The Historical Novel Society

Yes, and yes. And you can join their online site as well.

The problem...

with the HNS is that anyone who claims to be a writer of historical novels can have their book reviewed by a reader for the HNS's journal 'Review'. This has given rise to vanity, Publish America and self published books getting reviewed alongside traditionally selected, edited and published work.

The 'Review' does not place reviews in categories, just in time periods. This means it is hard to sort the novels out. Recently there has been a huge increase in reviews of Historical Romance and thus a new collection of reviewers who like romance, but are not good at reviewing anything else. This has given rise to some odd reviews of 'straight' historical novels and upset (with good reason) the writers of these novels. No one likes their work to be called 'dull' because they don't have sex scenes, or the hero's relationship was not a major part of the plot.

It also means that if you are looking for non-romance you have to wade through all the reviews in a section to find what you are looking for, as some of these reviewers of the romances do not say the novel is actually a historical romance.

I know the American editors have strong attachments with romance writers and want to help raise the public image of romance writers, but I do know of writers who will not have their novels reviewed by the HNS because they don't want the historical romance association.

And when I was raising these points with the editors another well published historical writer sent me a long e-mail with this:

'If they (HNS) want to be taken seriously, they'll have to clean up their act...by having pro requirements for membership...and stop reviewing novels which are not pro published novels...'

They do now claim to vet the novels that they will consider for review. So I'm really pleased that they've reviewed mine: http://historicalnovelsociety.org/reviews/cawnpore/

Thanks for starting this thread, gothicangel. I hadn't heard of HNS before. Perhaps I might get some ideas on improving my historical novel and get it published. And congrats Tom from UK on your review!

I joined last week. And though I do understand the gripes pdr mentioned two years ago, I see little wrong with the HNS reviewing historical romances because most that are submitted for review are those stronger on the history than the majority of the sub-genre. I must also argue that historical romance is just as much a part of HF as cozy mysteries are to the Suspense/Thriller genre. All facets of each larger genre--Historical Fiction, Suspense/Thriller, etc--have their place and audience in the broad spectrum of publishing and readership. As for the reasons given for not joining HNS--valid as well, but it comes across as a personal opinion, as opposed to a genuine indictment against how the organization is run. As long as the HNS isn't taking money for little in return, nor are they steering authors into vanity presses, or purporting to be The Way to become a published HF author, I see nothing that would cause any red flags for authors of HF.

Tut!

I'm glad to see the HNS, with the change in editorial staff, are making an effort to be more professional.

My beef with all the romance in the Review, Evangeline is:

1. Other subgenres had separate sections. Fine. Romance was jumbled with the straight historicals. Often it was difficult to sort out which was which.

2. Romance reader/critiquers got given non-romance to read and critted it badly because they wanted romance. I believe this has improved but, for a time, there were some very disgruntled authors and peculiar reviews.

3. Romance writers have many opportunities to have their work reviewed in the many Romance review mags, zines and blogs. Historical writers do not and should have the lion's share of the HNS.

4. But, and this you will not agree with, Evangeline. A romance can never be a true historical because of the demands of the romance genre. The current romance requirements for sex, the alpha male and spunky female, and their sparring until they fall into bed, often break the realities of the historical period they are set in. History is a pretty setting, a background for modern characters with modern thoughts, it is not an integral part of a romance so, for me, historical romances are a subgenre of Romance not a subgenre of Historical fiction.

It most certainly is worthwhile being in the HNS. Aside from the reviews, articles etc, you gain access to a useful network of writers/editors/agents. I'm going to the HNS London Conference next month (http://www.hns-conference.org.uk/). Opportunities to network, to pitch and generally 'put oneself about.'

pdr said:

4. But, and this you will not agree with, Evangeline. A romance can never be a true historical because of the demands of the romance genre. The current romance requirements for sex, the alpha male and spunky female, and their sparring until they fall into bed, often break the realities of the historical period they are set in. History is a pretty setting, a background for modern characters with modern thoughts, it is not an integral part of a romance so, for me, historical romances are a subgenre of Romance not a subgenre of Historical fiction.

Click to expand...

I disagree with this.

Yes, there are some historical romances out there that superimpose 'modern' behaviour on characters but, by and large, many of the historical romances that I read and edit are true to their time and setting. People have been falling in love and sleeping with each other (outside of marriage) for centuries. You can't pretend that it didn't happen. Historical novels aren't just about events and the people that made them happen, they're about normal people living normal lives.

To assume that all historical romances are just modern love stories in historical settings is hugely insulting to the authors who have laboured hard to make their stories accurate and real, including my own. (See my avatar).

