Sex Scenes in Historicals

[c.e.lawson]

A few of us on the Histrical threads think this would make a good topic for discussion.

I am currently writing a historical with a very strong romantic thread, though the structure of the story will not be a typical romance novel type structure. Still, I plan on including some sex scenes (which advance characterization and plot, of course!), and so I've thought about this issue a lot.

Diana Gabaldon, who writes the Outlander series of historical novels, has an excellent website and gives some great advice to writers about all sorts of things.

Here is the page that has her podcasts. I'd love to discuss the podcast about writing sex scenes, because those are tricky to write, and I think Gabaldon does this EXTREMELY well in her novels.

http://www.cco.caltech.edu/~gatti/gabaldon/fun/fun_podcasts.html

click on Episode Five under Random House

One of her quotes from this podcast that caught me is that a sex scene is "an exchange of emotion, not bodily fluids" I think that's SO important. But so is much of the other stuff she says here. Care to listen and then give us your thoughts?

Edited to Add: I would like to point out that the scene she reads in this podcast occurs much later in the series - book 4 or 5? And that in the initial book - where my favorite scenes of hers are - she doesn't use certain graphic words like she uses here. She has said in interviews that the scenes become a little more graphic as their marriage progresses and the two characters become more secure in their relationship and assertive.

c.e.

[girlyswot]

I haven't listened to the podcast yet, but I think you're right about Gabaldon's use of sex scenes to advance character and plot. One of the things that really struck me after the first couple of books is the number of different emotions she associates with sex and the number of different ways she describes the associated sex. Off the top of my head I can think of examples of comfort, fear, relief, anger, joy, passion, assertion of power, pride and, of course, love. Sometimes she does give a lot of graphic detail (I can't bear that scene with Jack Randall) but quite often you don't get any thrashing bodies at all. Just the build up or the aftermath, or both. You always know who is having sex in her scenes - they're not generic descriptions, but specific to the characters and situations.

Okay, I'm listening now. I love that she was aiming to explore the whole of a marriage. That's one of the things I've really enjoyed about her books - that Jamie and Claire's relationship is allowed to develop and change over the years, and that we see how their love grows and matures with them. And that the sex is part of that - she shows how they have learned to know each other intimately and be comfortable with each other physically and emotionally.

"A sex scene as a specific sort of dialogue scene." I like that too. And that it's a time when characters express their emotions most vividly. The physical details used sparingly to anchor the reader into the scene - because we all know how it works so we don't need to be told. Just enough that we can use our imaginations.

Thanks for the link. I'll be interested to know what others think.

[scarletpeaches]

I read the title as "Sex scenes in hospitals". :poke:

[c.e.lawson]

I read the title as "Sex scenes in hospitals". :poke:

Ack!! *Runs quickly to top of thread to check for typo*

*sighs with relief*

Perhaps we can discuss that another day? ;)

[lkp]

I've got one sex scene in my novel. It isn't terribly graphic --- I make good use of the closed bedroom door, so it's more buil up and aftermath than anything else --- but it is a crucial scene for both developing character and moving the plot forward.
Frankly, I find reading the slot a tab b sections of sex scenes in novels, boring. I usually skim them to get back to where the characters are talking. I felt differently when I was fourteen.

[c.e.lawson]

Yes, lkp - I agree. Many fourteen year olds probably read sex scenes because they're curious about the mechanics. But Gabaldon makes the great point in this podcast that in her sex scenes there IS dialogue. Both verbal and physical. And that during sex many people are exposed and honest. In her scenes the characters are actually saying a lot. And the mechanics simply aren't necessary, except here and there to anchor the scene and draw the reader in. But that's all secondary to the emotion and dialogue.

[wee]

From her Podcast:

--The sex scenes aren't written gratuitously or just to 'jazz up' the reader; always to do with the relationships between the people

--They are part of other scenes, not scenes in & of themselves

--Writers approach it as just a sex scene, but it is a type of dialogue scene, an exchange of emotion... people are more honest during sex, 'laid bare' in more than just the physical sense...

--Don't need all the physical details ... these are bad sex scenes that just tell all this ... physical details are sparse, anchor points for the scene ... adult readers know the rest & don't need it ... they fill it in for themselves

Maybe this is why women go so crazy for her books ... 'bad' romance novels are almost as if written for men. Just quickie, to the point, all physical. Her scenes are about the heart, the interactions between the characters, their relationship & how it is building over time.

She says in her podcast that part of what she wanted to do was explore how people stay married over a very long period of time, and that she doesn't personally know any 50-year marriages that last without sex, LOL.

What she's really doing is putting onto paper NOT the Hollywood-ized carnal scene that's there just for jazzing up the viewers or shock value. She's trying to put down in the story those very private & intimate moments ... the ones you blush when you recall them at the Thanksgiving table with your inlaws, the same kind they are probably also enjoying & you do not want to know anything about ... both the very tender & the quite profane moments that people have together alone.

To sum it up ... they aren't really 'sex' scenes. They are 'intimate' scenes.

And I have only gotten as far as the point in the story where they are shipwrecked in the Americas ... and the one she read is a lot more profane, nitty-gritty, than the other ones I remember (but perhaps I've just forgotten) -- those involving his wife, anyway.


wee

[wee]

Also adding ... I thought her name was pronounced Geh-BALL-dun, but she says Gabble-DOH-n (if my pronunciation key makes any sense at all). Doh!


wee

[DonnaDuck]

Ok, I have no idea who this woman is but her stories sound great and I think I'm going to have to do some Googling.

I can't listen to the podcast at the moment because I am at work but as for sex scenes in general, I don't like writing them unless it's necessary for the story and even then they're not graphic and they're more about feeling and intimacy than what goes where. As for it in a historical context, I'm writing a historical piece about a prostitute in New York during the revolution. Not much by the way of intimacy there and it is more about the mechanics. Granted I haven't gotten far and the one scene I did write was when the reader comes in to him "finishing" and then uses her dress to wipe up the mess. There're emotions around it but not in the act itself. On the other side there's a very prudish woman whom has sex simply to procreate while her husband frequents one of the pros. He, in turn, passed an STD along to her and she finds any "funny business" in the bedroom "wrong" and they don't do it so he gets his kicks elsewhere. It's not fully developed yet, obviously.

But I think sex in any story is entirely dependent on the characters and the situation. Sometimes sex is without emotion, sometimes sex is mechanical. Even between lovers, and constant lovers, sex can be just as animalistic and "wham bam thank you ma'am" as it can be intimate and passionate. Not all couples make "love" every time they have sex. I think that would actually create for a boring sex life after a while. I must read this woman's books though because I'm interested to see her take on a historical relationship and what it would take to maintain a marriage using such aspects as a good sex life and actually keeping it good. As long as it's not smut, sex for sex's sake or steeped entirely in mushiness, I'll read it.

[dolores haze]

Donna Duck - Gabaldon's a good read. The premise is that Claire (female MC) has time-travelled to the past, and many adventures ensue. She's very much a modern woman in pre-modern times.

From the brief synopsis of your WIP I would recommend you take a look at The Crimson Petal and The White. Set in Victorian England, part of the plot is a triangle between a woman, her husband, and a prostitute. The sex scenes are brilliant. I don't mean that they are sexy - I mean that they are written by a brilliant writer. I can't recommend this book highly enough. I read it the first time for sheer pleasure. I'm going back in to take a closer look at how Faber did it. Very mixed reviews on this book. I'm obviously in the camp that considers it a great piece of writing. Oops. Went off topic.

Back to topic.
Will watch the podcast when I have a little more time, and return to the discussion. Room for a romance writer in this discussion group? Gabaldon's writing of the Jamie/Claire relationship taught me a lot about writing romance, and any discussion of the great heroes and heroines of the romance genre will inevitably end with Jamie and Claire (even though Gabaldon states that she does not write romance). I'll be back. Great topic, C.E.

[DonnaDuck]

Thanks for the reference, Delores. I must add those to my pick lists! There are so many already but I'm a sucker for historical fiction. Granted the premise of a woman going back in time is familiar; I think I might have heard of it before and I'm just not recognizing it.

[pdr]

is historical novels, usually romances, with gratuitous sex scenes in a very modern style.

I shall listen to the podcast with interest as I rather thought, from my reading of DG's first novel, that the sex scenes she had were a little 21stC titillation.

I think before you start adding sex scenes you need to check out:

characters' religion and that religion's attitude to sex at the time.

