How much reality is too much when it comes to historical romance?

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

So, just for kicks--what are some historical facts you'd rather see avoided, glossed over, or tossed out all together in your romances? What are some historical inaccuracies you really like? All eras welcome!

Here are some of mine--Regency era:

Realities I don't want to see:

--Most things pertaining to hygiene. I don't need to envision our heroine with BO, nor do I EVER want to picture our hero passing off a chamber pot after a night of rich foods and heaving drinking.

--"Bloody Hell" I have learned, was not introduced until sometime later, and it was a phrase used primarily by the working class. I bloody well don't care. I love it, and my regency lords sound damn sexy saying it.

--Our hero and heroine being racist, classist, etc. Realistic--sure. And wholly unappealing.

--Heroines who actually believe their gender renders them incapable of true intelligence, creativity, etc. It wasn't just men who bought into that.

Okay, that’s it. . .for now. Thanks for letting me vent, and if this topic is up elsewhere, my apologies.

Jersey Chick · May 21, 2007

I'm with you - I want a good story, not a textbook. But there will always be someone who says, "Well, yes, but..."

My books are varied in time periods, but my first one is set in the Regency and I have my hero and heroine use "bloody" and "bloody hell." I like my characters to be interesting - not perfect duds. When my heroines get going, they could weave a fine tapestry of swear words that would make any man blush

I think my only pet peeve is the contemporary speech. Somehow I just don't think the phrase "Could it be any more XYZ" was widely used in Elizabethan England.

I do have to wonder how hair the women's legs were though - my heroines never are, but I don't know how they managed it

Cathy C · May 21, 2007

So, just for kicks--what are some historical facts you'd rather see avoided, glossed over, or tossed out all together in your romances? What are some historical inaccuracies you really like? All eras welcome!

Oh, hygiene is one my favorite things to have "glossed over." I don't want to know that REAL MEN of the sixteen and seventeen hundreds considered tooth brushing an occasional event--akin to putting on a cumberbund before a party. I mean . . . eeewwww! :Wha:

I adore a BBCA show called "Cash in the Attic." On one memorable show, the mother of a family trying to raise cash was a former lady-in-waiting to the queen (retired after many years.) Naturally, she had some really cool stuff that had been given as gifts over the years. One of the items was a stunning, gold inlaid piece of china that appeared to be a soup tureen from the sixteenth century. The antique appraiser asked the group if they had any idea what the item was. Everybody gave their impressions, which pretty much matched mine: gravy boat or soup tureen (which is, BTW, what the family used it for.)

Nope.

It was a "sideboard pot" used to pass around the DINNER TABLE during a formal dinner party for people to . . . well, you get the idea. After being passed around (again, AT THE TABLE) it was placed back in the sideboard/china hutch to be emptied by the butler. Apparently, women in embroidered skirts didn't want to walk out to the outhouse at night (don't blame them) but also didn't want to leave the table. They just walked to a corner of the dining room and squatted, or tucked the lovely china pot under their skirt right in their seat. :crazy:

Feel free to skip that particular reality in your next historical.

Really. Please.

veinglory · May 21, 2007

There are two fairly distinct historical audiences--those who are fans of the era and want perfect accuracy, and those in it for the romance and not so fussy.

IMHO reality shouldn't be contradicted but need not be spelled out when unpleasant.

I generally assume dialogue has been 'translated' to modern English for me. But as a non-American full on American pop slang bugs me in European-set historicals. And don't get me started on the so-called highland Scot accent currently running rife through the romance shelves. If you can't do the real thing, IMHO don't fake it.

scarletpeaches · May 21, 2007

aliajohnson said:
--Our hero and heroine being racist, classist, etc. Realistic--sure. And wholly unappealing...

You want realism, don't you?

See I've heard this complaint about Gone With the Wind, that the characters were racist. Well, uh...sure they were. It was the era of slave-ownership. Blacks and whites weren't on the best of terms then, still aren't.

If people at any given time were likely to be racist, classist, ageist, whateverist, to deny this by saying, "It's unpleasant so I don't want to read about it," is denying part of history.

You don't have to agree with a character's opinions to make them realistic. I mean, if I read a book set in Regency England where there was no classism, I'd throw it across the room. People were classist in those days (still are to some extent) and to turn a blind eye to it on the ground that our modern sensibilities are offended, makes no sense at all.