I realise that the first post of pdr's which I'm going to respond to is an old one: nevertheless, I feel it has to be addressed.

pdr said:

with the HNS is that anyone who claims to be a writer of historical novels can have their book reviewed by a reader for the HNS's journal 'Review'. This has given rise to vanity, Publish America and self published books getting reviewed alongside traditionally selected, edited and published work.

Click to expand...

There are good vanity-, Publish America- and self-published books available, and isn't the point of a review to discuss the merits and issues with a book?

By suggesting that the HNS should only consider books from trade publishers in the way that you did you're not only dismissing many good books, you're also coming close to insulting writers who self publish.

pdr said:

4. But, and this you will not agree with, Evangeline. A romance can never be a true historical because of the demands of the romance genre. The current romance requirements for sex, the alpha male and spunky female, and their sparring until they fall into bed, often break the realities of the historical period they are set in. History is a pretty setting, a background for modern characters with modern thoughts, it is not an integral part of a romance so, for me, historical romances are a subgenre of Romance not a subgenre of Historical fiction.

Click to expand...

Here, pdr, you insult romance writers and reveal your ignorance of the genre. Yes, there are some books which correspond to the stereotypes that you describe: but there are plenty more which don't. Please think more carefully before you make any more blanket statements like this: it weakens the points that you make, it doesn't help your position here, and it's dismissive of all the great writers who write strong, believable and historically accurate historical romances.

Being a romance/historical fiction/self-published writer m'self - who also happens to have an agent and a manuscript under consideration at one of the Big Guys, so I can't be all THAT bad, can I? - I would have to agree with Old Hack. I see no reason in the galaxy to assume a romance could never be a 'true historical' (what does that mean, anyhow?).

Bio note

Not quite but almost founder member of the Romance Writers of NZ. (Joined the RWNZ in its 2nd yr)

Write for the RWNZ monthly journal.

Attend most of the annual Conferences

Give workshops and talks to the RWNZ chapters around NZ and at the annual conference.

I'll give you ten out of ten for sidestepping the discussion, PDR.

No true historical? I think we're looking at no true Scotsman.

pdr said:

Not quite but almost founder member of the Romance Writers of NZ. (Joined the RWNZ in its 2nd yr)

Write for the RWNZ monthly journal.

Attend most of the annual Conferences

Give workshops and talks to the RWNZ chapters around NZ and at the annual conference.

Click to expand...

'Almost founding', 'writing', 'attending', 'workshopping', and 'talking' don't necessarily make anyone a final authority on what does or does not belong in a genre. It doesn't make anyone a final authority on anything I can think of, in or out of the subject of writing.

Now... have we answered the OP? If so, wonderful. If not, let's try to do so without insulting a good portion of the membership.

Gothic, a dear friend of mine is a member of the HNS, and has written several reviews and articles for the Society. If she's willing to endorse it in that way then it has to be good. And good luck with the competition.

Gothic,

As soon as I find the money, I will be joining the HNS as I have just been accepted as a reviewer. I kind of felt I needed to support them if they were giving me a chance to review. But I also think it will be a good move for my career as a writer. They have a lot of excellent connections to the publishing world.

The review guidelines have changed from the method that was mentioned earlier in this thread. The reviewer chooses what they want to read based on a synopsis of the book. I chose a historical novel that contains a romance because I think historicals with a romantic bent can be both entertaining and accurate. Heck, I would know because I write them--and believe me accuracy is paramount with me. If not, I would be betraying the thousands of dollars spent on my degree in history.

There are historical romances out there that use history as nothing more than pretty wallpaper. But there is a rising subset of writers and publishers that are rigorous in maintaining accuracy. It's called "romantic historical fiction" or even "historical women's fiction." I am proud to say that I am one of those writers. The world of writing and publishing is changing. Some are getting on board, some aren't. But applying well worn tropes of the past doesn't get us anywhere. I used to be pretty stuck up about the historical romance genre. I called them bodice rippers and once got burned off the romance board here at AW. I finally accepted that if calling my novel a historical romance will get it published, then I'm OK with that. I can write accurarely and intelligently and build an audience who knows that I can be counted on for such, even if my work is labeled "historical romance". Nonetheless, I'm still the odd man out because my historical "romance" does not follow the formula. I wrote where my characters took me. I have been told by agents and editors alike that I am a talented author with a bright future ahead of me, but the market will not support my novel. The time period is not right, etc. I will probably end up self-publishing (I briefly wandered into it already but pulled my novel to make some changes). Seeing to write and publish what I want to write, on my own terms, in a period that publishers define as "unpopular" doesn't make me vain.

I applaud for the HNS for being a serious organization that is willing to admit that there are problems in traditional publishing. On another note, I'm very excited about their conference next year as it is in St. Petersburg, FL, which means I can save money by driving and flying. I believe Anne Perry is scheduled to be a keynote speaker. I may just have a fan girl melt down.