My Favorite Historical Novel (October 1992 | Volume: 43, Issue: 6)

My Favorite Historical Novel

AH article image

Authors:

Historic Era: Era 10: Contemporary United States (1968 to the present)

Historic Theme:

Subject:

October 1992 | Volume 43, Issue 6

American Heritage recently asked a wide range of novelists, journalists, and historians to answer a question: what is your favorite American historical novel, and why? The results made two things clear: that the question was not nearly so simple as it sounded; and that it had been well worth asking. Herewith, a vital anthology that debates the nature of the historical novel and points you toward the best examples our culture has to offer.

Anthony Adverse, because it was the first one I read. After that, it was on to The Good Earth, Jean-Christophe, and historical novels of other lands because, by contrast, to seven-year-old me, the United States was boring. By contrast, I still think so.

Shana Alexander, author, When She Was Good

I don’t know if the John Dos Passos trilogy U.S.A. qualifies as historical fiction, but it certainly felt that way when I first read its volumes, one after the other, in the mid-1930s. I was a privileged teen-age liberal, avid for news of my own country and its recent past, and in Nineteen Nineteen, The 42nd Parallel, and The Big Money I found factory hands and Wobblies and farmers and journalists and other Americans going about their work during the decades just past, and I paid close attention. The books also had those interspersed documentary or newsreel chapters, which (as I recall) filled me in on bygone events and figures like Woodrow Wilson, the Battle of the Marne, Bob La Follette, Joe Hill, the Scopes Trial, Rudolph Valentine, Emma Goldman, Prohibition, Henry Ford, Isadora Duncan, and the like. I read and reread the books (there was some sex in them as well) and took Dos Passos’s America as the truth. It came as a great shock to me when he swung the other way in his politics, late in life; I’m still shocked, come to think of it. I haven’t reread U.S.A. in many years, and I guess I don’t plan to. It meant too much to me once to be subjected to a second guess from our present glum and ironic perspective.

 

Roger Angell, contributing editor, The New Yorker, and author, Once More around the Park: A Baseball Reader

The truth is, I don’t much like historical novels—self-described historical novels; the category of the historical novel. There’s an intrinsic phoniness about such works that I find off-putting—Napoleon standing on the cliffs at Normandy, looking out across the Channel and thinking such and such. Even if the writer is a good writer and gets his dates right and gets Napoleon’s uniform right, his horse right, his love life right, I still find it a phony exercise. Worse still, it’s trying for the wrong thing.