Its a shame that the flashman chronicles are not mentioned.
I suspect that its omitted because of the use of contemporary language and attitudes to colonialism that would shock those of a twitter "pile on" persuasion.
However unlike the vast majority of the novels mentioned, Flashman has a rich bibliography and good footnotes. This means that if you don't believe the story, you can check the first hand sources yourself.
> I suspect that its omitted because of the use of contemporary language and attitudes to colonialism that would shock those of a twitter "pile on" persuasion.
> However unlike the vast majority of the novels mentioned, Flashman has a rich bibliography and good footnotes. This means that if you don't believe the story, you can check the first hand sources yourself.
Without meaning to deny the importance of a rich bibliography and good references, I would point out that you can (and ideally should) check sources yourself even if—especially if—the author hasn't identified them for you.
I think they mean contemporary with the period the novels are set in.
I've read a couple of the Flashman books and while they're quite fun, the stuff happening in them in and the language is decidedly un-PC (and that's a massive understatement). This is by design - Flashman is an amoral, despicable, and cowardly character, and colonialism was all of those things. We're meant to be horrified by the stuff Flash and the people around him do and say so casually.
> I think they mean contemporary with the period the novels are set in.
That makes much more sense, thanks! Accusations of Twitter hysteria can be slung so easily against any side of a divide that I wasn't sure whether the claim was of modern attitudes that would draw ire for undue social activism, or of older attitudes that would draw ire for insensitivity.
I also think the Flashman books fly under the radar, but not for the reasons you suspect. No one so far has tried to cancel Tarantino despite the liberal use of racist slurs by characters in his works. Most people can tell the difference between authors/creators and their characters.
I think "anti-hero as protagonist" just wasn't so popular in the 60s and 70s, when the Flashman series was written. Flashman goes well beyond anti-hero, sometimes into downright villainy. If the Flashman books were written and released today, they might do better.
(stunt negligence resulting in serious injury to Uma Thurman is probably the most serious)
Meanwhile, Flashman is so obviously himself an anti-hero and a parody of the Boys' Own style. Flashman himself does not paint a good picture of the Empire.
What you're saying is the equivalent of trying to cancel Flash because of something George MacDonald Fraser did or said. You haven't disproved what I said: Tarantino hasn't been subject to "cancellation" because some of his characters are bad people, which is what GP was predicting would happen to the Flashman series today. (Also note: Tarantino is still very popular, so the "cancel" mob lost anyway)
Flashman is a terrible human being, but that's part of the fun. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has been on TV for years and their core cast of characters are also terrible people. Unlikable protagonists can be very entertaining if written well.
I find that historical novels by science fiction authors can be very rewarding, especially when they use their world building skills to bring the past to life. The Baroque cycle by Neal Stephenson comes up from time to time on HN, but one of my favourite examples is 'Hild' [0] by Nicola Griffith, which is an excellent interpretation of seventh century Britain, focusing on the young woman who was to become known to us as Hilda of Whitby.
Thanks, I'll give it a go. My favourite historical fiction is Dan Simmons' novel, The Terror [0]. I think it stays pretty close to the known historical record and characters, but adds a fantasy element to glue the story threads together.
My favourite sub-genre here is the historical murder mystery. Here are a few recommendations:
Shardlake series (set in Tudor England). Highly recommended, especially Revelation.
Paul Doherty's works: short and sweet books you can finish in a day or two, and the whodunit plots are quite good too. Especially recommend the Canterbury Tales at Night series, others are Hugh Corbett (set in the reign of Edward I) and Brother Athelstan (reign of Richard II)
And of course the good old faithfuls: Ellis Peters' Cadfael (set during the original Troubles - 12th century England)
Agatha Christie's Death comes as the end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Comes_as_the_End)
“The Egyptian” by Mika Waltari is a bit rare in English but it’s really a stupefyingly good historical novel. There is also a Hollywood film from 1954 but can’t really recommend it. The book is timeless, and describes all sorts things a person can face in a complex society (while retaining a historical context). It’s a bit like Catch-22 but without the humour, but the dark tone results in a cathartic reading experience.
