Historical fiction versus non-fiction history.

One of my favorite blogs is Christopher Gortner's "Historical Boys". His recent post concerns the continuing debate over the value of historical fiction versus non-fiction history.

One of the bemoaners, Mr Beevor, argues that the trend of fictionalizing actual events in film and, to a lesser degree, books corrupts history and misleads us as a culture. We are losing a sense of our historical past and giving conspiracy theorists the upper hand, as these thrive in a fact-deprived environment.

There is a lot of humor in Christopher's response, but he takes the notion seriously. And so do I. I have read a great deal of non-fiction history both for research and for pleasure. It is hard to find a historian who can write clearly, cleverly and keep his topic moving along to the end. I've read Toynbee and Durant, they are both amazing and thoughtful when read in small dollops. But the reason I read history is because I'm interested in a specific period, person or story (usually from a historical fiction book which has left me wanting more). I have found excellent writers of non-fiction history in the most amazing places. George Grote was a victorian scholar who wrote a multi-volume history of Greece. I envy his clarity of purpose. His ability to juggle events going on simultaneously around the Mediterranean with out confusing the reader is amazing. The reverse is also true for there is W. Miller. His odious history of the Empire of Trebizond has been the only history in English since 1926. Not only is he a bad writer on a craftsmanship level but he makes a fascinating topic, briming with blood and treachery, religious wars, deus ex machina interventions so boring you want to scream. Zoe Oldenberg's History of the Crusades is a tome and a half but it is a wonderful read, and Adrian Goldsworthy's history of the Punic wars is likewise readable (Though I think he is considered a popularizer.)

So, in my rambling I think I see a pattern emerging. To enjoy non-fiction history you have to be interested in the subject first. I've been taught to think of history books as reference. You don't read the whole thing, you use the index to find the information for which you are searching. By paragraphs almost any writing (except for Miller's) is sufficient. But a historical fiction writer not only has to keep reasonably close to the historical record for obvious reasons (hateful spam comes to mind) but the writer also has to produce an engaging story that holds attention until the end, well crafted writing, and do it with style or it's to the $1 bargain bin at Border's and an agent who won't return calls. Wait! Maybe this is the old comparing apples to oranges paradox!