How Many Fantasy Fans Also Read Historical Fiction?

[Davidjb]

... 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.

Glad you mentioned Merlin. OK Merlyn may be more myth than historical fiction, but was he historical fiction at some stage? Word of mouth stories may have seemed more real in the past.

I wonder if Merlyn/Merlin was an inspiration for Tollien's Gandalf? Tolkien used Norse mythology for the basis of his work and I'm not sure that a Gandalf type character appeared in those roles. I've only ever seen the bugs bunny version of the Nebelung Ring so if anyone can help me out?? (hunt the Wabbit was awesome). Merlin was a Celt of course. (have I committed heresy for Tolkien fans?? Hope not)

 

[svalbard]

Glad you mentioned Merlin. OK Merlyn may be more myth than historical fiction, but was he historical fiction at some stage? Word of mouth stories may have seemed more real in the past.

I wonder if Merlyn/Merlin was an inspiration for Tollien's Gandalf? Tolkien used Norse mythology for the basis of his work and I'm not sure that a Gandalf type character appeared in those roles. I've only ever seen the bugs bunny version of the Nebelung Ring so if anyone can help me out?? (hunt the Wabbit was awesome). Merlin was a Celt of course. (have I committed heresy for Tolkien fans?? Hope not)

There is a strong probability that Merlin(Myrddinn) lived at some stage in the late 6th century in the area of Cumbria/Strathclyde. Of course his origins are that of a bard or a madman living in the wilds. It was only through Geoffrey of Monmouth that he becomes Merlin the Wizard linked to King Arthur.

Was he an influence for Tolkien's Gandal. I would like to think so, but I am uncertain.

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.

Have you tried The Company of Liars by Maitland. It is as good as The Owl Killers. There is a real sense of the otherworld about it.

Byzantium by Lawhead is brilliant. His best work by far.

Gates of Fire is one of those unputdownable books.

You have a good taste in books

 

[Bugg]

Have you tried The Company of Liars by Maitland. It is as good as The Owl Killers. There is a real sense of the otherworld about it.

Byzantium by Lawhead is brilliant. His best work by far.

Gates of Fire is one of those unputdownable books.

You have a good taste in books

Thanks, you too!

I have read The Company of Liars, yes, and enjoyed it very much. I really must read some more of her work, and Pressfield's, too.

 

[MWagner]

I'm more of a historical fiction reader than a fantasy reader. Even when I was a kid, the split was maybe 50/50. I think that's because there simply wasn't all that much fantasy available in the late 70s and early 80s, so if you wanted to read about warriors and battles and thrones you couldn't limit yourself to fantasy. So I read Rosemary Sutcliff and a bunch of other writers of that era that were well represented at the school library. Then I kept it up through adulthood. Some of my favourites are Sutcliff, Mary Renault, Sharon Kay Penman, Harold Lamb, Robert Graves, George MacDonald Fraser, Beryl Bainbridge, Pauline Gedge, Bernard Cornwell, and Patrick O'Brian.

I find the better historical fiction offers much more credible representations of foreign cultures and beliefs than fantasy does. And historical fiction runs the gamut from escapism (Lamb, Fraser) to literary fiction of the highest order (Bainbridge, Gore Vidal, Hilary Mantel), while fantasy is confined almost exclusively to the former.

Still, fantasy has a deep-rooted allure for me, and works like A Song of Ice and Fire excite my imagination in a way no historical fiction can manage. I only wish the middle ground between imaginative escapism represented by fantasy and the credible human behaviour of historical fiction was more actively cultivated by writers.

 

[svalbard]

I'm more of a historical fiction reader than a fantasy reader. Even when I was a kid, the split was maybe 50/50. I think that's because there simply wasn't all that much fantasy available in the late 70s and early 80s, so if you wanted to read about warriors and battles and thrones you couldn't limit yourself to fantasy. So I read Rosemary Sutcliff and a bunch of other writers of that era that were well represented at the school library. Then I kept it up through adulthood. Some of my favourites are Sutcliff, Mary Renault, Sharon Kay Penman, Harold Lamb, Robert Graves, George MacDonald Fraser, Beryl Bainbridge, Pauline Gedge, Bernard Cornwell, and Patrick O'Brian.

I find the better historical fiction offers much more credible representations of foreign cultures and beliefs than fantasy does. And historical fiction runs the gamut from escapism (Lamb, Fraser) to literary fiction of the highest order (Bainbridge, Gore Vidal, Hilary Mantel), while fantasy is confined almost exclusively to the former.

