Flashman and the Tiger is one of the best in the series. I should it put of on the top of my list to reread. And you’re right about recommending Flashy to other readers. I stopped years ago after too many people told me they couldn’t stand his sexism, racism, and bullying, whether he was honest about it or not.

The most recent one I read was Flashman and the Tiger, so I referred to that. Look at how Flashy adresses the reader about Elgin’s decision. His comments boil down to “you really can’t judge us because you weren’t here.”

As for O’Brian–I think he’d have found lots for Aubrey & Maturin to do elsewhere. The Brits were militarily busy throughout the 19th century, after all–lots of the “Little Wars” that A&M could have taken part in.

Marie–

Flashman isn’t for everyone–his personality grates on some readers–but I think the books are very solid historically, and well-footnoted to boot.

And, hey, any author who has a scene in which Sherlock Holmes’ snap deductions are shown to be logical but wrong has a lot going for him. *g*

I haven’t read Flashman, so I can’t judge it personally. But based on what you’ve said, it sounds like Fraser knew whereof he spoke, and that’s really what I’m getting at. Whatever you’re planning on doing with your history, know it first, and think carefully about the choices you make.

Interesting take on Flashman - I’ll have to look for what you suggest the next time I read one. I’ve always felt Fraser, via Flashman, took every opportunity he had to stick a thumb in the Empire’s eye.

As you say, the Aubrey/Maturin books are excellent. But what do you think O’Brien was doing at the end when he ran out of time for Napoleonic derring-do? Secret history or alternate?

Its successor, “Embers of Heaven”, deals with a Cultural Revolution China setting. And this felt very different to me - not least because there are people out there who have either lived through this period of history themselves or have immediate relatives who did - and not only did I have to treat the period with respect, I had to care about making it perfectly plain where I followed the “historical” line and where I diverged from it for story reasons. It was damned hard, sometimes.

I’m planning at least one other historical fantasy. Pray for me…

Yeah, I’ve written about that very gender problem before. (I put it in the context of infant mortality rates, actually: if half of your kids don’t live to be ten, then most women can’t afford to not have children, which means going to war is unlikely.) Part of my justification in Doppelganger was that magical healing made their lives generally healthier. I never found a good way to insert the other part of the explanation, but the people in that culture believe not only in reincarnation, but in the notion that one might be reincarnated as either sex, making the differences between the two less meaningful.

Back to history, though — of course you can’t avoid having your own take on a person’s life and personality, whether you’re writing fiction or biography. But in a biography, one is held to certain standards of evidence for one’s depiction; I feel the same should be true for fiction. So, you can give me a Doctor John Dee who’s a con man, or one who’s being conned, or one who’s genuinely delusional, but if you give me a Doctor John Dee who’s a neo-pagan earth-mother-worshipping Renaissance hippie (which apparently someone has done), then unless you’re writing a weird alternate history where that makes sense, I’m going to call BS.

Kind of like my long-standing belief that the best parodies are the ones done by people who love the subject they’re making fun of.