How your characters regarded religion and obeyed its decrees.

Look up what happened to women caught in adultery.

Look up what happened to men caught in adultery.

Remember that there was no birth control and women were chary of getting pregnant

Read one of those research papers which talks about your time's attitude to sex.


Remember that most of you are writing at a time of the male dominant society and where religion insisted that sex was for procreation and not pleasure.

[lkp]

Yes, lkp - I agree. Many fourteen year olds probably read sex scenes because they're curious about the mechanics. But Gabaldon makes the great point in this podcast that in her sex scenes there IS dialogue. Both verbal and physical. And that during sex many people are exposed and honest. In her scenes the characters are actually saying a lot. And the mechanics simply aren't necessary, except here and there to anchor the scene and draw the reader in. But that's all secondary to the emotion and dialogue.

And I agree with you --- a sex scene can be a great place where all the emotions of the characters as well as all the values that the characters hold and share (or don't share), and all the expectations and constraints of the societies in which they live can come together in a really vivid way.

[c.e.lawson]

All good points, pdr. Of course Gabaldon gets around much of that with having her female MC from the twentieth century, as well as thinking for years that she was infertile. And having her two MCs forced into a strategic marriage, so that all of the sex was married.

I have a little more leeway than some of you, at least the somewhat feminist Spartan women expert that I'm reading thinks so, including women in ancient Sparta in some periods having a fair amount of control over fertility, and using birth control.

I wonder, though, what the bedroom was really like behind closed doors in some of those male dominated societies. I mean, women could wield some power there that they might not ever be able to enjoy anywhere else. Do you think anyone took advantage of that? ;)

[girlyswot]

I also think that, while religious attitudes were important and influential, they weren't always uniformly held. And that it's easy to caricature. Who knew, for instance, that the Puritans were certainly in favour of sex for pleasure and not just procreation? And, at some level, people are still people. So although things change at different periods of history, not everything changes. How people express things like love or fear or anger might change, but the emotions are still the same and that's how we, as 21st century readers, will connect with our historical counterparts.

[girlyswot]

I wonder, though, what the bedroom was really like behind closed doors in some of those male dominated societies. I mean, women could wield some power there that they might not ever be able to enjoy anywhere else. Do you think anyone took advantage of that? ;)

For some reason I have a strong image of Glenn Close in Dangerous Liaisons reading that! ;) I don't know if people took advantage of that in every society, but I'd be willing to bet money that there have been women wielding that kind of power since before history. And you can certainly write a cracking good story about it!

[Carmy]

I have sex scenes and a rape in one novel because they are vital to the character's development, to the story, and to present an aspect of the society. As PDR said, be aware of the society and its restrictions.

The only Gabaldon novel I've read is Dragonfly in Amber. Yes, I loved the story but, quite frankly, the pages of sex at the end of almost every chapter became boring and I skipped them. It made me avoid other novels of hers.

[wee]

I also think that, while religious attitudes were important and influential, they weren't always uniformly held. And that it's easy to caricature. Who knew, for instance, that the Puritans were certainly in favour of sex for pleasure and not just procreation? And, at some level, people are still people. So although things change at different periods of history, not everything changes. How people express things like love or fear or anger might change, but the emotions are still the same and that's how we, as 21st century readers, will connect with our historical counterparts.



I read a journal from an American frontier woman (or an excerpt from it, really) who came to the realization that her husband was courting their 16-year-old daughter. It details her great anguish at this discovery, and her attempts to protect her daughter at a time when she had few rights & no one to turn to.

We get this idea that somehow all great discoveries were made in the last 50 years. I know for a fact that women were capable of orgasm at least a few thousand years ago, and that this fact wasn't discovered by the American bra-burning generation. Both men & women have been enjoying that aspect of life since men & women existed. I guess I just don't buy it that prevailing social notions made women incapable of enjoying that part of life. Prevailing social notions have never kept teenaged girls from getting pregnant, or kept men from visiting prostitutes, etc.

I mentioned the journal above as an example that sex isn't a new thing, depravity isn't a new thing ... there is "nothing new under the sun". I think women have enjoyed sex (or not enjoyed it) at all points in history. In fact, I remember sitting astounded in a group of wives who were talking about having to 'do their duty' or making shopping lists in their heads, etc. In the 21st century?! Isn't everyone enlightened & loving it, based on our current culture? Nothing new, nothing new ...

Also -- one of Gabaldon's books does talk about the male MC, Jamie, who takes a wife while the female MC is back in her own time for a few decades. His 2nd wife is terrified of getting pregnant & won't let him come anywhere near her. Luckily for him, Claire shows back up, infertile. :D


wee

[DonnaDuck]

I remember watching a show on the History Channel that was talking about drawings found on ancient Greek and Roman brothels and spas that depicted oral sex and how horrified the "people of the world" were when that discovery was made although I highly doubt it was anything new. John Donne was commonly preaching chastity and virginal attitudes while privately woo-ing women to sleep with him only to want to burn them at the stake the following day. I think many people, especially those who were outwardly critical of sexual fun were, in fact, quite promiscuous and adventurous themselves. The male character in one of my WIP is head of this movement to rid New York City of it's whore houses while, privately he's one of their frequent visitors. I think history was a very 'Do as I say, not as I do' time not only to save face but to potentially save your life. I think the only difference now is that it's much more widely accepted and we have different...tools to help us along.

[johnnysannie]

Also adding ... I thought her name was pronounced Geh-BALL-dun, but she says Gabble-DOH-n (if my pronunciation key makes any sense at all). Doh!


wee

That was a lesson for me as well. I enjoyed the podcasts though - didn't listen to all of them yet but I did listen to several. Anyone with any interest in the paranormal will find the one titled "Ghosts" very interesting too - I did!

[funidream]

I think many people, especially those who were outwardly critical of sexual fun were, in fact, quite promiscuous and adventurous themselves. The male character in one of my WIP is head of this movement to rid New York City of it's whore houses while, privately he's one of their frequent visitors.

As common today as in the past.

[Zelenka]

I must check out the podcast as I've got at least one sex scene in a historical novel I've been picking at for a long time. My main problem with that is that one of the characters is a 17th century English Puritan, though not all that staunch when the book begins, and suffering from post traumatic shock disorder, so getting the emotional content and the sort of historical context right was a bit of a juggle.

[Drasheny]

We get this idea that somehow all great discoveries were made in the last 50 years. I know for a fact that women were capable of orgasm at least a few thousand years ago, and that this fact wasn't discovered by the American bra-burning generation. Both men & women have been enjoying that aspect of life since men & women existed. I guess I just don't buy it that prevailing social notions made women incapable of enjoying that part of life. Prevailing social notions have never kept teenaged girls from getting pregnant, or kept men from visiting prostitutes, etc.

I mentioned the journal above as an example that sex isn't a new thing, depravity isn't a new thing ... there is "nothing new under the sun". I think women have enjoyed sex (or not enjoyed it) at all points in history. In fact, I remember sitting astounded in a group of wives who were talking about having to 'do their duty' or making shopping lists in their heads, etc. In the 21st century?! Isn't everyone enlightened & loving it, based on our current culture? Nothing new, nothing new ...


I'm glad I stumbled on this thread, and I'll definitely have to listen to the podcast. I've never read anything by this Gabaldon, but I agree wholeheartedly with all the quotes from the podcast listed above about sex scenes being about emotion and not mechanics.

I'm currently planning a an erotic, soft-core S&M novel set in the 1920s. Certainly my characters don't have to be prudes because of the time period. On the contrary, the way the Fitzgeralds carried on makes modern rock stars look tame. However, I am still wrestling with how to approach the sex scenes in language and tone. My concern is that modern readers, especially erotica readers, expect a certain frankness in language that wouldn't be appropriate for that time period.

I've been experimenting with writing erotica on and off since college, but I've never attempted a historical story before. That's why I'm scouring this section of the boards. I guess the approach I'm planning for my book is to focus on my characters' emotional journeys first, their sexual experimentation second, and relegate the Roaring Twenties to background noise. (I'm still not sure how to bring that time period "to life," aside from clothing styles, slang, and dropping references to current events.)

[lkp]

Another important issue, that I think may be related to what wee has said, is that many of us write historical fiction in order to explore the kinds of issues and stories that can't be explored through writing straight history because there just aren't the right kind of sources. Thre is nothing (or very little) like that frontierswoman's diary in the Middle Ages, my period. So if I am going to understand how a medieval woman responded to issues of sex and sexuality, I am going to have to use my imagination. I will feed my imagination with the things we do know --- canon law, treatises written by the church, penitential handbooks, documents, etc. --- but at the end of the day, the way I depict my characters' attitudes is my judgement call.

