Only Read by Girls

Hi Wee - In the very old days, most historical novels were written by men but contained a small element of romance which appealled to women. I think there was also an interest by women in the historical accounts because through books they could experience what they weren't permitted to experience in real life. Main characters were males, but there was at least one romantic counterpart. Authors that stick out in my mind for the pre-1950 period are Rafael Sabatini (Captain Blood, etc.) and Samuel Shellabarger (Captain from Castille (my all time favorite), etc.)

Back around 1950 there was a shift in who was writing historical fiction with an appearance of more feminine authors. And there was a bias - some people wouldn't pick up a novel written by a woman because it couldn't possibly be as good as one written by a man (the Brontes, George Elliot, etc. not withstanding.) Historicals took on more of an element of romance and female main characters became prominent. (The Angelique series by Sergeanne Golon (written by a husband/wife team) sticks out in my mind for this period.) It wasn't too many years after that that rows of historical romances appeared in the book racks. I remember well my spinster aunt standing in front of one of the book racks looking at the more risque covers and saying "Who would buy those trashy novels?" (She did when she thought no one was looking).

Look at where we are now society and culture wise. Women are permitted to do basically everything a man can do; sex is out in the open. Who's going to read historical novels that are not historical romances? My feeling is that you're back to the audience that existed before 1950 - people who are interested in history, other cultures, what life was like, and want to read a good story. If that assessment is accurate, then primarily male characters with some violence and fighting should work just fine.

And there's another factor in who reads historicals. For some reason, historicals seem to appeal to a younger audience and there are a number of people who grow out of reading them (and reading fiction in general). I think this has something to do with individual's needs to experience a fantasy or fanciful life vicariously versus acceptance of reality.

BTW, this was an interesting question, I'll be curious to see how others respond. Puma

this should be an interesting topic!

Personally, I think there are two extremes in historical fiction. The first is violence, action, battle-porn. The other is the historical romance. There's probably a natural gender divide between these two extremes, just as there's a divide between the toys that boys and girls play with as children.

But...through my own observations...I've noted that women are more open to a wider swath of historical fiction than men. To that end, I think women are probably more likely to read Pressfield's Gates of Fire than men are to read The Other Boleyn Girl.

Then again...I'm male...and one of my favorite historicals (Penman's Here Be Dragons) is, at its heart, a romance.

Puma said:

And there's another factor in who reads historicals. For some reason, historicals seem to appeal to a younger audience and there are a number of people who grow out of reading them (and reading fiction in general). I think this has something to do with individual's needs to experience a fantasy or fanciful life vicariously versus acceptance of reality.

Click to expand...

Hey, now!

I discovered historicals during my high school years, and give them serious props for igniting my passion for history. I was already interested, but the novels and their stories brought history alive in a way I'd never experienced before, and I was hooked. In a tenuous but very real way, historical fiction is responsible for my major in college, my transfer from Vanderbilt to UT, my meeting my wife, scoring my present job, and for my decision to write a novel.

There's an escapist quality, sure, but the same could be said about fiction - or stories in general. Hell, Livy remarked on that escapist quality when writing his histories two thousand years ago:


But escaping for a brief time, losing oneself in a great story, is not the same as living vicariously or attempting to hide from and substitute reality. Doubtless there are those that do so, but I think that is a pretty harsh claim to cast upon an entire demographic of readers.

And, how old are you, Doogs? And how old am I? I think you'll find as you get older there comes a lack of luster in the fictional accounts and much greater importance placed on non-fiction. Think about where you are now in your writing and research about the Punic Wars. Would you now devour fiction written about them or would you seek out non-fiction to increase your knowledge? Would you accept any other fictional account as being as good as your own?

Why do people read at all? I'd say, to learn and to be entertained. Fiction is entertainment. How are people entertained? Could it be by seeing others in situations they themselves have escaped or would enjoy being in? And then ask yourself - Why is being able to identify with a character so important for reader interest? Historical fiction marries the two reasons for reading - you can learn while you're entertained. But I still think the majority of readers imagine themselves in the situations the main characters are in. Puma

I think you'll find as you get older there comes a lack of luster in the fictional accounts and much greater importance placed on non-fiction. Think about where you are now in your writing and research about the Punic Wars.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I don't know that this is so much a function of age as it is of experience with a subject. That experience makes a) the non-fiction texts more accessible and b) another writer's inaccuracies all the more glaring.

I do agree that historicals can impart both education and entertainment. They are an excellent 'gateway' into a time period. They tell the story...the "why" of history...in an accessible way. They put you on the ground. They bring the sights and sounds and smells to life in a way that very few non-fiction texts can. And by doing that, by getting the reader interested in the story of an era, they of themselves make the non-fiction texts that much more accessible.