Still, fantasy has a deep-rooted allure for me, and works like A Song of Ice and Fire excite my imagination in a way no historical fiction can manage. I only wish the middle ground between imaginative escapism represented by fantasy and the credible human behaviour of historical fiction was more actively cultivated by writers.

Julian by Gore Vidal is a much underrated masterpiece.

 

[Davidjb]

I find the better historical fiction offers much more credible representations of foreign cultures and beliefs than fantasy does. And historical fiction runs the gamut from escapism (Lamb, Fraser) to literary fiction of the highest order (Bainbridge, Gore Vidal, Hilary Mantel), while fantasy is confined almost exclusively to the former.

I think you summed this up nicely about cultures but when a fantasy writer really makes you believe in that world isn't that incredibly powerful. I agree that novels on Rome etc get the culture spot on sometimes and our knowledge of the Romans must surely help. But for a fantasy author to achieve that with no background to fall back on is incredible. Perhaps Tolkien cheated a little bit by having Norse mythology as his basis?

 

[Davidjb]

I was thinking that only early historical fiction was alike fantasy (Rome, Greek etc), but then realised that witchcraft on the medieval period puts historical fiction firmly back in the fantasy realm. Strange that people of the time didn't see it that way.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Strange that people of the time didn't see it that way.

We're simply more rationalist, but even then there's a leap of faith required. The real tragedy is that modern fantasy far too often avoids historical magick.

 

[Davidjb]

We're simply more rationalist, but even then there's a leap of faith required. The real tragedy is that modern fantasy far too often avoids historical magick.

That's an interesting comment about historical magic. In Last Kingdom the Danes have skalds which are a type of sorcerer. Their belief in omens was interesting but very hard to interpret, was that raven going south or south east? I wonder how much of the omens was to persuade others that a course of action is the right one. In Last Kingdom Uhtred scares the enemy Ubba (I think) by telling him he had foreseen his death. Must have been quite scary at a time when people were incredibly superstitious. When not much is known about the world you don't need a lot of magic.

 

[Suede lady]

Lindsey Davis writes an entertaining "sleuth" series about Roman detective Marcus Didius Falco. They are worth a read.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Lindsey Davis writes an entertaining "sleuth" series about Roman detective Marcus Didius Falco. They are worth a read.

The Silver Pigs is a great book, with a wonderful sense of immersion in everyday Ancient Rome. I'm struggling to get into Shadows in Bronze - the characters and story don't feel settled as yet. However, I also have Saturnalia on my bookshelf, which I'm hoping will give me a better idea of how the series develops.

And welcome to chronicles.

 

[MWagner]

That's an interesting comment about historical magic. In Last Kingdom the Danes have skalds which are a type of sorcerer. Their belief in omens was interesting but very hard to interpret, was that raven going south or south east? I wonder how much of the omens was to persuade others that a course of action is the right one. In Last Kingdom Uhtred scares the enemy Ubba (I think) by telling him he had foreseen his death. Must have been quite scary at a time when people were incredibly superstitious. When not much is known about the world you don't need a lot of magic.

We live in a rational and irreligious era (in the West anyway), and my sense is that fans of fantasy tend to be even more rational and irreligious than most. So it's no surprise that the great omission in the worlds portrayed in fantasy novels is faith, religion, and superstition. Even the rational (for the time) and utilitarian Romans put great store in auguries, and believed their ancestors were watching over and judging them. I'd like to see a fantasy that captured the ritual and obeisance to greater powers woven into pre-modern societies. Even the haughtiest kings and warriors would seek the blessings of gods for their actions, and quake with dread at the notion of displeasing their gods or ancestors.

 

[Davidjb]

Lindsey Davis writes an entertaining "sleuth" series about Roman detective Marcus Didius Falco. They are worth a read.

Excellent, another Roman series to read. Thanks

 

[Davidjb]

We live in a rational and irreligious era (in the West anyway), and my sense is that fans of fantasy tend to be even more rational and irreligious than most. So it's no surprise that the great omission in the worlds portrayed in fantasy novels is faith, religion, and superstition. Even the rational (for the time) and utilitarian Romans put great store in auguries, and believed their ancestors were watching over and judging them. I'd like to see a fantasy that captured the ritual and obeisance to greater powers woven into pre-modern societies. Even the haughtiest kings and warriors would seek the blessings of gods for their actions, and quake with dread at the notion of displeasing their gods or ancestors.

