How Many Fantasy Fans Also Read Historical Fiction?

[Davidjb]

I love fantasy but I also read a lot of historical fiction. It seems that the two genres overlap hugely. I would even go so far as to say that it's the same thing, depending on era. I mean, in Saxon, Roman and Egyptian times it's all about swords, gods and superstition. I think our ancestors were real fans of fantasy with some of the wild beliefs they had. For me, that's great.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I've read some Conn Iggulden, Bernard Cornwell and Wilbur Smith.

Although Iggulden is very heavy on the fiction and light on the history - same with Wilbur Smith. Cornwell seems the most historically accurate to me and also the one who goes to the greatest length to add historical realism.

 

[The Judge]

I tried one of the Iggulden books but gave up after a few pages as I couldn't get on with it. I've read all the Cornwell Sharpe books, though none of his works set in earlier centuries save Stonehenge which was peculiar, but I'd agree that he is painstaking when it comes to historical realism. I've also read all the O'Brian Aubrey-Maturin series, as well as other naval stories set at that period, such as the Hornblowers by CS Forester.

In the last couple of years I've read a few "straight" historical fiction books, but the only ones of note were Hodd by Adam Thorpe (a take on the Robin Hood legend -- interesting, but very slow); two books by Tracy Chevalier -- The Girl with the Pearl Earring and The Lady and the Unicorn; The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet by David Mitchell; and Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies by Hilary Mantel (brilliant books).

I can't get on with historical romance novels, not that I've tried any in a good many years, but I'm a sucker for historical murder mysteries -- eg the Shardlake Tudor England novels by CJ Sansom which I can recommend. And just recently I've come across the Steven Saylor books set in Rome at the end of the Republic which I've enjoyed with some reservations (pace and historical info-dumping being a problem at times).

I'm one who insists on a certain level of historical realism, both as to events (though I'll allow a certain latitude for dramatic purposes, eg telescoping the time taken for things to happen, since real life has a tendency to be messy and not structured properly like a novel) and as to the general background eg clothing, housing etc. But what to me is more important is the author ensures the characters aren't just C21st Western liberals walking around in funny costumes, which regrettably seems to be the default in a lot of the books I've picked up and quickly put down again.


I'd take issue with the idea that our remote ancestors were fans of fantasy because they had "wild beliefs" -- they had seriously held ideas as to the place of humans in an overarching cosmology and of the other creatures which occupied their universes. Their beliefs may seem literally fantastical to us, but equally the beliefs of those who adhere to present day monotheistic religions may seem wholly fantastical in another thousand years. What is true is that our ancestors told stories, and those folk tales -- of djinns and kobolds, witches and talking jackals -- certainly have an affinity with fantasy. We're a story-telling species, and we like to invent and embroider!

 

[Vince W]

I've read Sharpe, Horblower, and the Aubrey-Martin books (well most of them). Does Wodehouse count as historical fiction now?

 

[thaddeus6th]

I used to read historical fiction, mostly Bernard Cornwell. Now, as well as fantasy, I tend to read history.

 

[Davidjb]

I've read some Conn Iggulden, Bernard Cornwell and Wilbur Smith.

Although Iggulden is very heavy on the fiction and light on the history - same with Wilbur Smith. Cornwell seems the most historically accurate to me and also the one who goes to the greatest length to add historical realism.

Conn Iggulden's books on Genghis Khan are brilliant. I always felt Druss the Legend was based on probably Genghis or Kubla Khan given some of his descriptions, and nomadic people

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I used to read a lot of Arthurian era history, and some medieval, but less so lately. Although, I'm not a huge fantasy person, either.

 

[Davidjb]

I'd take issue with the idea that our remote ancestors were fans of fantasy because they had "wild beliefs" -- they had seriously held ideas as to the place of humans in an overarching cosmology and of the other creatures which occupied their universes.