As to losing oneself in the story and imagining oneself in the situation the main character is in...is that not the mark of good writing and a good story? When I read fiction (of any genre), I want to be there with the MC, experiencing what they experience.

But I fail to see how the escapist nature of fiction in general equates to not accepting reality.

This is a fun question, wee.

From my perspective as a woman reader, I love reading books about men - especially manly men with scars, emotional or physical. I wonder what the average male thinks about stories that feature a female MC? (Though I have a pretty good idea.)

What I look for as a female reader (and if I could generalize I'd guess that a lot of female readers look for this as well), is emphasis on human emotion/psychology and interpersonal relationships. I don't go for historical fiction that has a 'macro' emphasis - political or battlefield, if it doesn't delve deeply into the human part of it all. I actually had a problem with Colleen McCullough's First Man in Rome which I read years ago - and it's written by a woman. I remember skipping over a lot of the 'dry' battlefield and political stuff and getting myself back to the interpersonal stuff. I absolutely loved Charles Frazier's Cold Mountain - written by a man, but again, the emphasis is on Inman and his personal journey.

There doesn't even have to be romance in the book for me to enjoy it, as long as there are other relationships emphasized - father/son is one type of relationship I love to read about.

I know my Sparta story will appeal more to women, since my MC is a girl, though I too will include battle scenes and prominently featured male characters - the MC's father and brother and love interest are all soldiers and will play big parts in the story. But my focus is on the emotional and values and choices/repercussions that reflect that time and place. It's a very intimate story.

So that's one perspective from a 'girl'.

c.e.

c.e.lawson said:

I wonder what the average male thinks about stories that feature a female MC? (Though I have a pretty good idea.)

Click to expand...

I will admit a certain in-built bias...but going back to Here Be Dragons...the MC was female, and it remains one of the best books I've ever read, historical or no.

And I just yesterday finished Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy, whose main protagonist is a young girl. Fantastic read (and a compelling example of 3rd person omni, but that's neither here nor there).

I want a story and characters I care about. Past that, gender is of no difference IMO.

Doogs said:

I want a story and characters I care about. Past that, gender is of no difference IMO.

Click to expand...

One of the reasons I've enjoyed the excerpts you post on SYW, Doogs, is that I have felt drawn into the human aspect of your POV characters, whether you've posted battle scenes or scenes regarding political maneuvering. Hopefully you can keep it up through all 200K pages!

c.e.lawson said:

This is a fun question, wee.

From my perspective as a woman reader, I love reading books about men - especially manly men with scars, emotional or physical.

Click to expand...

Hee, hee.

In the very old days, most historical novels were written by men but contained a small element of romance which appealled to women.

Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by 'the very old days', Puma, (and indeed 'historical novels') but certainly Georgette Heyer was a prolific historical writer in the early to mid twentieth century. As well as her romances, she produced a number of much more serious historical works (one about a younger brother of Henry V, a couple on the Peninsular Wars, the escape of Charles II etc.)

Georgette Heyer is the mother of modern romance. I love her books. She managed to bring the Regency period to life in a very entertaining way.

Another female perspective. Well, I read on both sides of the divide (yep, there's definitely something about those manly men *grins.*)
I first began reading historical fiction when I was ten and just gobbled up Henry Treece's and Rosemary Sutcliffe's books. Falkner's Moonfleet was another favourite. Got to admit it, those ancient worlds did become a place of escape from an unhappy teenage existence. I still read books that focus on the male perspective. Currently I'm working my way through Simon Scarrow's Roman series. Basically, if it's a good story told in an animated way I'm game...even for the battlefield and political scenes. The thing that bogged me down in Mc Cullough's First Man were all those names!

jass said:

The thing that bogged me down in Mc Cullough's First Man were all those names!

Click to expand...

Not to mention the five pages devoted to how they put on and arranged a toga, the ten pages to describing the dining room...

Don't get me wrong...I love her books...but they could be tighter than they are.

jass said:

Georgette Heyer is the mother of modern romance. I love her books. She managed to bring the Regency period to life in a very entertaining way.

Another female perspective. Well, I read on both sides of the divide (yep, there's definitely something about those manly men *grins.*)
I first began reading historical fiction when I was ten and just gobbled up Henry Treece's and Rosemary Sutcliffe's books. Falkner's Moonfleet was another favourite. Got to admit it, those ancient worlds did become a place of escape from an unhappy teenage existence. I still read books that focus on the male perspective. Currently I'm working my way through Simon Scarrow's Roman series. Basically, if it's a good story told in an animated way I'm game...even for the battlefield and political scenes. The thing that bogged me down in Mc Cullough's First Man were all those names!

