Richard Carvel
Reception and literary significance
Reception and literary significance
-----------------------------------

The review for the *[New York Times](/wiki/New_York_Times "New York Times") Saturday Review* in July 1899 described *Richard Carvel* as "a notable novel... an event of importance in American fiction", going on to say that it was "the most extensive piece of semi\-historical fiction which has yet come from an American hand... the skill with which the materials have been handled justifies the largeness of the plan".[New York Times Saturday Review, July 1899](https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0A1EFF3C5911738DDDA80894DF405B8985F0D3)

The review in the *[New York Tribune](/wiki/New_York_Tribune "New York Tribune")* described the book as "a serious historical novel, embracing a romantic courtship and many events on land and sea, in Maryland and in England, which involve famous personages like Washington, Fox and Horace Walpole." The reviewer took issue with the characterization, saying that the principal characters fail "to get themselves bodied forth in absolute reality," but concluded that "*Richard Carvel* is a remarkably workmanlike production, considering the present limitations of the author."[Quoted in "A Tale of Two Winstons" in *The New Yorker*, January 2010](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2010/01/a-tale-of-two-winstons.html)

A letter from [George Middleton](/wiki/George_Middleton_%28playwright%29 "George Middleton (playwright)") to the *New York Times* praises *Richard Carvel* for its dramatic qualities, for its portrayal of past times, and for the character of Dorothy Manners, "the most fascinating female character that has appeared in the recent novels".[From *The New York Times*, March 10, 1900](https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40610FC385D12738DDDA90994DB405B808CF1D3)

In November 1899, *Richard Carvel* provoked a mild controversy in the pages of the *New York Times Saturday Review* when an anonymous letter writer pointed out certain similarities between the "now famous" novel and *Hugh Wynne – Free Quaker* by [Silas Weir Mitchell](/wiki/Silas_Weir_Mitchell_%28physician%29 "Silas Weir Mitchell (physician)"), making a veiled accusation of plagiarism.[From *The New York Times*, November 11 1899](https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30911F83C5911738DDDA80994D9415B8985F0D3) This was rebutted by another correspondent, who pointed out that the first draft of *Richard Carvel* had been completed five years earlier, two years before the publication of *Hugh Wynne*.[From *The New York Times*, November 25, 1899](https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40C16F93C5911738DDDAC0A94D9415B8985F0D3) A further letter also drew (unfavorable) comparisons between Churchill's novel and Thackeray's *[The Virginians](/wiki/The_Virginians "The Virginians")*.[From *The New York Times*, December 2, 1899](https://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20A10FB3E5414728DDDAB0894DA415B8985F0D3)

A later assessment considers the authenticity of the narrative the reason for its remarkable success: "*Richard Carvel* (1899\) is a romantic historical novel of the American Revolutionary period. Though carefully written, the book has the episodic structure characteristic of Churchill. It became a best seller because of the conscientious research that gave remarkable authenticity to events and characters".[Answers.com on Winston Churchill](http://www.answers.com/topic/winston-churchill)


What was described as 'a notable novel' in the New York Times Saturday Review?