The protagonist is effectively an expert professional and a fallible human rather than a Mary-sue swashbuckler - and as such is very relatable.
That's a good recommendation, which I would second. The other books are also worth reading, but I found less interesting. (I have English translations of The Wanderer, and The Explorer.)
Dorothy Dunnett is the hidden gem of historical novelists. If you mashed up the romanticism of Dumas, the Machiavellianism of Martin, and the polymathic nature of Joyce, you would have something approaching the Lymond Chronicles, a seamlessly interwoven exploration of 16th century Europe.
Dunnett is without peer, Mantel included. I cannot recommend her works enough.
Here is someone else's review that does her justice, unlike mine:
22 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] threadI suspect that its omitted because of the use of contemporary language and attitudes to colonialism that would shock those of a twitter "pile on" persuasion.
However unlike the vast majority of the novels mentioned, Flashman has a rich bibliography and good footnotes. This means that if you don't believe the story, you can check the first hand sources yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashman_(novel) ? (I ask because it's from 1969, which I, perhaps wrongly, don't think of as terribly contemporary.)
> However unlike the vast majority of the novels mentioned, Flashman has a rich bibliography and good footnotes. This means that if you don't believe the story, you can check the first hand sources yourself.
Without meaning to deny the importance of a rich bibliography and good references, I would point out that you can (and ideally should) check sources yourself even if—especially if—the author hasn't identified them for you.
I've read a couple of the Flashman books and while they're quite fun, the stuff happening in them in and the language is decidedly un-PC (and that's a massive understatement). This is by design - Flashman is an amoral, despicable, and cowardly character, and colonialism was all of those things. We're meant to be horrified by the stuff Flash and the people around him do and say so casually.
That makes much more sense, thanks! Accusations of Twitter hysteria can be slung so easily against any side of a divide that I wasn't sure whether the claim was of modern attitudes that would draw ire for undue social activism, or of older attitudes that would draw ire for insensitivity.
I think "anti-hero as protagonist" just wasn't so popular in the 60s and 70s, when the Flashman series was written. Flashman goes well beyond anti-hero, sometimes into downright villainy. If the Flashman books were written and released today, they might do better.
(stunt negligence resulting in serious injury to Uma Thurman is probably the most serious)
Meanwhile, Flashman is so obviously himself an anti-hero and a parody of the Boys' Own style. Flashman himself does not paint a good picture of the Empire.
Flashman is a terrible human being, but that's part of the fun. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia has been on TV for years and their core cast of characters are also terrible people. Unlikable protagonists can be very entertaining if written well.
What does this mean? Flashman is fiction. Versimilitude is not the same as accuracy.
Which is the danger of historical novels, that the characterisation of historical figures are changed to fit the narrative.
Which is why I love the links to the primary sources to see if the author is talking porkies or not.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hild_(novel)
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Terror_(novel)
Shardlake series (set in Tudor England). Highly recommended, especially Revelation.
Paul Doherty's works: short and sweet books you can finish in a day or two, and the whodunit plots are quite good too. Especially recommend the Canterbury Tales at Night series, others are Hugh Corbett (set in the reign of Edward I) and Brother Athelstan (reign of Richard II)
And of course the good old faithfuls: Ellis Peters' Cadfael (set during the original Troubles - 12th century England) Agatha Christie's Death comes as the end (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_Comes_as_the_End)
Happy arm chair crime solving!
The protagonist is effectively an expert professional and a fallible human rather than a Mary-sue swashbuckler - and as such is very relatable.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Egyptian
Dunnett is without peer, Mantel included. I cannot recommend her works enough.
Here is someone else's review that does her justice, unlike mine:
https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/153390106