You can't assume that everybody obeyed whatever norms were in place at whatever time. You have to assume that their attitudes and actions were formulated in relationship to those norms.

[julie thorpe]

Jessramage - re your comment about your Puritan MC: my topic is 17th century Puritans too and my research has confirmed over and over again that the Puritan attitude to sex was nothing like as prudish as public opinion believes. In fact in new England in that era failure to provide one's partner with a satisfactory sex-life was considered acceptable grounds for divorce. They weren't too keen on premarital or adultery. The law prescribed the death penalty for adultery though it wasn't often invoked.

[wee]

You can't assume that everybody obeyed whatever norms were in place at whatever time. You have to assume that their attitudes and actions were formulated in relationship to those norms.



Wanted to make sure this comment didn't get lost, because it is very astute.

wee

[donroc]

A possible guideline for sex in any era -- find taboos and laws prohibiting or limiting sexual behavior from dress to the various acts, and you'll have an idea of what people did/wanted to do.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[lkp]

Yup, donroc. One good source for that in the Middle Ages is penitential handbooks that describe sins and what the sinner needs to do to make up for them. Comparing penances can tell you which sins were considered the worst. And comparing sins gives you an idea of the range of things the church expected people to get up to. So to speak.

[Merry]

Remember that there was no birth control and women were chary of getting pregnant



Not necessarily true. Condoms have been around for a good couple of centuries, and various cultures have used sponges impregnated with vinegar or lemon juice to avoid pregnancy (and these, I believe have been around longer than condoms).
So you (one) would have to research your time period and your geographic location to see what might have been available. Contraceptives aren't a 20thC phenomenon, and it may be that eastern civilisations who had well developed medical practices had devices available much earlier. :)

[lkp]

Good point, Merry. One of the penitential books I was thinking of in my last post prohibits the use of contraceptives. That suggests they were available and were believed to be effective to some degree at least. This was in the eleventh century, in Europe.

[c.e.lawson]

This is from one of my books on Sparta - Spartan Women by Sarah Pomeroy, a Distinguished Professor of Classics at Hunter College and the Graduate Center, City University of New York. Oxford Univ Press 2002, pg. 64 paperback version.

As Cicero reports, women did reject the burden of continuous child production that was the long-range goal of their physical education. Contraception is discussed in the Greek medical tradition dating from the classical period, but Spartans are the only respectable Greek women we know of who are specifically reported to have exercised control over their fertility. This report reflects the autonomy of Spartan women acting not in secret, as might be necessary for an individual, but assertively as a group whose behavior attracted notice. That they were not married until they were mature gave them an advantage over the more passive child brides in Athens.

Go me for choosing Sparta! :)

[wee]

I'm researching a culture that prized children & procreation above almost anything else, but still had methods for ending unwanted pregnancy.

One of the more gruesome and ignored methods of dealing with an unwanted pregnancy was ... giving birth. And simple placing that child in the snow, or the woods, or a little ravine, and walking away.

We just don't know how good we've got it in this regard! When I consider how much grief birth control has given us ... problems with hormones & other side-effects, an unintended (but huge blessing to us in disguse!) pregnancy ... I'm amazed that in this day & age, even our 'modern' attempts at preventing this part of nature are rather ... what's the word? I'm picturing Spock in that Trek movie, "Don't leave yourself in the hands of 20th century medicine!" It's amazing how efficiently nature & our bodies drive us to the act that will produce babies, and how difficult it is (for most of us) to perform that act and not produce a baby. You could write books for a hundred years with only plots that revolve around sexual congress and its consequences ... and never run out of plots.


wee

[Zelenka]

One of the books I came across whilst researching was on homosexuality in Europe in the Renaissance and early modern period, and one of the theories the author postulated was that the risk of pregnancy at that time was one of the reasons a lot of people preferred the company of their male servants or friends. I don't know if that's true (as how do you prove that, really?) but I thought it was an interesting thought. Not sure if it's of any use but thought I'd mention it.

[DonnaDuck]

That's the thing, though, you can't really prove any of it. One journal does not account for an entire race, some wall drawings do not account for an entire civilization. I think the create berth for something like this is pretty wide. Sure, take into account the social and moral attitudes about sex but considering stuff performed behind closed doors remained there, I think your imagination is free to make up a large amount of it.

[Zelenka]

Exactly. I've always worked under the theory that people throughout history have had the same basic instincts, just the social or moral or religious views of the time made them react to those instincts in slightly different ways. Like at the moment I'm reading a lot of court reports from the 13th and 14th centuries, and some of the situations these people are in, the niggles they have with one another, are no different really from the records of the civil courts nowadays. Just the language and ways of dealing with the problems are a little different.

[johnnysannie]

Not necessarily true. Condoms have been around for a good couple of centuries, and various cultures have used sponges impregnated with vinegar or lemon juice to avoid pregnancy (and these, I believe have been around longer than condoms).
So you (one) would have to research your time period and your geographic location to see what might have been available. Contraceptives aren't a 20thC phenomenon, and it may be that eastern civilisations who had well developed medical practices had devices available much earlier. :)

There are also various plants and herbs used for centuries as birth control and also to end an unwanted pregnancy.

Modern contraceptives with a high rate of success are fairly new but contraceptives are very ancient.

[pdr]

a really stimulating read.

You can't assume that everybody obeyed whatever norms were in place at whatever time. You have to assume that their attitudes and actions were formulated in relationship to those norms.


Yes, I agree, but you cannot then go ahead with your modern preconceptions and make your heroine raise two fingers to the church, govt laws, her community, her family, her education and upbringing without showing a helluva lot of 'just cause and impediments' and making the reader believe it!

Social pressure, govt laws and religious pressure were immensely strong sticks and did powerfully affect people. They are not so strong today and it can be hard to understand the power they carried. I do get so tired of reading the 21stC mind set in a 13thC heroine. Clever women in any era quietly and discreetly 'got around' these things in the parts of their lives where it mattered to them. So you did get women working in the guilds or 'guiding' their husbands politically, or taking lovers.

Contraception. Yes, I should have said reliable contraception. The sheep's gut condom has been around since the late 17th C, wax and sponges were Roman BUT the Church forbade/forbids it, and there is the very real question of who knew about contraception? Marie Stopes in the early 20thC suffered terrible official denigration and persecution for trying to educate people about birth control. Set that against the kind of historical govt and church powers who chopped off your head or burnt you alive for breaking the law and you see what I mean. Who knew? I think a very small group in Christian societies, more people seem to have in Rome and ancient Greece.

Abortions, well there were hundreds of things people tried to do and yes, herbs were used to great effect. But wasn't that one of the complaints against so called witches? And one of the reasons for burning them! It was not approved by the majority was it?

same basic instincts, Jesse, I'd say emotions, not instincts.
And I think that we, as writers of the historical novel, have to tread a fine line here. 'People are the same the world over' is true, we can all find examples, and NOT true. We can find examples of that, too. Readers of historicals are looking for the differences, not the sameness. We cannot throw off our 20th and 21st C attitudes, but we can and must try to work within our historical era's mind set and attitudes and be as honest as we can to their beliefs.

[girlyswot]

I agree, it's been a great discussion and very thought-provoking.

Readers of historicals are looking for the differences, not the sameness. We cannot throw off our 20th and 21st C attitudes, but we can and must try to work within our historical era's mind set and attitudes and be as honest as we can to their beliefs.

I think they're looking for both similarities and differences, actually. For me, one of the most fascinating things is seeing how people, despite their very different circumstances, are recognisably the same. And as a reader, I need something I can identify with in at least some of the characters.

For instance, one of my lecturers was telling us last week about Origen (2nd-3rd century AD theologian) who, when his father was being martyred wanted to run out and join him. His mother, to prevent this, hid all his clothes. Now there are a lot of things about Origen's life, attitudes and beliefs that are different from mine. But in that moment, I (think I) understand exactly how he was feeling! And that (whether false understanding or not) makes me care about him in a way that I didn't much before.

[Zelenka]

I agree, it's been a great discussion and very thought-provoking.



I think they're looking for both similarities and differences, actually. For me, one of the most fascinating things is seeing how people, despite their very different circumstances, are recognisably the same. And as a reader, I need something I can identify with in at least some of the characters.