Click to expand...

You're the first person I've ever heard mention Rosemary Sutcliffe. I still have a couple of her novels from the Library discard sale. I loved her stories, and they were very masculine.

On Topic: I'm a female. All my favorite novels have male MCs. Of the novels I've written, none have a female MC. Women almost don't appear in a couple of them, except to say a tearful goodbye or to become pregnant.

Women only appear in history books when they either have affairs with the great (Emma Hamilton) or murder someone and get themselves hanged (Charlotte Corday). This limits their ability to inspire historical fiction, since the heroes of history are mostly men, manly men, men in tights with swords and topboots and tricorn hats and damson red velvet coats....

My favorite books as a teen were Ian Flemming's James Bond novels. No, they're nothing like the movies. Bond is a cold, tough killer, but he could also be touchingly human. I also loved any books related to the military, to ancient Rome or Greece (had a short Frank Yerby fixation for a while). Even my mother commented on my reading choices, asking why I always read boy-books. Well, I found girl-books insipid.

So I write what I've read: boy-books with all male casts; who doesn't love a good buddy story?

Sure, there are good books out there with female MCs. At least I suppose there are. Well, I liked "The Thorn Birds," anyhow.

I grew up on Rosemary Sutcliff, as well. What really impressed me, when I found out more about her, was that she was physically handicapped all her life, yet she wrote such great action scenes (there was a dagger fight in Warrior Scarlet, for instance). She also wrote some very good handicapped characters - the MC of The Witch's Brat, and Marcus Flavius Aquila in Eagle of the Ninth, who was invalided out of the legions, and the kid in the knife fight, Drem in Warrior Scarlet, had a withered arm.
There's usually a good dog in there somewhere, too.

Geoffrey Trease was another great historical children's author, and he was very good at having a boy and girl pair as the main characters. The Hills of Varna has a Renaissance boy and girl going off to find an ancient manuscript, and Cue for Treason has Shakespearean players, one of whom is a disguised girl.

And nobody can do Vikings like Henry Treece!

I'm really hoping there's someplace in between. My first novel has exotic locales, historical figures and adventure including sea battles and mercenary engagements in North Africal, a sexually abused, physically and emotionall scarred male as the MC, and I have to admit, a reactionary character as heroine. It also has a pretty intense romance and some steamy sex. I was told it had too much adventure for a romance, and too much sex and romance for an historical. I did manage to sell it but it's not out until next year and I have no idea if it will appeal to male or female readers. I hope it appeals to both, and dread it will appeal to neither. I believe it's going to be marketed as a romance, so I'll have to wait and see.

The one I've just finished will be marketed as an historical but it has the same elements. I should know within a year which audience is more forgiving of deviations from the standards of the genre, history buffs or romance fans, men or women.

Interesting thread, interesting responses.

Being a girl, I can only give you my take on historicals from a female point of view.

I hated history in school. I had a teacher who lectured incessantly in a monotone and it was nothing but dates and names. Dry as dust. As well, it was all American dates and names, nothing else. I spent summers in Vermont with relatives, but I'm not American and rather resented that bias. Surely other countries including my own had their own histories!

The first historical fiction I read had no female characters at all. "HMS Ulysses" by Alistair Maclean was a destroyer on the suicidal convoy route from Halifax to Murmansk in WW2. I've worn out three copies so far.

The second was "The Wolf and the Dove," by Kathleen Woodiwiss. Saxons and Normans with a strong female lead. The only romances I'd read prior to that had been Harlequin, which I found boring. This gave me historical detail as well as a good story and got me into historical romance.

Women don't play a big role in the history books. Go back to the Middle Ages and half of them aren't even named in the birth records. Heavens, go back less than a hundred years and they weren't even legally people.

Older people like myself (52) grew up in a world where women were expected to be good housekeepers and mothers. Career women were looked down on to a degree because they were seen as "unfeminine" if they didn't have a husband and children. Women writers were likely to be dismissed by both men and women in any genre but romance as being less able to write something hard. I preferred male writers myself because there was more choice -- women were stuck writing romance and I wanted science fiction, mystery, fantastic tales.

Society changed. Women started becoming more than just someone's wife or mother without being shunned. Books changed, too, with main characters becoming male or female... and they were good! It stopped mattering whether the writer or characters were male or female; story trumped all. Men started reading books written by women, featuring strong female leads without their contemporaries giving them sideways looks and questioning their sexuality. It started becoming possible to buy a book based more on what kind of story it was than what sex the author or characters were.

