"Further Reading" Sections in Historical Novels?
I'm going out of town for a couple of days (work, not pleasure, but with pretty scenery, I hope). While I concentrate on lofty, airplane-encouraging thoughts, here's a question for you: Do you like it when historical novelists include a "Further Reading" section in their books? Or do you find it pretentious and/or unnecessary? Do you look at it, or pass it by?
Personally, I like it when an author provides a "Further Reading" section, and I've put one in The Stolen Crown. If I'm not familiar with
Personally, I like it when an author provides a "Further Reading" section, and I've put one in The Stolen Crown. If I'm not familiar with
date
newest »
newest »
It depends on the author and also on the subject. For example, if the author is one that I love and trust I almost certainly read anything they recommend because I feel like there is a good chance I will like the books as well. If it's a new author I will probably glance at it and then move on with my day.If the books in the recommendations are close to the subject I just read about I will rarely read the recommended books. For example, if I have just read a book about Anne Boleyn I will probably ignore any recommendations relating to her. I am more likely to read a book that may be about her sister Mary. I always want to know more about supporting characters than main characters. I'm not sure why, I just do.
More often there is an 'Acknowledgements' section, sometimes both, but I hardly glance at those because they are mostly non-fiction and articles.