If people behaved in a particular way, then you write them in a particular way. Racist, sexist, whatever. I want to read about sexist behaviours. I want to read about racism. Because that's how things were, dammit!

scarletpeaches · May 21, 2007

veinglory said:
...And don't get me started on the so-called highland Scot accent currently running rife through the romance shelves. If you can't to the real thing, IMHO don't fake it.

Oh, Amen to three decimal points on that one!

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

veinglory said:
There are two fairly distincthitorical audiences--those who are fans of the era and want perfect accuracy, and those in it for the romance and not so fussy.

Click to expand...

That's true, and I should have made a distinction between traditional Regency Romance where it's understood that accuracy (to a point) is almost as important as the plot, and the romance and Regency-era Historical Romance where the romance is key.

I generally assume dialogue has been 'translated' to modern English for me. But as a non-American full on American pop slang bugs me in European-set historicals.

Click to expand...

As an American, full on American pop slang bugs me in European-set historicals.

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
You want realism, don't you?

See I've heard this complaint about Gone With the Wind, that the characters were racist. Well, uh...sure they were. It was the era of slave-ownership. Blacks and whites weren't on the best of terms then, still aren't.

If people at any given time were likely to be racist, classist, ageist, whateverist, to deny this by saying, "It's unpleasant so I don't want to read about it," is denying part of history.

You don't have to agree with a character's opinions to make them realistic. I mean, if I read a book set in Regency England where there was no classism, I'd throw it across the room. People were classist in those days (still are to some extent) and to turn a blind eye to it on the ground that our modern sensibilities are offended, makes no sense at all.

If people behaved in a particular way, then you write them in a particular way. Racist, sexist, whatever. I want to read about sexist behaviours. I want to read about racism. Because that's how things were, dammit!

I'd agree with this if it were any other genre than Romance. But we're talking about an entire section of a bookstore where the reader knows that every single book has a happy ending. Full on reality just isn't what's in demand here.

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

Cathy C said:
It was a "sideboard pot" used to pass around the DINNER TABLE during a formal dinner party for people to . . . well, you get the idea. After being passed around (again, AT THE TABLE) it was placed back in the sideboard/china hutch to be emptied by the butler. Apparently, women in embroidered skirts didn't want to walk out to the outhouse at night (don't blame them) but also didn't want to leave the table. They just walked to a corner of the dining room and squatted, or tucked the lovely china pot under their skirt right in their seat.

Feel free to skip that particular reality in your next historical.

Really. Please.

It's the fact that future generations had been using it serve food that gets me. I'll never again be able to look at an old soup tureen without gagging just a little.

Sassee · May 21, 2007

Actually, if you put all of those nasty "realities" in a humorous situation, I would read it. But I'm weird like that so... <shrugs>

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

Sassee said:
Actually, if you put all of those nasty "realities" in a humorous situation, I would read it. But I'm weird like that so... <shrugs>

Some things might be worked with or around using humor (there's quite a few chamber pots thrown during arguments, I've noticed). But something like--a racist hero and/or heroine. I can't imagine that would work so well.

Oh--here are some things I know don't fit the Regency era, but I love anway.

--War Office/War Department, spies, lady smugglers, etc.

--The hero and heroine eventually addressing each other by their christian names. (This may just be a weird personal preference on my part, but having the MCs call each other "My Lord" and "Madame" even after they've had crazy, set-the-bed-on-fire sex seems so detached to me.)

--Happy Endings, of course

--And because Cathy brought it up, I'll add nice teeth. They don't have to be perfectly straight, mind you, just nice.

Carmy · May 21, 2007

I'm one of those individuals who would toss a novel as soon as I came across the second inaccuracy. If an author can't do me the courtesy of doing accurate research, I won't waste my time reading the novel.

In historical romances you should avoid the things also avoided in modern romances. How often do you read about toilets or BO? People who read historical novels probably also know a fair bit about history. They already know all the dirty secrets so why bother mentioning them unless they moved the story forward?

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

Carmy said:
I'm one of those individuals who would toss a novel as soon as I came across the second inaccuracy. If an author can't do me the courtesy of doing accurate research, I won't waste my time reading the novel.