In some Cathedrals (built after 1200s generally) there are often pagan symbols in the crypt even though Christianity had been accepted for several hundred years. I suppose people want to hedge their bets

 

[dodgarrrr]

Most historical fiction books I read are fantasy, I usually have a problem reading any historical fiction myself. Which is when I find classic/historical books adopting more of a descriptive and realistic premise. I don't mean I want to read nonfiction, but there is a cool articulacy in having good physics, world and characters that don't always give such a modern personality or little effect. The specimen of historical fiction is the author's work and less history, what I read in historical fiction has nothing to do with understanding history in my experience.

For example, Game of Thrones is popular but my taste isn't leveled with it. It's a nice modern historical fiction because people haven't written about characters, world or some physics in a good conveying tone. The plot is not the most sophisticated as preceding fantasy books, it's glorified on the fact that the world is made to be constitutional for history unlike others.

But the book makes everything go down some sort of path that has little to do with 'meaning' but exploration which plays a big role. When I review my own reading, I really just see the character, how it feels and the effectiveness of how the book delivers, being open to a book is what I do. I read a book like I feel playing a game, books don't often give you freedom, adventure and the right integrity of the author's writing to get one down.

So my tastes are dependant on immersion, with the addition that no matter what it's about. A good book has the ability to close down on the author's perfection. Redwall is an example of me reading something that seems quirky but really, the reader is the one who tries to put himself into the book. The author really put across the style and edge in the contemporary scenes. That's my taste

 

[Davidjb]

Most historical fiction books I read are fantasy, I usually have a problem reading any historical fiction myself. Which is when I find classic/historical books adopting more of a descriptive and realistic premise. I don't mean I want to read nonfiction, but there is a cool articulacy in having good physics, world and characters that don't always give such a modern personality or little effect. The specimen of historical fiction is the author's work and less history, what I read in historical fiction has nothing to do with understanding history in my experience.

I agree. I find that history books are very difficult to read as they are simply a list of facts. Historical fiction does a great job of bringing the story to life which works really well for me. I disagree that historical fiction doesn't have anything to do with history though. I suppose that depends on the author. I have found that most have really researched their history very well. Bernard Cornwell walks the battle fields and in his addendum usually apologises for putting the 53rd Highlanders on the right flank as an example. I think at that level of accuracy he can be forgiven. I agree though that you have to be skeptical and to check fact from fiction. If nothing else, historical fiction can awaken an interest in a period. I wasn't interested in Napoleonic history until I read Sharp novels.

 

[Vince W]

Not all history books are difficult to read. Take Antony Beevor. He writes history (mostly WWII) but his books are immediately engaging sweep you through the events.

Richard Holmes is another history writer I find eminently readable.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I find books about history tend to fall into one of two camps: populist, and scholarly. The trouble is that it's difficult to determine which is which - some of the scholarly books can be incredibly dry and narrow in their subject range.

Populist books full of images and photographs are my personal fave (one of these centred on Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ignited my interest in ancient and mediaeval history). I also have some books aimed at children which have fantastic illustrations and are rich in detail.

I've found a lot of first hand ancient histories to be wonderfully engaging: Thucydides, Tacitus, and Suetonius are personally favourites for the way they bring the ancient world to life. However, Herodotus can't make a point without digressing into dozens of irrelevant ones he heard down the tavern, and Livy does nothing but repeat "Nobles, good; commons, bad" over hundreds of thousands of words.

In terms of historical fiction - authors play fast and loose to different degrees, for different reasons. All of them need to consider the needs of the reader and sometimes make changes for that reason. And just as all historical sources have bias, so do both historians and historical fiction writers. Colleen McCullough makes the Roman orator, Cicero, into an almost repellent figure - yet Richard Harris makes him a fascinating and engaging in his own right.

But what I'm hungry for are those details of everyday living that makes the characters on the page, and the world they inhabit, seem real - whether it's an historical or fantasy setting.

A rambling 2c.

 

[anno]

Max Hastings books are very good,detailed and in depth but well written...

 

[ChrisCostick]

Just joined this site, so first a hi.

I have just finished Brian McClellan's Powder Mage trilogy and loved them, for a fantasy set I highly recommend them.
I also love reading Historical books and a very into Ben Kane at the moment and had the privilege of interviewing him for a Facebook page, a really nice guy.