Historical fiction is the thinking man's genre of choice.

>>9586458
historical fiction is for the bourgeois because it satisfies two criteria: 1. it was about something "real" and provides "information" and "facts". It is not a waste of time like art fiction and its goals are clearly demarcated (unlike art fiction). 2. It is a pleasurable way of digesting history, unlike those BIG books you see at Barnes and Noble (not to mention the dusty tomes of those isolated history professors). Now you can add historical knowledge while also being entertained! what fun! Now I can brag about reading a book too! (Insert person's name) may have watched the documentary on the History channel, but I've read the book...damn bastard

What are your favourites?

>>9586484
>unironically talking about the bourgeois

>>9586487
Feast of the goat

>>9586458
Much of history is already fiction. Why do you want to contaminate it with more lies?

>I wanna read about Conan the Cimmerian sacking Rome and Solomon Kane raping Pocahontas

>>9586458
It's for the better plebs. My building's super loves the genre and has given me some of his favorites, which I found enjoyable in a quaint, pedestrian way. He's an intelligent and kind man, but uneducated and uncultured. He "thinks", but the conclusions he comes to are unsophisticated and often just wrong.

>>9586458
>fiction
>thinking man's

nigger what?

Historical fiction are dimenovel romances for men.

>>9586458
Most fiction is historical

>>9586458
Historical fiction is lubricated propaganda.

>>9586487
"Night" by Elie Wiesel was a fun read.

File: Patrick-OBrian[1].jpg (14KB, 500x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x200px

>>9586528
>He "thinks", but the conclusions he comes to are unsophisticated and often just wrong.
Oh boy I'd love to hear your own conclusions.

Based POB is the king of this genre, almost everything else is airport trash

>>9586490
>muh classless society

>>9586458
What? Just read literature that was written in a given period or actual historical accounts. Why would you read a gimmicky imitation

>>9586698
wew

>>9586458
Pyncnon, Doctorow, and McCarthy are the best historical fiction writers, although they aren't "genre fiction" writers.

Well on the one hand, Shakespeare, Pynchon, McCarthy, and Dickens have all written historical fiction. On the other hand, as other people in the thread have mentioned, it also seems one of the most abundant (forgive the word, but I'm using it sincerely here) pseudointellectual genres; there's a lot of mediocre historical fiction books that are semi-popular, books that aren't quite awful on the level of genre fic, but also are forgettable. The reason they have an aura of intellectuality to them (which superficially seems to make them better than a lot of thriller airport trash) is because historical research obviously takes some intellectual ambition, and wanting to read books set in different historical periods presupposes you have some curiosity in intellectual matters beyond reading John Green.

Or as >>9586528 says

File: 12308468_1135748566443050_3177260632357982409_n.jpg (111KB, 587x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 587x720px

>>9586844
I'd love to share my ideas with you, pick a topic and I shall enlighten you.

>>9586458

>thinking man
>fiction

pick one

File: download.jpg (7KB, 182x278px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 182x278px

>>9586458
Whatever the fuck this is is the thinking man's genre of choice. Historical fiction is just fantasy with more steps (and there is nothing wrong with that).