Novel History: Historians and Novelists Confront America's Past (and Each Other)

This is an absolutely fabulous collection. The organization is simple: each historian/critic presents his/her argument and each author defends his/her novel. It is always charitable, never mean-spirited, but doesn't quibble about addressing the tough issues of historical representation. It is not, however, the confrontation that is memorable, but rather the gifted, mind-blowing, awe-inspiring writing. I read this book with angelic joy radiating from my face. Word choice, grammar, imagery were perfect. It is a masterpiece. I re-read and own this book with pride. Mark Carnes should be rewarded for superb editing and compiliation skills. I cannot recommend this book enough.

In Novel History, editor (and contributor of one essay) Mark C. Carnes has gathered together an interesting collection of essays written by historians examining works of historical fiction with, often, rebuttal essays by the authors of the books. I will admit that I have only read three of the novels selected for this collection but that did not stop me from enjoying this book at all and, in fact, has lead me to purchase a couple of the historical novels discussed. Not all the pieces work effectively. It is a little awkward having Thomas Fleming discuss his work both as a historian and a writer of fiction and Richard White was too harsh in his assesstment of Annie Dillard. For all these quibbles, though, this was a fine and interesting exercise and it does make one look at historical fiction in a different way and appreciate the complexity of the form and the energy and skill in producing it.

This is a companion volume to Mark Carnes' "Past Imperfect", which examined the historical accuracy of some popular movies. In the current book, several well-known historians contribute appreciations of some famous historical novels and many of the authors respond with essays of their own. Eugene Genovese adds a new essay on William Styron's "The Confessions of Nat Turner"; it's his first treatment of the book I've read since Genovese became identified as a sort of neo-conservative. What is new is that he finds deep religious themes in the novel, which is somewhat surprising for Styron, the self-proclaimed atheist. He also deftly analyzes Styron's deconstruction of the romantic revolutionary hero, showing that figure to be more problematic than the Left supposed. Genovese's conclusion: "Confessions" is far more than an artifact of the 60's--it will live on.Joanne B. Freeman provides a perceptive explication of Gore Vidal's "Burr" as a satire. She finds that Vidal is attuned to the contingency of early American politics and the unsureness of whether the American experiment could survive--conditions which Joseph J. Ellis also explores in his Pulitzer Prize-winning "Founding Brothers". We tend to think of the Founders as marble statues who could never have screwed up; Vidal shows us their all-too-human sides (especially T. Jefferson.) Vidal responds with a witty essay defending the accuracy of his historical novels.Other works that come under scrutiny are "The Great Gatsby", Gary Jennings' "Aztec", Wallace Stegner's "Angle of Repose", John Updike's "Memories of the Ford Administration", Russell Banks "Cloudsplitter" (by "Battle Cry of Freedom" author James M. McPherson.) Larry McMurtry's "Lonesome Dove", T. Coraghessan Boyle's "World's End" (with a nifty reply from Boyle), Barbara Kingsolver's "The Poisonwood Bible", Charles Frazier's "Cold Mountain" (by Tom Wicker), Tim O'Brien's "In the Lake of the Woods", and Don DeLillo's "Libra, among many others, are examined. In short, this book is a feast for history buffs and lovers of good fiction. Buy it immediately.