For instance, one of my lecturers was telling us last week about Origen (2nd-3rd century AD theologian) who, when his father was being martyred wanted to run out and join him. His mother, to prevent this, hid all his clothes. Now there are a lot of things about Origen's life, attitudes and beliefs that are different from mine. But in that moment, I (think I) understand exactly how he was feeling! And that (whether false understanding or not) makes me care about him in a way that I didn't much before.

That's pretty much what I was going to say. I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that people reading historical novels are only interested in the differences between our society and the characters'. That is a factor and in writing historical stories, as I said, you have to take into account the morals and values of the day. But I also think people reading historical novels would want a story with characters they can empathise with, where they can understand the motivations and passions driving those characters, wouldn't they?

I didn't mean that everyone in the world is the same. My point was that no matter the era, people still fell in love or had rivalries or were jealous or wanted to protect themselves, the things that form the core of the story. But they had social, religious and moral constraints of the time shaping how they could react to those urges. Maybe that's a bit Lockian, but that's why I think we can still read stories from thousands of years ago and relate to what's happening.

That's my opinion anyway, based mostly on my reading of historical fiction and it's the general idea I start out with when I'm planning any story, fantasy or historical. Maybe I'm wrong and talking rubbish but it works for me.

Oh, and on contraception, whilst trawling through the library records last night to plan out my research trip today, I came across a book on the history of contraception, which I'm going to try and find, as this thread has tweaked my interest. ;)

JessR

[PastMidnight]

I have been following this thread with great interest and I really don't know what to add, as everyone has made such great points.

I agree with pdr that, even though there were certainly forms of contraception available and women could have abortions, that didn't mean that they did either. We really do have to keep in mind the different values and the stronger influence that religion had in earlier times. Yes, not everyone felt compelled to follow the norms or the dictates of the Church, and often those make for interesting characters, but I think you have to be aware of and account for the struggle that they would have had if they flouted the sexual norms.

That being said, I also agree with those who said that readers of historicals want both difference and sameness. Readers want to be transported to a different time and different place and they want to read about these different values. BUT they need something to relate to, and as humans, we tend to relate through shared values. A 21st century woman will have a very hard time reading a novel from the POV of a Victorian woman who believes that she is there for her husband to use at will, that she has to suffer the sin of Eve, etc, unless the character changes her view during the course of the book.

I think this is an incredibly fine line and very difficult. You don't want a story with a 21st century woman in a corset. You want someone who is authentic to the social mores of the time, but similar enough to the modern reader that she or he will be able to relate. What to do, what to do?

[PastMidnight]

Oh, and on contraception, whilst trawling through the library records last night to plan out my research trip today, I came across a book on the history of contraception, which I'm going to try and find, as this thread has tweaked my interest. ;)


That sounds like a fascinating book, and pertinent for a range of time periods! Please let us know if it was a good read.

Anyone have any other books on the general topic of sexuality or pregnancy in history to recommend? I have to go back through some of my bibliographies, but I might have a few good recommendations.

I had a lot of luck looking at period handbooks for new brides. I guess the sort of thing a mother might give her daughter to avoid having to talk about what happens on the wedding night. :D But you get a good sense of the sort of information that a woman had available to her (often not much, depending on the place and time), even when she was embarking on married life and expected to have a role in the bedroom, not to mention getting pregnant and giving birth.

[PastMidnight]

For instance, one of my lecturers was telling us last week about Origen (2nd-3rd century AD theologian) who, when his father was being martyred wanted to run out and join him. His mother, to prevent this, hid all his clothes. Now there are a lot of things about Origen's life, attitudes and beliefs that are different from mine. But in that moment, I (think I) understand exactly how he was feeling! And that (whether false understanding or not) makes me care about him in a way that I didn't much before.


Sounds like a scene for the Reversal Challenge! :D

[donroc]

I can recommend FAMILY, SEX, AND MARRIAGE in England, 1500-1800. Forgot the author's name. What I remember most is that the author stated it was a rare individual who reached age 21 with both parents alive, and the typical male if he lived into his 60s would have had three wives -- reason being too many women died during childbirth or shortly after.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

[girlyswot]

I can recommend FAMILY, SEX, AND MARRIAGE in England, 1500-1800. Forgot the author's name. What I remember most is that the author stated it was a rare individual who reached age 21 with both parents alive, and the typical male if he lived into his 60s would have had three wives -- reason being too many women died during childbirth or shortly after.

And that, I think makes a really important point, that while sex and related issues may not have changed so much, life-expectancy certainly has. Death and attitudes to death in previous eras were, of necessity, much more prosaic. I'm 33 and I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I've known that have died and most of those were at least in their 80's. I don't expect people to die when they give birth, nor do I expect their children to die. How to get the right balance of expressing true grief, and yet convey this different attitude strikes me as particularly tricky.

But completely off topic. Sorry!

[pdr]

My apologies, I am so pushed for time that I am writing in shorthand.

To clarify:

when I said differences for readers I meant the differences between our reactions to a situation, and the historical character's reaction to that same situation, because of their time and setting.

Of course we need a good story with characters readers identify or emphasise with.

Sparta had a lot of proud parents, proud of their children. That is also a modern concept. BUT some of the things a Spartan parent cheered would give us the shivers!

Love and Marriage are universals, yet many of us would not do what Charlotte Lucas did. Nor is it only Jane Austen who commented on this. I once overheard my mother's friends talking about love in marriage and was amazed to find that several of them had married like Charlotte, without love, to 'suitable' men, just to have a home of their own, children and a respected position as a wife, and mother, not a pitied and poor one as a spinster.

It's those differences about similar things which are the spice of historical novels.

[lkp]

girlyswot, that is such an important point. We forget that before safe and routine caeserian sections (in the 20th century, I think, so very recent!), many, many women could have been expected to die in childbirth. That would have changed views about sex, sexuality, celibacy, marriage, children, etc. I think another thing we miss in pre-modern societies is the ever present threat of rape, and the idea that a woman had to have a male protector, be it father or husband, or else as an unattached woman she would have been treated as available to all.

pdr, I think it is overly simplistic to define a "now" when people are not restrained by governmental and religious pressures and a "then" when they were. Governments and religions can set forth all kinds of rules and norms, but how well these can be imposed on a populace depends hugely on time and place. I think you work on 17th-18th century England? That was certainly a time when social and sexual controls were being effectively imposed due to the rise and influence of the church courts and more effective centralized governmental and church control. But in the Middle Ages, while the church could say all kinds of things, actual effective local control was patchy and haphazard. We here of random, brutal repressions in certain times and places, but it was hard enough for the church to gain control over its own members, far a less the general populace.

I think it is entirely likely that knowledge about things like abortifacients and contraception persisted in local communities, among wise women who were the ones responsable for most female medical care. It didn't totally die out until male medical professionals thoroughly took over the health professions in the 19th century, but much of that was surely lost during the witchcraft trials. Which didn't really get going until the fifteenth century, and even then not everywhere in Europe.

[DonnaDuck]

That being said, I also agree with those who said that readers of historicals want both difference and sameness. Readers want to be transported to a different time and different place and they want to read about these different values. BUT they need something to relate to, and as humans, we tend to relate through shared values. A 21st century woman will have a very hard time reading a novel from the POV of a Victorian woman who believes that she is there for her husband to use at will, that she has to suffer the sin of Eve, etc, unless the character changes her view during the course of the book.


See, I don't think everyone is expressly looking for a book with characters that they can relate to. I wouldn't mind reading a historical novel about the trials of a Victorian woman being entirely submissive and what her thoughts on that were. Did she really believe everything she was taught about marriage and sex? Did she not like it when her husband did this? And on the opposite side, how would te husband ract to such mechanical submissiveness? If the story surrounding the character is compelling enough, I don't think a character needs to change at all. In fact, I think it would be rather unexpected and a bit of a surprise if the character didn't since most readers expect some kind of alteration by the end of the book. I read historial fiction not because I can relate to a character but because I like the time it's set and the story is good. I love reading a good war novel from the male perspective and there is no way I can evencome close to relating to any of those soldier characters. None. Relation is subjective. I know, personally, I don't look for characters that I can relate do but a plot that I want to read set in a time that interests me.

