmingway adventure in espionage in Cuba at the beginning of WW2. The Terror, a story about the failed effort by the Franklin Expedition to seek the Northern Passage, may have more historical facts but harder to read.

Margaret Fraser's Dame Frevisse medieval mysteries are historically accurate. I had a little trouble when I read my first one because I was unfamiliar with medieval terminology but it got easier.

I agree with you. It strikes me as ridiculous when the level of assertiveness/actions of a heroine are inconsistent with their era...beyond the point of believability. I'm most drawn in by characters who evolve realistically due to changing circumstance.

I would recommend a great new novel by Hazel Holt, My Dear Charlotte. It's a British mystery that takes as its starting point Jane Austen's letters to her sister Cassandra. What this means is that in My Dear Charlotte, the details about things like balls, dinners, fashion, etc. are authentic--because they were written by Jane Austen herself!

I would have to say that any thing written for historical accuracy pretty much depends on what author you are reading...none of us know 100% exactly what happened way back when. It is all in the eye of the reader.....

Phillipa Gregory and Jean Plaidy are two of my favorites and of cours anything written as fiction is pretty much that, fiction...

What it just-not historical fiction? Can be quite interesting and enlighting too. I think of Neil Stephenson - Quicksilver (time of Newton and Leibniz), and also Cryptonomicon (2d WW). Also Bruce Duffy - The World as I found it, about Wittgenstein and Russel. All very well researched, but deliberately with a twist to it.

Pamela Aiden's continuation novels for Pride and Prejudice are all very well done, and historically accurate. She writes the story from Darcy's perspective in three novels: An Assembly Such as This, These Three Remain, and I forget the last one.

My husband loves Neil Stephenson!

The middle one of the Aiden Darcy novel's was Duty and Desire IMHO it was pretty dreadful, especially in comparison to the 1st and 3rd. As the middle bridge book, these often suffer, but here the 1st and 3rd were direct correlations to Pride and Prejudice while the 2nd book was complete fabrication by the author so it did not fit the series at all.

dead thread, sorry