Bibliographies for novels

Miss Snark has suggested that bibliographies within novels are "last century." She's already stated that she doesn't deal with historical fiction, so this may explain her remarks. (And, as mentioned previously, Da Vinci Code and novels of its ilk are not historical fiction regardless of what the newspapers think, even though I'd like to see bibliographies for those types of novels, too... for the same reasons as given below.)

In a way, she's right. Bibliographies for novels are very last century - as well as 9th century, 16th century, 18th century, and so forth. They're very common in historical novels, and calling them either outdated or undesired ignores the need that many readers have to learn more about the novels' historical subjects, right then and there. Who better to lead readers in this direction than the author? And on the chance that a reader feels an author messed up in his/her research, or if an author provides a non-traditional interpretation of a historical character's actions, a bibliography compiled by said author can be helpful in another way as well.

Miss Snark suggests that bibliographies be placed on author websites rather than in the novels themselves. Many historical novelists do this, and it is a good way of drawing in new readers. However, this doesn't do current or prospective readers much good unless they're told that such a bibliography exists, and is on the author's website.... or if readers generally go immediately to an author's website upon reading a novel. (I wouldn't assume that all readers will do so.)

I also don't know how such a bibliography would become outdated, because normally bibliographies contain only those books used by the author in the course of his/her research for a given novel. As such, those lists aren't likely to change, unless the author suddenly realizes that a major source was omitted (oops).

If the author's already going to be providing an author's note, historical epilogue, etc. - which are incredibly helpful to readers, and which I personally appreciate - why not make things easier for readers and list some sources right there? Bibliographies aren't written for marketing one's novel to people who haven't read it, although they certainly can be used as such. They're meant to guide existing readers of a novel in learning more about a subject, and in providing insight into the author's research methods. And if so, where better to put such a list of resources than the end of the book. If an author has a website, sure, put it there too. We aren't talking dissertation-length bibliographies here, so the publisher can relax. A page or two of major research sources (or less) is all that most novels provide. Anything longer can go online.

A trawl through my personal library quickly reveals a number of historical novels containing bibliographies or narrative lists of research sources at the end. I submit the following list:

Tracy Chevalier, The Lady and the Unicorn
Bernard Cornwell, The Pale Horseman
Emma Donoghue, Life Mask
Clare Dudman, 98 Reasons for Being
Sarah Dunant, The Birth of Venus
Mary Sharratt, The Vanishing Point
Beverly Swerling, Shadowbrook
Barry Unsworth, The Songs of the Kings

All very 21st century novels, indeed. What do you think - are these authors out of the loop? Should unpublished novelists who "play with history," or who "base their novels on solid fact and research," follow their example, or ignore it?