I can recommend FAMILY, SEX, AND MARRIAGE in England, 1500-1800. Forgot the author's name. What I remember most is that the author stated it was a rare individual who reached age 21 with both parents alive, and the typical male if he lived into his 60s would have had three wives -- reason being too many women died during childbirth or shortly after.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com (http://www.donaldmichaelplatt.com)


And don't forget that aristocratic women were expected to provide at least one male heir to the family in order to pass on the name and they tried until they got one. And then the poorer families would often continuously have children not because they love kids oh so much but because the chances of their children living past the age of three was slim and they needed to compensate for that (has sterile as that statement sounds). Especially children of poorer families, their parents needed the hands to harvest and survive. I remember reading somewhere that certain areas (whether modern tribal or historical European, I can't remember) didn't even name their kids until they reached a certain age. They didn't want to waste a name on someone that wasn't going to live long enough to even know it. That aspect also plays into sexuality and contraception as well. Here you may have a poor country woman in England that really doesn't want kids but her and her husband can't till a10 acres on their own and they certainly can't afford to hire someone to do it. I remember reading a short story (the name escapes me) where it was about a poorer farming family and the mother would take her infant out to the field with her, set him down in a pile of hay and set to work. She'd check on him every so often to make sure he was ok but she certainly couldn't stop working because she had to watch a child.

[lkp]

As I follow up to my last post, I wanted to recommend the novel Islanders by Margaret Elphinstone. One part of it very convincingly renders the mixed reactions of Norse pagan women when Christianity begins to make inroads to their community on Fair Isle in the twelfth century.

[Drasheny]

Anyone have any other books on the general topic of sexuality or pregnancy in history to recommend?

Sex in History by Reay Tannahill is a fascinating and entertaining read. It covers everything from prehistory to the 20th century, the Middle East, Asia, and Meso-America. Of course, the author doesn't have time to go into great depth on anything in particular. What struck me in reading it was the strangeness and exoticness of some of these sexual practices and beliefs/attitudes. Perhaps it's the job of a historian to emphasize the differences, and it's the job of the fiction writer to find the universal in all of it.

[Bourbon Street]

Slightly off topic but related to something already raised in this thread: personally, I found Diana Gabaldon's Outlander to be so God-awful as to be unreadable. I slogged through 66 painful pages of some of the worst prose I've ever read, then put it down.

OK, you can quit yelling at me! I know it was a best-seller, and I know she's a very successful author. And maybe it gets better a little farther along. I don't know and, after enduring the first 4 chapters, I don't want to know.

Outlander was her first book and, IMHO, it really shows. The first several chapters are almost a classic study of the mistakes first-time authors should Not make.

I feel this book would have a very hard time getting published these days because I don't think anyone would make it through the first few chapters to where it - apparently, eventually - becomes a good read.

Just my opinion.

{ducks behind shield, preparing for flak and rotten tomatoes}

[girlyswot]

Slightly off topic but related to something already raised in this thread: personally, I found Diana Gabaldon's Outlander to be so God-awful as to be unreadable. I slogged through 66 painful pages of some of the worst prose I've ever read, then put it down.

OK, you can quit yelling at me! I know it was a best-seller, and I know she's a very successful author. And maybe it gets better a little farther along. I don't know and, after enduring the first 4 chapters, I don't want to know.

Outlander was her first book and, IMHO, it really shows. The first several chapters are almost a classic study of the mistakes first-time authors should Not make.

I feel this book would have a very hard time getting published these days because I don't think anyone would make it through the first few chapters to where it - apparently, eventually - becomes a good read.

Just my opinion.

{ducks behind shield, preparing for flak and rotten tomatoes}

Actually, I sort of agree. The bit in the 20th century was, for me, much less convincing and interesting than the 17th.

[pdr]

that I present my ideas as ideas for people to think about. I welcome the mental invigoration of other ideas which are different from my own, and especially so because I am in Japan where I cannot have this sort of free exchange of ideas in my language.

I am not 'absolutely right/correct' in what I think nor do I wish to be other than one who stimulates discussion. I was brought up in the British education system with this kind of debate as a way of learning. We were taught through debate. What I mention is what I have found to be true through my experience, therefore I expect others to have had different experiences and have different ideas.

So please let's debate without anyone feeling defensive or that they are being attacked or that someone will laugh. What we have here under discussion is of real value to historical writers and I'd like to hear more from you all.

One side topic mentioned was life expectancy and attitudes to death.

For all of us, whatever period we write, I do think this is something which has to be there in our writing.
We know in our heads about death. We expect to live at least three score years and ten. However we don't know death. Unless we have had to face death ourselves through something like cancer or an accident that should have killed us and didn't, we cannot understand how anyone in our era would feel.

We have to know that death walked beside our characters daily. That they knew that tomorrow might really never come. That they would see brothers and sister die, may have one or more step mothers, one or more step fathers. Death was ever present.

So how did it affect our characters? I think that Life would be so precious, they didn't waste a moment. Also to survive they would have to be tough and make decisions we would not. Leaving the plague victim in the house and fleeing for example. Friendships would be stronger between same sexes, without the modern sexual overtones people put on that today. People would be aware of the need to save their soul if they lived in a Christian society.

pre-modern societies is the ever present threat of rape, and the idea that a woman had to have a male protector, be it father or husband, or else as an unattached woman she would have been treated as available to all.

This I find disturbing. Can we track down figures or incidents or 'an expert' on social history with details and comments? Why was rape an omnipresent threat? I can see biological examples: a pride of lions where the dominant male is ousted and the new leader kills any cubs and instantly mates with the females. Was this the same imperative at work? And pre-modern means when? We have reports from Roman historians, do you call these pre-modern?

pdr, I think it is overly simplistic to define a "now" when people are not restrained by governmental and religious pressures and a "then" when they were.

Agreed. But it is difficult when we are not talking face to face to make a point without generalising.
Would you agree that it is people who make the restraints upon others in their group?
I have taught in and visited North American schools and was always appalled at the treatment meeted out by the student in-groups to those who were the non-group for the flimiest of reasons. The cruelty meeted out was often done by people who privately and individually would agree that it wasn't nice to be nasty to Boris because he had two left feet and didn't like sports, but if they didn't join in then they too would suffer.

I have met, in many small communities, be they villages or drama groups, the writers' group, or church community the same kind of thing, a pressure to be like us or be out! And that pressure to be the same and therefore liked and a part of the whole is something I think you can see throughout history.

So whilst I see that:
Governments and religions can set forth all kinds of rules and norms,
I would suggest that people themselves set up rules and norms. This 'People like us...' syndrome seems to have applied throughout the history of the human race!

But in the Middle Ages, while the church could say all kinds of things, actual effective local control was patchy and haphazard. We hear of random, brutal repressions in certain times and places, but it was hard enough for the church to gain control over its own members, far a less the general populace.

That I find interesting. I grew up in what was a remote area for the Middle Ages but there were abbeys and convents all around dating back to earliest Christian times in England. Castles and fortified Manors aplenty too.

Going back to the idea of omnipresent Death, don't you think that people wanted the promise of heaven to make up for what happened on earth? That perhaps even in areas away from abbies or towns and villages people pressure existed? And that Religion had a strong effect in its promises?

I'm sure you're right about knowledge about things like abortifacients and contraception persisted in local communities, but in how many local communities and who dared to find out? Yes, I write about the 1640-60s and the 1880s-1900s, although my short stories cover the Bronze and Iron Age. And the housewife had to have a medicine chest for the family which was usually herbal, but don't forget what that man Culpepper wrote about herbs. There were good and accepted herbs and there were bad and evil herbs. We're back to people pressure again.

Thank you all for giving me such a lot to think about. I know I will write better historicals for having my ideas enlarged and expanded.

[girlyswot]

that I present my ideas as ideas for people to think about. I welcome the mental invigoration of other ideas which are different from my own, and especially so because I am in Japan where I cannot have this sort of free exchange of ideas in my language.

I am not 'absolutely right/correct' in what I think nor do I wish to be other than one who stimulates discussion. I was brought up in the British education system with this kind of debate as a way of learning. We were taught through debate. What I mention is what I have found to be true through my experience, therefore I expect others to have had different experiences and have different ideas.

Hooray for civilised, vigorous and stimulating debate! Long may it last on the forums.


One side topic mentioned was life expectancy and attitudes to death.

For all of us, whatever period we write, I do think this is something which has to be there in our writing.
We know in our heads about death. We expect to live at least three score years and ten. However we don't know death. Unless we have had to face death ourselves through something like cancer or an accident that should have killed us and didn't, we cannot understand how anyone in our era would feel.