In historical romances you should avoid the things also avoided in modern romances. How often do you read about toilets or BO? People who read historical novels probably also know a fair bit about history. They already know all the dirty secrets so why bother mentioning them unless they moved the story forward?

Toilets and BO are just funny examples. I doubt--I hope--no one has seriously considered putting them in a book.

The question, I think, is--how does one make a truly historically accurate hero and/or heroine without making them characters a reader just can't identify with or like? These are individuals who held a set of values very different than our own today.

scarletpeaches · May 21, 2007

aliajohnson said:
Toilets and BO are just funny examples. I doubt--I hope--no one has seriously considered putting them in a book.

Diana Gabaldon doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

aliajohnson said:
The question, I think, is--how does one make a truly historically accurate hero and/or heroine without making them characters a reader just can't identify with or like? These are individuals who held a set of values very different than our own today.

Why should historical accuracy make a character unlikeable? It's not time period we, as readers, identify with, it's the human condition (for lack of a less wanky phrase) that matters. It's not what they wear or how they talk but how they feel, what they desire that we identify with.

And so what if they have different values? Does different mean unlikeable? Of course not. Does it mean we can't identify with those characters? Of course not. Were that the case, why bother writing historical fiction at all?

I'm not American or from the 19th century but I still love Gone With the Wind. I'm not English or from the 17th century but I still love Forever Amber.

veinglory · May 21, 2007

I think there are some different values that would lose you the majority of the historical romance reader write off the bat. A little righteous wife and child beating is not what I am looking for in a romantic hero.

scarletpeaches · May 21, 2007

Again, I would cite Diana Gabaldon for that one. (The wife beating, I mean).

veinglory · May 21, 2007

Gabaldon is an odd one, I guess there are some rule-breakers in any genre. In between the wife-beating a little male rape, and no one bats an eyelid.

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
Diana Gabaldon doesn't seem to have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

Good point. I'd personally be afraid to try it though.

Why should historical accuracy make a character unlikeable? It's not time period we, as readers, identify with, it's the human condition (for lack of a less wanky phrase) that matters. It's not what they wear or how they talk but how they feel, what they desire that we identify with.

And so what if they have different values? Does different mean unlikeable? Of course not. Does it mean we can't identify with those characters? Of course not. Were that the case, why bother writing historical fiction at all?

I'm not American or from the 19th century but I still love Gone With the Wind. I'm not English or from the 17th century but I still love Forever Amber

Click to expand...

.

I'll embarress myself by admitting I'm not familiar with Forever Amber. GWTW, I adore. But it's not a romance by. . .er--publishing standards? (not sure that's the right term but hopefully you get what I mean) and if I ever ran across a heroine like Miss O'Hara in a romance novel, I'd be shocked. She's fascinating--and an outright b****. For good or bad, b****s don't make for popular heroines in the genre. Maybe because it's irritating to know from the start that said bitch (okay, I got tired of the stars) gets the happy ending?

ah--dog needs out, be back momentarily.

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

Okay, I'm back--had a toad hop on my foot and a bat dive bomb my head, weird.

Anyway, out of curiosity--is Diana Galbadon shelved in the romance section in the bookstores near you guys? At the Barnes & Noble closest to me she's not, but at the Hastings, she is.

Wife beating is great example of too much reality. It was acceptable behavior for a long time (it was even acceptable romance material for awhile) but it would (with the possible exception of Miss Galbadon's work, of course

) go over like a ton of bricks now. And to that I say--Thank God.

For me, picking up a historical romance is akin to picking up a paranormal romance, or Sci Fi, or Fantasy--absolute reality just doesn't mesh.

scarletpeaches · May 21, 2007

I have to admit the male rape thing didn't bother me in the Jamie & Claire novels. (Wasn't it more of a 'submitting by choice to save someone else' thing, though? Coercion/blackmail rather than forcible rape)? The wife beating did, though...not because of Jamie, but because of Claire's later acceptance of it. Him, I could tolerate because he was a man of his time (ho ho!) but her forgiveness of him was harder to stomach.

And GWTW...I think it's stocked in the general A-Z. I'm not entirely sure if the bookshop I frequent has a romance section. Not genre romance, anyway. I go to Waterstone's. I think the new Borders that's just opened here has a genre romance section but 'epics' like GWTW and Forever Amber are stocked in the 'normal' A-Z shelves.

