Well, first of all, I'd like to make clear one thing. I am not nor intent to be a qualified arbiter of literary values. As for good or bad historical novels, I can only give a superficial opinion based on me liking it or not.
What I was speaking about especially in the other entry, but to some extend also here, is NOT AT ALL a differentiation between good and bad historical novel, but an idea of a honest approach to real people in any historical fiction, good or bad. I think writers of historical novels do have certain responsibility when writing historical fiction using real people (and, to some extend, real events). I have already explained what I consider a more or less respectful approach in my answers in this thread: http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/95311.html?thread=1136463#t1136463
In the cases that are apparently realistic (i.e. do not "warn" by their non-realistic form and, on the contrary, give signs of authenticity), but they use the real people as vehicles to express other kind of ideas that have nothing to do with those people and for that reason manipulate with ahistorical hints on, let's say, modern Poland, like Wajda does in his Danton, then I find it still legitimate and acceptable, as the literature has always been using the past like that, but I also see as totally legitimate to point to the ahistoricity and manipulation in the critique and especially if used in class or in a novel's introduction.
As for the writers who do believe that they are offering an interpretation "faithful in spirit" (though, of course, inventing dialogs and even some events and people), what a writer of "realistic" historical fiction should not do is what H.Mantel does: she ends up using her novel as a historical source when asked for her analysis/opinion on the real events and real people.
As for the historical novel just for fun, I think I have explained my opinion in sufficient detail in the debate below the entry mentioned above.
no subject
What I was speaking about especially in the other entry, but to some extend also here, is NOT AT ALL a differentiation between good and bad historical novel, but an idea of a honest approach to real people in any historical fiction, good or bad. I think writers of historical novels do have certain responsibility when writing historical fiction using real people (and, to some extend, real events).
I have already explained what I consider a more or less respectful approach in my answers in this thread: http://community.livejournal.com/revolution_fr/95311.html?thread=1136463#t1136463
In the cases that are apparently realistic (i.e. do not "warn" by their non-realistic form and, on the contrary, give signs of authenticity), but they use the real people as vehicles to express other kind of ideas that have nothing to do with those people and for that reason manipulate with ahistorical hints on, let's say, modern Poland, like Wajda does in his Danton, then I find it still legitimate and acceptable, as the literature has always been using the past like that, but I also see as totally legitimate to point to the ahistoricity and manipulation in the critique and especially if used in class or in a novel's introduction.
As for the writers who do believe that they are offering an interpretation "faithful in spirit" (though, of course, inventing dialogs and even some events and people), what a writer of "realistic" historical fiction should not do is what H.Mantel does: she ends up using her novel as a historical source when asked for her analysis/opinion on the real events and real people.
As for the historical novel just for fun, I think I have explained my opinion in sufficient detail in the debate below the entry mentioned above.