And even if we have, I'm not sure that our experience of it is anything like the same. We can take time off work, travel distances to be with family, make a big deal of it and find ways of expressing our grief. But if you were living off the land, for example, you couldn't just stop. Or if had to walk (or at best ride) wherever you went, then you wouldn't be at the funeral often. And where death was so much more prevalent (because people lived much shorter lives) your particular loss wouldn't be such big news. I think maybe there was much more 'just getting on with it' and internalised grief.

So how did it affect our characters? I think that Life would be so precious, they didn't waste a moment. Also to survive they would have to be tough and make decisions we would not. Leaving the plague victim in the house and fleeing for example.
Yes, I definitely agree with the tough decision making.

Friendships would be stronger between same sexes, without the modern sexual overtones people put on that today.
I wonder why you think this and how it relates to the issue of death?

[PastMidnight]

Friendships would be stronger between same sexes, without the modern sexual overtones people put on that today.
I wonder why you think this and how it relates to the issue of death?

I would say because, in times before industrialization and before integration in the workplace, etc., women worked with women and men worked with men. I read pdr's comment that women naturally sought comfort in the other women that they worked with and had contact with, and then men did the same with the other men that they worked with. I don't imagine that adult men really socialized much with other women apart from a wife, mother, and possibly sisters. I think that today's mixed social groups is really something fairly modern. If a woman was grieving, she likely would only confide in her women friends, perhaps also her husband. Perhaps it was the same for men.

I'm curious to know how the Romans reacted to grief and seeking comfort, Doogs, as I remember you mentioning that the men were more open in expressing emotions, crying, etc.

[PastMidnight]

Do you think we should split off the discussion of life expectancy and death into its own thread?

[pdr]

I was a child it was okay to have close girl friends or boyfriends. No one applied any sexual connotations to such friendship. Now they do.

Friendships would be stronger between same sexes, without the modern sexual overtones people put on that today.

Past Midnight has the right of it. Shakespeare is good at showing those close friendships and how they worked.

But there is also this. You knew how short life was and it could depend on the help of friends. A trip to market was safer in company, three young men could handle highwaymen or footpads, one alone probably could not. A friend looked out for you as you did for him or her.

Harvesting, gardening, spinning and weaving, retting and bleaching went better in company. You helped them, they helped you!

[girlyswot]

I'm still really not getting this!

I was a child it was okay to have close girl friends or boyfriends. No one applied any sexual connotations to such friendship. Now they do.

Really? I mean sometimes they do but it's never struck me as odd or frowned upon or necessarily sexual when men are close friends with each other, or women with each other. I get that there was, in general, more segregation in the past which may have strengthened these kinds of friendships - though I don't know what that has to do with life expectancy.

But there is also this. You knew how short life was and it could depend on the help of friends. A trip to market was safer in company, three young men could handle highwaymen or footpads, one alone probably could not. A friend looked out for you as you did for him or her.

Harvesting, gardening, spinning and weaving, retting and bleaching went better in company. You helped them, they helped you!

Yes, I agree. Though I don't know that this necessarily implies stronger friendships. Because you did those things out of basic human necessity. Everyone went and helped each other - even the people they didn't much like. You showed hospitality to whomever needed it, because you never knew when you would need the kindness of a stranger.

[DonnaDuck]

Sorry for turning a serious conversation a bit by the wayside but the talking about male/female plutonic relationships has me thinking about When Harry Met Sally and the motiff of 'can men and women be friends without being sexually attracted to each other?' I think this is a notion that has persisted for many centuries and, in many cases, has been deemed that no, plutonic relationships can't exist between men and women without some kind of sexual tension. While individual opinion may differ (I, for one, believe that men and women can co-exist without sexual undertones), I think societal has been imbedded that the notion to bop is always there. Women and men being "friends" centuries ago, especially during the Puritan times or the Middle Ages, wasn't something that was seen. If a woman and a man were seen together, it usually meant they were courting or already married. They didn't go get drinks together and if a woman were seen with different men, I think it would be assumed she was a whore as opposed to just a friend. I do think sexual integration is something fairly new but then again, you have classes coming into it as well. Read Herbert Asbury's Gangs of New York and you'll find men and women mixing about without sexual undertones but they were the poor immigrants. Women on the edge of the Bloomingdale wouldn't think of doing that. I think that class line has blurred a bit more today but still, it's a fairly new concept, I think.

[Doogs]

I'm curious to know how the Romans reacted to grief and seeking comfort, Doogs, as I remember you mentioning that the men were more open in expressing emotions, crying, etc.

My stars, how to answer that in a way that doesn't ramble on forever and put everyone to sleep!

Briefly (as I'm currently sitting in Houston Hobby waiting for my connection to Miami):

Most friendships were same-gender. This isn't to say that women were cloistered away the way they were in, say, Athens. Just...activities and freedoms were different. As it has in modern western society, this pattern evolved over time, and by the mid to late 1st-century B.C. women were holding their own in traditionally "male" circles. This, to a degree, is what prompted Augustus to enact his various marriage laws. A "return to the good old days", if you will.

Grief had both public and private aspects. Public grief was displayed in an almost vaudevillian manner, complete with mourning clothes, the rending of cloth, tearing of hair and clawing at the face. Wealthier families would hire actors to dance and mourn at funerals, as well as others to march in procession wearing the death masks of illustrious ancestors. I've heard the spectacle compared to a New Orleans funeral, and I think that is probably the best analogy I've heard, though NOLA funerals didn't evolve the tradition of gladiatorial combat!

Another form of grief was found in the courts, where defendants fearing a vote of condemno (guilty) would appear before the jury in torn and filthy rags, and make every attempt to appear as poor and pitiful as possible.

Privately, grief involved prayer to the household gods, the solace of family (the family was vitally important in Roman life...as it remains in many parts of Italy to this day) and close friends. There was also the solace of tradition, of ancient rituals whose meaning had been lost to time, but whose performance was memorized from childhood anyway. Again, the vestiges of this can be seen in the various rituals of Catholicism.

In the aftermath of the Battle of Cannae in 216 B.C., so many Romans died, and so many families were in mourning, that the Senate effectively banned the public trappings of mourning. No doubt grief continued in private, however.

Hope that answers to some extent...gotta run...flight's boarding.

[pdr]

Sorry not to be clear.

Friendships would be deeper and closer, I think, if you knew death sat on your shoulder and that you depended upon people to survive.

I am still interested in the rape protection.
Is it that any man would rape a woman and she needed protection or that only in history would this happen? I can see the fear in times of war but every day?

[Doogs]

Sorry not to be clear.

Friendships would be deeper and closer, I think, if you knew death sat on your shoulder and that you depended upon people to survive.

I am still interested in the rape protection.
Is it that any man would rape a woman and she needed protection or that only in history would this happen? I can see the fear in times of war but every day?

On friendships...I agree...to an extent. All one need do is look at the friendships forged among soldiers in times of war. There's a bond formed in sharing such an experience, and in the days when you could be done in by plague or a poor harvest or a chance fall from a horse, death was something you had to live and cope with on a daily basis.

Regarding rape protection - I'm going to fall back on my stance that human nature is a constant thread throughout the course of history. The traditions, beliefs, and mores may change century to century, but the motivations remain.

Therefore...I don't think that any woman was at risk of being raped at any moment. Especially in a society where the woman (or more correctly, her family) had the power to exact vengeance (i.e. consequences) on the rapist. That's not to say that men didn't fear it even so - the Roman story/myth regarding the rape of Lucretia is a great expression of this fear.

[wee]

Sorry for turning a serious conversation a bit by the wayside but the talking about male/female platonic relationships has me thinking about When Harry Met Sally and the motif of 'can men and women be friends without being sexually attracted to each other?' I think this is a notion that has persisted for many centuries and, in many cases, has been deemed that no, platonic relationships can't exist between men and women without some kind of sexual tension. While individual opinion may differ (I, for one, believe that men and women can co-exist without sexual undertones), I think societal has been embedded that the notion to bop is always there. Women and men being "friends" centuries ago, especially during the Puritan times or the Middle Ages, wasn't something that was seen. If a woman and a man were seen together, it usually meant they were courting or already married. They didn't go get drinks together and if a woman were seen with different men, I think it would be assumed she was a whore as opposed to just a friend. I do think sexual integration is something fairly new but then again, you have classes coming into it as well. Read Herbert Asbury's Gangs of New York and you'll find men and women mixing about without sexual undertones but they were the poor immigrants. Women on the edge of the Bloomingdale wouldn't think of doing that. I think that class line has blurred a bit more today but still, it's a fairly new concept, I think.