Today's youth have grown up with the idea that sex does not have to correllate with ability, and through the interest in science fiction they are able to embrace different mindsets, different worlds. I doubt any of them even take the sex of the author into account when reading a book blurb. They're going to go more by character vs action driven tales and that will depend on the tastes of the individual reader. A male might still be more likely to pick up a male protagonist than a female because he wants to live the story in a form he's more comfortable with, but he won't turn down a female lead if the story is good enough. After all, a female human is closer to his own form than a Klingon or Rigellan and he's grown up with both.

Historicals are reaping the benefits of these changes. By including female as well as male leads, we can open up the daily lives behind the history books and show the people as they were, warts and all. Having more stories and viewpoints available encourages even those sticking strictly with historical facts to tell the most compelling story possible about those facts. As long as the voice telling the story is strong, I don't think the readers are going to quibble about the voice's sex.

Good post Bardskye.

It's a shame that women don't play a great role in history books. But surely there are a few somewhere in the annals of history who made a mark in their society without having to jump into bed with a great man or murder someone. Now that would be a challenge...to find one and weave a story about her. Hypatia of Alexandria might be a possible candidate? She was pretty remarkable for her time.

I had an Alistair Maclean phase too, also liked John Buchan's books. I've never tried Ian Fleming though I liked the movies...especially if they featured Sean Connery.
Although I enjoy male dominated fiction and believe women can write it well (and vice versa i.e men write female stuff), I'm not sure I have the aptitude for it myself. I have attempted a story set in a (Roman) fort, but my female penchant for romance kept interfering so I let it drift that way.

Manat, the premise for your book sounds fascinating. The question is, if it's being marketed as romance how many males will pick it up to see what it's about? I don't know which publisher you are with, but I thought some were now encouraging the old style of romance with more adventure thrown in.

Evaine, you're so right...nobody can do Vikings like Henry Treece! I loved the Vikings Dawn, Road to Miklegard, Viking's sunset trilogy, though I ended up devastated by the way he killed them off in the last book.
I always felt there was an undercurrent of melancholy in Rosemary's Sutcliffe's writing, and wasn't surprised when I finally read her autobiography and discovered how she had suffered in her life (I think she was disappointed in love too?). It seems her suffering showed through in her stories, but made them brilliant for that.

Quote:
"It's a shame that women don't play a great role in history books. But surely there are a few somewhere in the annals of history who made a mark in their society without having to jump into bed with a great man or murder someone. Now that would be a challenge...to find one and weave a story about her. Hypatia of Alexandria might be a possible candidate? She was pretty remarkable for her time. "

Women played a very great role in history - but men wrote the history books. Even so, women like Hildegard of Bingen, Alessandra Giliani and Telesilla of Argos (and Hypatia of Alexandria is a good choice, too) could all inspire remarkable books.

Kate Thornton said:

Women played a very great role in history - but men wrote the history books. Even so, women like Hildegard of Bingen, Alessandra Giliani and Telesilla of Argos (and Hypatia of Alexandria is a good choice, too) could all inspire remarkable books.

Click to expand...

Very good point, Kate.

I would also add to that list Aspasia (Pericles' mistress), the warrior queen Boudicca, the Byzantine Empress Theodora, etc.

My MC's youngest daughter, Cornelia, was another woman who made a profound mark upon history and who became a role model for Roman women in the waning years of the Republic.

Wow, Manat - your description of your story makes me want to go out and buy it right now! (If your MC is manly as well as scarred, of course.)

Actually, Of Human Bondage is probably my favorite book of all, and I don't think that Philip Carey was particularly manly. So I may have to retract that.

And your point about the women you've mentioned being extraordinary and frowned upon in their day, well, that makes things all the more interesting as far as writing a story about them! At least it's certainly a source for more juicy conflict.

Point taken Kate and yes, it is a good one. You have given some good examples Doogs and Manat. The list gets longer and longer as you think about it. Boudicca of course is a popular subject in fiction.
I can remember reading the diaries of a couple of the explorers many years ago...I think it may have Freya Stark and Gertrude Bell. You can only admire them.

Historical

Have you read many of Janice Holt Giles historical novels? She wrote some incredibly popular historical novels that appealed to men and women.

I googled Janice Holt Giles because I had never heard of her. Perhaps she is more well known to American readers? Her books sound fascinating and I shall look out for them in future. She seemed to have a pretty down to earth and sound philosophy about life. There was a great quote from Forty Acres And No Mule on the site I visited. Not sure about the rules on quoting passages from the books here, so I wont write it. Thanks for the mention James.

Am I the only one who remembers Taylor Caldwell's most excellent historical fiction novels, let alone with great fondness?