OK, I'll agree with that. However, in some historical fiction there's a significant overlap with fantasy in my view. Some books by Wilbur Smith on ancient Egypt are very nearly fantasy. One character is even described as a sorcerer and a bit like Merlin from the Crystal Caves; local folklore grow the tales to make him a legend. The Odyssey is certainly close to fantasy with a cyclops, harpies etc. Was that historical fiction of its time or fantasy? Beowolf battles Grendel (and his mum) -- surely that's fantasy in a historical fiction context.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I do enjoy the overlap between low fantasy (ie, little magic) and historical fiction - that's the sweet spot for me. Enough realism and detail to make the characters and world feel real, without going overboard with superhero/supernatural elements.

I do get a little frustrated with historical fiction as a genre, though, as I keep encountering too much that's written in an omniscient viewpoint, instead of a close third of first person character experience that I find really engaging and has become more of the norm in fantasy.

Btw, the best series IMO is undoubtedly Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. It can seem a little rich, thick, and slow at the start. But every detail is important, and once it really hits its pace in the second book, the Republic of Rome and it's key characters - Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus - all come to extraordinary life. Truly it is the epic of epics.

 

[Davidjb]

Btw, the best series IMO is undoubtedly Colleen McCullough's Masters of Rome series. It can seem a little rich, thick, and slow at the start. But every detail is important, and once it really hits its pace in the second book, the Republic of Rome and it's key characters - Marius, Sulla, Caesar, Pompey, and Crassus - all come to extraordinary life. Truly it is the epic of epics.

I do like tales of Rome. Simon Scarrow tells a very good tale. I'll look out for Master's of Rome. What I find fascinating is how some characters appear in different books and it's interesting to see how their character is used (eg Vespasian, Cicero...). Not sure I've ever seen that in fantasy as it woudl be plagiarism I suppose, unless anyone can think of a character developed by two or more authors.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I remember Iggulden really threw me out of his Rmoe series when he had Brutus and Ceaser at approximately the same age learning Latin together...

I did enjoy the Kahn novels somewhat though.

For my personal favourite I have to say Warlock and Seventh Scroll by Wilbur Smith were excellent.

 

[Davidjb]

I remember Iggulden really threw me out of his Rmoe series when he had Brutus and Ceaser at approximately the same age learning Latin together...

I did enjoy the Kahn novels somewhat though.

For my personal favourite I have to say Warlock and Seventh Scroll by Wilbur Smith were excellent.

I liked that for Warlock there was a modern day novel where someone was looking for his tomb. Was that Seventh Scroll? Warlock had all the makings of a good fantasy read - even the title? OK is was Egypt.

 

[svalbard]

I enjoy both, HF would be my preferred choice. I like authors whose research is good, have a voice for the period and can tell a good story.

David Gemmell did a great job in his series about Parmenion. Good fantasy and an entertaining loom at the history around Alexander.

Dorothy Dunnett, Alfred Duggan, Sharon K. Penman(reading A King's Ransom at the moment), Bernard Cornwell, Steven Pressfield and Helen Hollick are all fine examples of good HF authors whose research is impeccably combined with great storytelling.

I would also recommend McCullough's Master of Rome series.

 

[Davidjb]

I
David Gemmell did a great job in his series about Parmenion. Good fantasy and an entertaining loom at the history around Alexander.

I would also recommend McCullough's Master of Rome series.

David Gemmell is a good author but his Troy series really failed for me. It felt like neither one genre or the other. Mt favourite of his novels was Druss the Legend which was sort of Kubla Khan...ish, in terms of invading nomadic tribes. Terrific read if you haven't

Master of Rome has featured a couple of times, so definitely logged to read

But is some Historical Fiction fantasy? Nearly put visa versa but that doesn't work, I think. I agree Napoleonic era isn't but I've read some really good books on Egypt and Greek themes and it is too close to call in my mind. If fantasy readers are struggling to find a good read some historical fiction (many named above) really hit the spot.

Some great recommendations. So far only 7 people have said that they read both genres -- that's smaller than I expected. I know not a lot of people post, but I thought the response would be higher. Perhaps I'm wrong (wife says it wouldn't be the first time).

