Historical Fiction Preference Meme

On my travels through Blogger this week, I've been seeing a Women's Fiction Meme popping up on a number of sites. (It seems to have started here.) As it was geared mainly toward readers of romance novels, I've adapted it for historical fiction. Join in, all and sundry!

Straight Historical, Historical Mystery, Historical Fantasy, Historical Romance, or Time Travel?
Straight. I’ll occasionally venture into a historical mystery or a historical romance if it’s set in a time I’m particularly interested in, though.

Historical Figures as Main Characters or Purely Fictional Characters in Historical Settings as Main Characters?
Overwhelmingly, I prefer historical figures.

Hardback, Trade Paperback, or Mass Market Paperback?
I’ll buy a new book in hardback if it’s one I’ve really been looking forward to; otherwise, I’ll wait for the paperback (usually a trade). With used books, I’ll buy whatever’s available.

Philippa Gregory or Margaret George?
Hard to say. I really enjoyed Gregory’s last novel, and I really enjoyed George’s Henry VIII and Mary, Queen of Scots novels.

Amazon or Brick and Mortar?
Amazon, since most of the books I buy are either used or hard to find in brick-and-mortar bookstores.

Bernard Cornwell or Sharon Penman?
Sharon Penman. I haven’t read Bernard Cornwell’s books yet, though; one of these days.

Barnes & Noble or Borders?
Barnes and Noble, although since a Borders opened near my house, I’ve been spending more time there than I used to.

First Historical Novel You Ever Remember Reading?
As a good Southern girl, I naturally have to say Gone With the Wind.

Alphabetize by Author, Alphabetize by Title, or Random?
I don’t alphabetize, but when I rearranged my bookshelves this summer, I made a conscious effort to categorize my books by author, which is a vast improvement over the haphazard system I had before.

Keep, Throw Away, or Sell?
If I like a book, I’ll keep it. If I don’t, I’ll donate it to the library or to a thrift store. The only books I've thrown away are those that are falling apart.

Jean Plaidy or Norah Lofts?
I’ve enjoyed Norah Lofts’ books, but on the whole I’ll take Plaidy.

Read with Dust Jacket or Remove It?
Remove it if I’m toting it around a lot; keep it on if it’s not traveling off my end table.

Stop Reading When Tired or at Chapter Breaks?
Chapter breaks or section breaks, or whenever I get interrupted.

“It was a dark and stormy night” or “Once upon a time”?
”It was a dark and stormy night,” I guess. Nothing like hopping into the middle of the action.

Buy or Borrow?
Buy, unless it’s popular enough to be at my library and I’m not sure it’ll be a keeper. If I end up liking it, I’ll probably buy it.

Posie Graeme-Evans or Pamela Kaufman?
Based on skimming and on reviews by others with similar tastes, neither, I’m afraid.

Buying Choice: Book Reviews, Recommendations, or Browsing?
Browsing, mostly, but I pay attention to reviews and recommendations also. If it’s a subject I’m really interested in (e.g., Edward II), I may buy it without any of the above.

Dorothy Dunnett or Anya Seton?
Well, I’ve read one book by Anya Seton (the ubiquitous Katherine), which is more than I can say for Dorothy Dunnett. I suspect on the whole that I might prefer Dunnett if I ever got the long stretches of time to read her books properly.

Tidy Ending or Cliffhanger?
Tidy ending, tied up in a big bow.

Sticking Close to Known Historical Fact, or Using Historical Fact as Wallpaper?
Sticking close to known facts. The only place I like wallpaper is on walls.

Morning Reading, Afternoon Reading or Nighttime Reading?
Mostly afternoon, because I do most of my reading at lunch and while waiting for my kids.

Series or Standalone?
Standalone

Favorite Book of Which Nobody Else Has Heard?
I thought Mary Ellen Johnson’s The Lion and the Leopard (about a fictional bastard brother of Edward II) was very well written. It seems to have been that author’s only novel, unless she’s written under other names.

To Bibliography or Not to Bibliography?

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article by Julie Bosman, "Loved His New Novel, and What a Bibliography," in today's New York Times about the practice of including bibligraphies in novels:

“It’s terribly off-putting,” said James Wood, the literary critic for The New Republic. “It would be very odd if Thomas Hardy had put at the end of all his books, ‘I’m thankful to the Dorset County Chronicle for dialect books from the 18th century.’ We expect authors to do that work, and I don’t see why we should praise them for that work. And I don’t see why they should praise themselves for it.”

Traditionally confined to works of nonfiction, the bibliography has lately been creeping into novels, rankling critics who call it a pretentious extension of the acknowledgments page, which began appearing more than a decade ago and was roundly derided as the tacky literary equivalent of the Oscar speech. Purists contend that novelists have always done research, particularly in books like “Madame Bovary” that were inspired by real-life events, yet never felt a bibliography was necessary.

And many present-day writers like Thomas Pynchon, most recently in “Against the Day,” put extensive historical research into their novels without citing sources or explaining methods.

But some novelists defend the bibliography, pointing out that for writers who spend months or years doing research for historical novels, a list of sources is proof of labor and expertise. . . .

Of course some fiction writers have always tacked on bibliographies, as William T. Vollmann has done since his first book, “You Bright and Risen Angels,” published in 1987. Mr. Vollmann initially did it because the book was first published in Britain, and he wasn’t sure how many sources he was expected to cite according to British laws, he said.

But now, Mr. Vollmann says, he does it as a service to readers. “I think it’s nice for a reader to have the information available,” he said. “Let’s say somebody gets interested in a character, or is disbelieving of something I had a character do. He can look in the back of the book.” . . .

I'm with Mr. Vollmann. Personally, I regard a bibliography in a historical novel not as a bid for praise or as proof of labor and expertise, but simply as a tool for the reader who might be interested in reading more about the subject. I don't hold the absence of one against an author (there's none in my own book, although I do include an author's note in the book and a list of further reading on my website), but I do appreciate its inclusion. I certainly don't see its being there as pretentious or as a form of bragging. It's an aid to the reader, which the reader can either make use of or ignore.

Maybe Mr. Wood just doesn't read much commercial historical fiction, because bibliographies seem to have been quite common in it for some time. Jean Plaidy often included them in her novels (The Battle of the Queens, the one closest to hand on my bookshelf, lists 21 titles that Plaidy consulted), and King's Minions, a 1974 Brenda Honeyman novel about Edward II that I finally acquired yesterday after months of forlorn Googling, has a "Works Consulted" page. Even these now-dated bibliographies can be useful in leading readers to long-out-of-print books that may contain relevant information.

So I say, ignore Mr. Wood. Bring on the bibs (and keep the author's notes coming too, please).