I think Dalrymple's got a good rep amongst the Historians I know, Av.
For me though, a lot of historians these days seem to use real events and characters to write as if its a historical novel. Is this the case here?
In
The Anarchy, and I believe in general, Dalrymple uses a lot of lengthy quotes from eyewitness accounts. For
Return of a King: The Battle for Aghanistan Dalrymple, who lives in Delhi, traveled to Afghanistan and Pakistan to do research. He uncovered
nine previously untranslated full-length contemporary Afghan accounts of the conflict, including the autobiography of Shah Shuja himself. Shah Shuja Durrani is the ruler the British tried to reinstall on their disasterous expedition up north.
This book was only delivered this afternoon, but
The Anarchy was serious, detailed but accessible history. His books are written chronologically and are popular in India and the West, but are not dumbed down. According to the reviews,
Return of the King is especially valuable for incorporating all these previously unused sources. These three books I bought read like a great story start to finish, but it would be unfair to characterise them as a kind of historical novel.
What would tick off a lot of people, though, is Dalrymple's exposure of the arrogance, rapacity, brutality, etc. of the British colonial enterprise.