And I heartily recommend FA. I've read it three times, all 900 pages of it. Delicious! I love me some doorstoppers!

aliajohnson · May 21, 2007

scarletpeaches said:
I have to admit the male rape thing didn't bother me in the Jamie & Claire novels. (Wasn't it more of a 'submitting by choice to save someone else' thing, though? Coercion/blackmail rather than forcible rape)? The wife beating did, though...not because of Jamie, but because of Claire's later acceptance of it. Him, I could tolerate because he was a man of his time (ho ho!) but her forgiveness of him was harder to stomach.

And GWTW...I think it's stocked in the general A-Z. I'm not entirely sure if the bookshop I frequent has a romance section. Not genre romance, anyway. I go to Waterstone's. I think the new Borders that's just opened here has a genre romance section but 'epics' like GWTW and Forever Amber are stocked in the 'normal' A-Z shelves.

And I heartily recommend FA. I've read it three times, all 900 pages of it. Delicious! I love me some doorstoppers!

Thanks for recommendation--I will definitely give it try.

It's odd--I generally react the same way when a male MC acts like an ass. I automatically think something something along the lines--well, he's a man, whatever. But when the female MC forgives him for his asinine behavior, I freak.

You pathetic idiot! What are you doing?

Go figure.

Stacia Kane · May 21, 2007

I second the recommend on Forever Amber, it's one of my favorites (as is GWTW).

I put an Author's Note in my hstorical, and I'm hoping now the book has sold to Cerridwen that I'll be allowed to keep the new revised one.

As a reader, some things bother me and some don't. Linguistic anachronism does usually bug me a bit, but it depends on what it is. I use a couple in my book but explain them.

I had a big long point about this and I've totally forgotten it now.

Essentially, some anachronism bugs me, some doesn't, and to me it depends on whether or not the author seems aware of it. Just like breaking the rules of grammar.

sunandshadow · May 21, 2007

Personally I think that an unforgiveable hero is also and unlikeable and unsexy hero.

Realism, I kinda come at this issue crosswise to everyone who has posted so far lol. It would not phase me in the least to read about BO, hairy legs (I don't shave my own...), or chamber pots. Some things are a little ickier, but still, I'm already familiar with the general unsanitariness and ignorance of historical humanity - particularly if you read prehistoricals you can find romances which contain human sacrifice, royal incest, amputations, low-tech abortions, castration, syphilis, leprosy, cannibalism, and many other disturbing historical realities. Do I particularly want to read about these? Not really, no. Do I want to read about a historical setting which is realistic except that all the unpleasant parts aren't mentioned or are glossed over? Again, no. To me all realism is been-there, done-that. Give me magic or spaceships, aliens or hermaphrodites or AI, I don't care whether it's disturbing as long as it's _not_ realistic lol. Well, I would prefer it to be romantic and have a happy ending, so not too disturbing, but other than that I won't complain.

ccarver30 · May 22, 2007

I say- If you want true accuracy, don't read fiction FFS! I agree with everything alia said. My novel starts with "Bloody hell" - but it is a working woman that says it. I mean, who cares about that crap? As long as your people aren't using zippers and microwaves, I am probably not going to catch it...
I think one should research, but don't kill your story over it.

LilaDubois · May 23, 2007

I think that Robertta Gellis (I think I butchered that) does amazing acurate historicals. In some of the Midevals it is just understood that the hero would be sleeping with other women while her was away from the heroine.

I like them BECAUSE of there incredible historical detail, but don't always love the romance.

How much reality is too much when it comes to historical romance?

aliajohnson

Jersey Chick

Up all night to get Loki

Cathy C

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

veinglory

volitare nequeo

scarletpeaches

scarletpeaches

aliajohnson

aliajohnson

aliajohnson

Sassee

Momma Wolf

aliajohnson

Carmy

aliajohnson

scarletpeaches

veinglory

volitare nequeo

scarletpeaches

veinglory

volitare nequeo

aliajohnson

aliajohnson

scarletpeaches

aliajohnson

Stacia Kane

Girl Detective

sunandshadow

Impractical Fantasy Animal

ccarver30

Nicole Castro

LilaDubois