I’m not a Gore
Vidal fan. I thought Burr was a hash, especially from a historical perspective.
Lincoln is a better novel, but still blemished due to Vidal’s penchant
for showing off. A novel is a story, and the
cardinal rule of storytelling is to never jerk the reader out of the story, but Vidal continuously interrupts his characters mid-scene to take a bow. Witty
asides, overly clever dialogue, meaningless gossip, and focus on the trivial when the reader yeans for
the big picture, are bad enough, but the near absence of transitions is
jarring. Vidal goes from one scene to another with a whole different cast of
characters without even a “by your leave.” It is like, “Hey, I veered off over
here, catch up.” And you do, but it takes the rereading several sentences. By
then the magic is gone.
The book
is titled Lincoln, but Ol’ Abe comes across as a side character. He is
explained by countless others that surround the supposed protagonist. Most
of these characters come across as untrustworthy narrators. Characterization is
not a Gore Vidal strong suit. Everyone seems similar and each carries a little
of Vidal’s rapscallion nature. Vidal likes rogues, scoundrels, and outright villains
and ascribes his characters' motivations to the dark side of human frailty.
Some
historians have taken issue with the historical accuracy of Lincoln. As
a historical novelist, I know strict adherence to facts presented in their proper
order does not always lend itself to good storytelling. In this readers
opinion, Vidal’s may skew events and people to his viewpoint but, for the most
part, his violations are inconsequential. This is a well-researched book and
Vidal’s relaying of events, large and miniscule, is generally accurate.
If you
prefer history presented as a story, Lincoln is the best novel about
Lincoln available ... until I publish Maelstrom.