I think it's a nice ideal but it doesn't work that well in real life. We are a young couple, early 30s, and have found it virtually impossible to be friends with other young couples our age. The only exceptions are those where one of us is good friends with the same-gender person in the other couple & the other of us is just trying to put up with the other spouse ... and very little cross-gender interaction.

In every instance where we've tried to have another couple over as friends, there quickly develops a jealousy ... usually the other wife, though once I was friends with a lady & her hubby started hitting on me when she wasn't around & my husband developed a strong desire to kick his @$$, so we quit doing things with them in a big hurry.

The only time this works for us is when the other couple is much older, closer to our parents' age. We have a few sets of good friends in this bracket & love doing things with them. One set of our closest friends is the same age as our parents, and the hubby in that set when he first met me actually offered to set me up as his mistress & promised me a much nicer car than I was currently driving. However, he was extremely drunk & his wife thought this was really funny & we are all good friends.

Any woman our own age would have tried to fire-bomb our house if her husband had done that.

Sexual competition between females is very strong, especially in the 20s and 30s (older women tell me this slows down in your 40s, so we'll see). I see women doing abysmal things to each other when they perceive another woman is a threat of any kind ... especially if she might be better looking. I started noticing in a church we used to attend that several women were basically persecuted ... talked about, gossiped about, no one would be friends with them. One Sunday morning I was looking around & wondering why some of these women were treated so badly, because they were the women who had been nicest to me ... then it occurred to me that all of them were at least one notch prettier than the persecutors. Ahhh, okay.

I'm not that great ... I work hard to stay in shape & try to maximize what I've got, but I'm never the thinnest or prettiest in any group, just kinda average. However, most of the women that I could safely say are heavier than me or don't make as much of an effort to look nice each day --> these women typically are very bad to me. Women who are prettier than me are typically nicer to me.

Being in the middle -- and also experiencing how treatment of other women towards me changed as I gained & then lost more than 30 pounds while having kids & as we moved around -- has given me an interesting perspective.

I was treated the best by other women when I was quite overweight, rarely wore makeup, and still wore very frumpy stay-at-home mom clothes. It is worse when your appearance changes for the better among those who knew you the worse way. Those who meet me now & only know me as thinner don't treat me as badly as those who used to be my size & no longer are.

I think the sexual aspect is always there, unless you are of very different ages (even then it may still be there). This drive is so strong that it compels women to isolate themselves & make themselves miserable ... so I know it must be strong in men as well -- after all, they are more oriented to sex than even us!


wee
--very wary of friendships with other women, for the most part

[donroc]

Women from "good" families were still being chaperoned in 1950s Italy and Spain. Going back farther in time, perhaps seduction posed more danger than rape for women.

Also, clerical celibacy created problems then as it does today, perhaps more so in Spain. Even the wealthiest of families sent their daughters to convents because the dowry for a "Bride of Christ" was far less than one had to give in marriage between woman and man.

Also, many young men became priests and monks because they were second sons or they wanted decent food, clothing, and shelter. Therefore, a significant percentage of the clergy had no spiritual calling. That was why the Church considered fornication among the clergy to be a forgiveable sin, but if a cleric stated that fornication was NOT a sin, then charges of heresy could be brought with all the punishments of the Inquisition.

Furthermore, some confessors seduced penitents for which light punishments were given if caught.

As has been said in Spain, no man was closer to a woman than her confessor, not her father, not her husband.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

:Lecture::Lecture:

[johnnysannie]

Slightly off topic but related to something already raised in this thread: personally, I found Diana Gabaldon's Outlander to be so God-awful as to be unreadable. I slogged through 66 painful pages of some of the worst prose I've ever read, then put it down.

OK, you can quit yelling at me! I know it was a best-seller, and I know she's a very successful author. And maybe it gets better a little farther along. I don't know and, after enduring the first 4 chapters, I don't want to know.

Outlander was her first book and, IMHO, it really shows. The first several chapters are almost a classic study of the mistakes first-time authors should Not make.

I feel this book would have a very hard time getting published these days because I don't think anyone would make it through the first few chapters to where it - apparently, eventually - becomes a good read.

Just my opinion.

{ducks behind shield, preparing for flak and rotten tomatoes}

I won't yell (;) but I can't agree...at least not completely! Her Outlander series ranks among my favorite books but I actually read the third book in the series, Voyager, first and then went back to read the first two as well as the subsequent novels.

I don't know what my reaction would have been if I had begun with the first book cold but I will admit that I like the novels from the third one forward more than the first two!

[c.e.lawson]

Regarding Bourbon Street's comments on Gabaldon's Outlander -- wouldn't it be fun to crit a passage of hers that Bourbon Street considers one of the poorly written ones? But I suppose that's not allowed? I would have to go and reread the beginning to try to see what he means, because the only problem I remember is the use of passive verbs more frequently than people recommend here. (Interestingly, I volunteer in my girls' school library once a week and I do peek into books each week to see how these published authors start out their stories, and I've found MANY instances of passive verbs being frequently used from the very first of the novels.

I think her success is an illustration of the fact that you can compensate for some shortcomings (although I don't yet agree with Bourbon Street that she has such glaring shortcomings) if you are stellar in other areas. Her characterizations are amazing. The emotions are real and the conflicts are gripping. Her concept is fascinating. The authentic detail is well-researched. She has great humor - some lines were laugh out loud funny. I loved her descriptions, though some might think she over-describes. Loved her love/sex scenes. So with all there is to love about that book, I think most people would be happy to overlook a clunky passage or two. (Again, I'm not saying I think her passages are clunky.)

Interesting stuff. Perhaps for another thread?

c.e.

[pdr]

Looks like half a dozen thread starters here.

I was interested in wee one's comments about women and sexual rivalry. Most of us females will have noticed something similar I suppose.

And oh yes, Spanish girls are still chaperoned as are some French and Italian girls. Maybe it is seduction and not rape that was the worry for many families in the past.
I am old enough to remember being warned about certain men of my father's age with whom I should not be alone!!!

So what is seduction and how does it work in our historical periods? Was it a known practise? Is it called seduction if a fortune hunting young man who is personable makes a young heiress fall in love with him and elope with him to Gretna Green?

[DonnaDuck]

I think in historical references seduction is a double-edged sword. Men were able to seduce women and nothing came of it but the woman became "tainted." At the same time if a woman were to seduce a man the man because the victim as the mercy of some witchy woman laying her powers of seduction on him. Women were simultaneously weak and evil and men were simultaneously strong and victims.

[pdr]

wretched Christian religion, those ghastly misogynists like Augustine, and the belief in the story that Eve was the wicked and disobedient one.

Down with men! :)

[PastMidnight]

Regarding Bourbon Street's comments on Gabaldon's Outlander -- wouldn't it be fun to crit a passage of hers that Bourbon Street considers one of the poorly written ones? But I suppose that's not allowed?

:D I was just pondering this idea myself! I wondered how passages from her and other popular historical novelists would fare under the sharp eyes of the folks in historical SYW! Maybe we could periodically post a brief passage from a published 'mystery author' (so that we're not biased into being gentle with the crit), just to see that even popular, published authors aren't immune from errors and poor writing.

I wouldn't be opposed to a thread on Gabaldon, but think that we need to keep the discussion to her as a historical writer and not blast her for comma use or something quite unrelated.

[c.e.lawson]

:D I was just pondering this idea myself! I wondered how passages from her and other popular historical novelists would fare under the sharp eyes of the folks in historical SYW! Maybe we could periodically post a brief passage from a published 'mystery author' (so that we're not biased into being gentle with the crit), just to see that even popular, published authors aren't immune from errors and poor writing.

I wouldn't be opposed to a thread on Gabaldon, but think that we need to keep the discussion to her as a historical writer and not blast her for comma use or something quite unrelated.

Do you think there's some sort of copyright law that prevents this? *is fully ignorant about these sorts of things*

c.e.

[johnnysannie]

Do you think there's some sort of copyright law that prevents this? *is fully ignorant about these sorts of things*

c.e.

Actually I believe that it would (and should).

[girlyswot]

I was interested in wee one's comments about women and sexual rivalry. Most of us females will have noticed something similar I suppose.




