Virtually anything by James Michner is full of pretty good information and if you indeed read it, you will be well informed (Well, except for The Drifters). *Hawaii, Centennial, Texas, *etc. are all fantastically well researched and will give their readers a great deal of information on some fascinating subjects.
Read novels by Robin Cook, he writes medical thrillers, his most famous book is Coma, which was also made into a movie.
I love his work, and each novel is based around a medical issue and possible controversies. Cook is an actual physican as well.
Just about anything by Umberto Eco will include a lot of well-researched historic information, especially about the Middle Ages. A common criticism of his books is that they actually include too MUCH factual information.
I understand that The DaVinci Code is just chock-full of factual information. It says so, right there in the front of the book.
It probably says it’s a good novel somewhere, too.
All of the Patricia Cornwell books I’ve read had a lot of real life forensics information in them. I loved the “Scarpetta” books, which were most of them.
I’m not sure how factual everything in a Tom Clancy novel is, but I’m hoping it’s close, because I love the few books of his that I’ve read.
I was going to post Michner, but then I felt embarrassed about how much I enjoyed his novels about thirty years ago. Not sure about The Drifters, because I really, really enjoyed that book in my younger days. I certainly read it more than once, but I’ll never re-read it, in order to keep the memory sweet.
Add “Alaska” to the list, according to my late mother, who read and raved, before we moved there.
Not to hijack the thread, but you’ve got to be kidding me. I read “Coma” a million years ago and it was fine, but he should have stopped about three books after that. I have never, ever in my life read more poorly written, but published, fiction than Robin Cook. I never knew that one literally rolled one’s eyes, until the summer I read a 90s-era Robin Cook novel. I kept reading, simply out of astonishment that such utter crap was actually published.
Whenever there is a thread about bad writing, Robin Cook’s novels are what immediately come to mind, and my first cite as how not to write.
And I am here to testify again that human beings do indeed, literally, roll their eyes skyward, when contemplating things too astounding to imagine (and it hurts, when done repetatively, such as Robin Cook’s effort’s at “fiction”) at every single fucking paragraph…
Wasn’t Jack Finney’s Time and Again historically correct for the turn of the century?
I would have mentioned this one if you hadn’t done it first. So, all I can contribute is a link to the complete text, including all illustrations (plates AND marginalia). Here you go.
OMG that’s awesome. I’ve wasted hours going through it.
It has full-page illustrations that are missing in my print edition.
This was one of my all time favourite books growing up.
Thank you so much for posting it! 
PS: another reason I love this book is that it takes place, geographically, in areas I’m familiar with and grew up in myself: the ravines of Toronto (“Glenyan”) and rural southern Ontario (I believe that “Stanger” is intended to be “Simcoe”, but of course I cannot be sure). As far as I know, this is one of the ealiest and certainly most famous works set in that place at that time.
You might like this: The Wolf That Changed America | About | Nature | PBS
LOL
I agree he has limitiations but he’s not all that bad. Cook will write and it’s just fine, then he screws it up by trying to write about things like relationships.
For instance, if the main characters in the novel are man and woman, the novel is fine, until he decides to throw in a “romantic scene” about them. He is totally out of his element in this romantic type scene, but the rest of the novel is just fine.
The hospital scenes, the build up are all OK, it’s just whenever he tries to write about romance that he totally fails.
Glad to be of service!
Actually, I ran across this a couple of weeks ago when I Googled a quote from it to post in another thread. My copy disintegrated years ago, So I was delighted to find it, in all its completeness.
My mother, born in 1924, read this book as a child. She mentioned the plate “Yan’s Toilet”, where Yan is applying his war paint. Being a young child, she did not know the older meaning of the word, and so assumed that the log he is sitting on had a hole in it…
The Rome series (The First Man in Rome, Grass Crown, etc) by McCullough are actually very historically correct and full of good Roman history. So are the SPQR mysteries by John Maddox Roberts.
Victor Hugo’s description of the Battle of Waterloo in Les Miserables.
I’m not going to claim it’s “good,” and I’m not going to vouch for the historical stuff, but Nelson DeMille’s Up Country was a hell of a good lesson in the geography of Vietnam.
Wonderful wonderful story!
EVEN MORE DIRE AND IMPENDING DANGER, WILL ROBINSON!!
Crichton is even worse than Stephenson*. Interestingly, both of them get microbiological evolution completely wrong in their (almost) first books (Andromeda Strain and Zodiac), but I give more demerits to Crichton because he was supposedly trained as a doctor, and so should in theory understand infection population dynamics.
*Examples also available, though fewer of them, because at least Stephenson is an entertaining writer.