 

[SilentRoamer]

I liked that for Warlock there was a modern day novel where someone was looking for his tomb. Was that Seventh Scroll? Warlock had all the makings of a good fantasy read - even the title? OK is was Egypt.

River God is the original story and then Warlock is a direct sequel. Seventh Scroll is the one you are thinking about - a modern setting that references River God and sheds some light on some of the things that happened.

Wow I remembered how much I loved this series!

 

[Davidjb]

River God is the original story and then Warlock is a direct sequel. Seventh Scroll is the one you are thinking about - a modern setting that references River God and sheds some light on some of the things that happened.

Wow I remembered how much I loved this series!

Thanks for the reminder and I agree - these were his best novels. Historical fiction or fantasy though??

 

[SilentRoamer]

But is some Historical Fiction fantasy?

I would argue not - once magic or something else unexplainable happens it firmly falls into Fantasy for me.

That is not to say that the magic cannot SEEM to happen - after all Taita the slave performs "magic" in Warlock and Merlyn performs magic in one of Conrwells series. They are magic to the people of the time though - like ancients worshipping a solar eclipse.

Once wizards are shooting fireballs out of their hands then we are firmly in the land of Fantasy.

 

[SilentRoamer]

Thanks for the reminder and I agree - these were his best novels. Historical fiction or fantasy though??

Definitely historical fiction as above - at least for the first 3 (River God, Warlock, Seventh Scroll). Taita never performs magic which could not be explained with mundane forces.

A friend of mine told me the most recent stuff has Taita as a 200 year old Warlock or something so I am discounting that! The early novels were definitely HF, maybe light on the H but still HF.

Great topic choice!

 

[Bugg]

These days I think I'm a bigger fan of historical fiction than I am of fantasy. I'm not quite sure when that switched around. My first forays into historical fiction were with murder/mystery series like C J Sansom's 'Shardlake' books, Steven Saylor's 'Roma Sub Rosa' series, and the 'John Shakespeare' series by Rory Clements.

It was after those, I guess, that I started to get more and more interested in the genre. I 'discovered' Bernard Cornwell around about then, starting with his Arthurian trilogy, which was essentially fantasy written as historical fiction, then on to his 'Warrior Chronicles' series. I'm going to start on 'Sharpe' soon - they're all sitting on the Kindle, waiting impatiently.

My favourite, without a doubt, is Patrick O'Brian's 'Aubrey/Maturin' series. I read those books and I was there, in that time, on that ship. O'Brian had a way of completely immersing you in the period without you even realising he was doing it, so much so that I didn't want to surface at the end of each book. His books are the definition of 'un-put-downable' to me, for the setting, the period, the action, the atmosphere and, above all, the wonderful characters.

Next would be Colleen McCullough's 'Masters of Rome' series. I'm deep in the fifth book at the moment. They're almost as immersive as O'Brian's. She really had a way of giving it a sense of the epic whilst keeping firmly focused on the characters, and there's a wonderfully wry sense of humour lurking beneath the surface, too.

Others I've read and enjoyed include Hilary Mantel (Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies), Steven Pressfield (Gates of Fire is magnificent), Sharon Penman (The Sunne in Splendour), Karen Maitland (The Owl Killers), and - thanks to Brian - Stephen Lawhead's Byzantium.

The one I can't quite seem to get along with is Conn Iggulden, because he plays a bit fast and free with the history. I still have most of his books on my Kindle, though! Also, I really want to like Christian Cameron, but I've failed miserably so far.

 

[Davidjb]

These days I think I'm a bigger fan of historical fiction than I am of fantasy. I'm not quite sure when that switched around. My first forays into historical fiction were with murder/mystery series like C J Sansom's 'Shardlake' books, Steven Saylor's 'Roma Sub Rosa' series, and the 'John Shakespeare' series by Rory Clements.

I am like you and have started leaning towards historical fiction. Steven Saylor's books are incredible. His detail is phenomenal and you actually feel that you are there. Not a page-turner though but a good read nonetheless.