I think the sexual aspect is always there, unless you are of very different ages (even then it may still be there). This drive is so strong that it compels women to isolate themselves & make themselves miserable ... so I know it must be strong in men as well -- after all, they are more oriented to sex than even us!


wee
--very wary of friendships with other women, for the most part


Well! I'm VERY grateful that as a single woman in my 30's I'm blessed with many great friendships with (i) married men, (ii) their wives, (iii) other single women, (iv) single men. Particularly, as I get older, I'm glad about the first two - life would be very lonely and miserable if all my married friends dropped me! I've never experienced that sort of jealousy or bitchiness that you have, wee, and I'm sorry that that's been your experience. Maybe I've just been exceptionally lucky, or maybe I'm one of those women who is clearly no threat at all...

I honestly don't think it always has to be about sex, the possibility of sex, the jealousy about sex. Sometimes men and women can just be friends. Can't they?

[dolores haze]

I think that what I like about Gaboldon's sex scenes is that they cover the full gamut of sex - from first times, to tender lovemaking, to violent rape, and everything in between. At one point Gabaldon even has Claire feeling empathy for a man who has raped her - a VERY controversial subject. Another controversial subject is the scene where Jaimie beats his disobedient wife. Quite fitting for the era, but this scene can still spark furious discussion among her readers.

I like that she's not afraid to call body parts by their real names, and is not afraid to stray from depicting sex as wonderful. The truth is that it isn't always wonderful.

IMO, the first couple of novels were very romancey, and gradually bacame more and more historical. I've heard a lot of people griping about the amount of historical detail in the latter books, when they wanted her to focus on the Jaimie/Claire relationship. Personally, I love all that great research, particularly the gruesome descriptions of medical practices. Other readers gripe that Gabaldon needs to do some brutal self-editing (or at leat hire a brutal editor.

On other topics in this thread: I believe that it's possible for men and women to be friends, without sex or sexual attraction coming into the equation. I didn't think so when I was younger, but I've learned a lot over the years.

I think Gabaldon might be quite open to giving permission for her work to be critiqued. She seems a good sport.

[donroc]

We have not discussed pimping one's nieces (as in the time of Henry VIII) and the role and influence of courtesans (aka les grandes horizontales) and mistresses, especially in France. Also, the great salons were run by women.

Do the research, consider human nature, and write well.

www.donaldmichaelplatt.com

:Lecture::Lecture::Lecture::Lecture::Lecture:

[wee]

We could certainly do a critique of any published work, but it would have to be like a book club, "Go read Chapter 167, first ten pages. Discuss." Or else get her permission.

Who volunteers to get permission & then type it in? :D



wee

[PastMidnight]

Who volunteers to get permission & then type it in? :D



Hmmm....when you put it that way.... :gone:

[Bourbon Street]

Wouldn't think we'd need permission to just discuss the book, though reproducing large sections of text might be problematic. I suppose we could just reference pages/paragraphs/first word of sentence, etc.

Since it was me opening my big mouth in the first place, I suppose I will have to give it a go (on a new thread, of course). Darn it, that means I'll have to read the first few chapters again!

But to be fair and offer balance, my wife LOVES the entire Outlander series and has devoured them all (she's the one who suggested I read it, since one of my HF novels has a Scottish MC). I respect her judgment, we just have different tastes on this one.

[c.e.lawson]

Wouldn't think we'd need permission to just discuss the book, though reproducing large sections of text might be problematic. I suppose we could just reference pages/paragraphs/first word of sentence, etc.

Since it was me opening my big mouth in the first place, I suppose I will have to give it a go (on a new thread, of course). Darn it, that means I'll have to read the first few chapters again!

But to be fair and offer balance, my wife LOVES the entire Outlander series and has devoured them all (she's the one who suggested I read it, since one of my HF novels has a Scottish MC). I respect her judgment, we just have different tastes on this one.

LOL, Bourbon Street. Maybe it's just a girl/guy thing with Outlander. I can see how it would appeal to women more. But if you're talking about the actual prose, then I'm interested in dissecting...I mean... discussing some of it. :) I just don't want any of us to get into trouble.

[julie thorpe]

How would our critting a published novel differ from its being discussed in, say a school literature class? Not a violation of copyright is it--or if it is i've been guilty of it any number of times as a teacher.

[PastMidnight]

That's just what I was wondering, Julie!

We don't have to look at whole chapters, but even just a few paragraphs or so. It occurred to me that, when we look at individual scenes on SYW, we are (unsurprisingly) much more critical of details than if we were to look at an entire book. I was wondering how some of the best-selling historical authors would fare if they were AW members and put under the scrutiny of our sharp-eyes readers in SYW!

Personally, although I think that Gabaldon is a good writer, I am one of those who thinks she could have used a strict editor to cut out about a third of each book out. Just superfluous scenes, unnecessarily lengthy descriptions, and the like.

[dolores haze]

I'd be into critting a few paragraphs, maybe one each taken from early, middle, and later works. I'd like to take a closer work at what she does right, as well as what she doesn't do so well. It would be good for my critting skills too, and interesting to see other peoples opinions. Will they all be sex scenes?

Yeah, Bourbon, I think this one's on you. Maybe get your wife to find the paragraphs for you if you can't bear to read 'em again? Grin.

Don't mean to sound sick, but I'd be interested in examining one of the rape scenes. I'd understand, however, if y'all decide not to.

[wee]

Regarding copyright.

We can talk about it all day long. We can say "this is great!" or "this is drivel!" and no problems.

What you can't do is reproduce it without permission (unlikely to be granted).

It is perfectly reasonable that we could 'assign' passages for private reading & then discuss here, no problem. Just no quoting more than is necessary to make clear which line/paragraph you are referring to.


wee

[Doogs]

Speaking of sex scenes in historicals, is anyone else reading Ken Follet's newest, "World Without End"? I think it does a pretty good job of handling sex scenes...at least I never found myself gagging or skimming ahead.

[PastMidnight]

Speaking of sex scenes in historicals, is anyone else reading Ken Follet's newest, "World Without End"? I think it does a pretty good job of handling sex scenes...at least I never found myself gagging or skimming ahead.

Not yet, waiting for it to come to paperback. But I loved 'Pillars of the Earth', so I'm looking forward to it!

[Doogs]

Not yet, waiting for it to come to paperback. But I loved 'Pillars of the Earth', so I'm looking forward to it!

You have more willpower than I do :D

I've got maybe 100 pages left, but I'm loving it so far. Some elements strike me as a bit...unlikely...at least with regards to the 14th century, but on whole a very refreshing read.

And I found out, to my utter shock, that the wife has never read "Pillars of the Earth", so I think we'll be buying the audiobook for our road trip to North Carolina in December.

[c.e.lawson]

I haven't read Pillars of the Earth yet, either. It's been recommended to me by several people. I really must get to that one.

[Dusk]

pdr wrote:

"I think before you start adding sex scenes you need to check out"

Amen. I agree with girlyswot's caveats, but if I may go non-mainstream for a moment, the number of historical/fantasy/SF stories who have their characters stocked up on modern-day sex toys makes me wince. Historical/fantasy/SF sex toys, yes, but don't make me feel as though the characters took a car trip over to Blushing Pleasures before having sex.

Drasheny wrote:

"I'm currently planning a an erotic, soft-core S&M novel set in the 1920s. Certainly my characters don't have to be prudes because of the time period. On the contrary, the way the Fitzgeralds carried on makes modern rock stars look tame. However, I am still wrestling with how to approach the sex scenes in language and tone. My concern is that modern readers, especially erotica readers, expect a certain frankness in language that wouldn't be appropriate for that time period."

May I recommend, if you haven't already done so, that you search out the primary sources for that period? My Leather Research Reference Shelf (http://duskpeterson.com/leatherculture/) includes links to a number of BDSM history sites. You might find "American Fetish" (which is an online scholarly treatise) and "Colors of Leather" (which has a timeline for publications in its "Scrapbook" section) to be especially helpful. The folks who run those sites might be able to give you additional help with the language issue.

DonnaDuck wrote:

"Women and men being 'friends' centuries ago, especially during the Puritan times or the Middle Ages, wasn't something that was seen."

Actually, if I recall my long-ago readings on the history of friendship correctly, the Middle Ages was a good period for public male-female friendships - much better than in later eras.

The popularity of opposite-gender and same-gender friendships, and their perceived connection with sexual attraction, has varied tremendously, not only in time but in location (and from individual to individual, as the comments above indicate). In Victorian America, romantic male friendships were still in fashion, whereas they had fallen largely out of fashion in England during the same period.