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.
