Comments on: Class In the Historical Romance

By: REVIEW: Revealed by Kate Noble : The Good, The Bad and The Unread

REVIEW: Revealed by Kate Noble : The Good, The Bad and The Unread — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 06:01:16 +0000

[...] Napoleon and the Queen of Society. I do have to mention that after reading Lynne Connolly’s post about class in historical romance, perhaps my view of this book has changed a bit, but it is a lively tale that keeps one turning the [...]

By: Lorraine

Lorraine — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 00:06:50 +0000

Wonderful piece, Lynne. I’ve been reading the genre for 30+ years and it seems that books published in the last 10-15 years aren’t as well researched as earlier works. I’ve oftened wondered if the research has been limited to other romance writers.

I look forward to reading one of your books. I’ll be sure to search for one of your historicals the next time I’m at the bookstore.

By: Lawson

Lawson — Wed, 27 May 2009 19:06:07 +0000

One thing that you mention Lynne is the Duke as a spy and spy books, while I read them, I hardly ever think they’re really great (I think the exception are Joanna Bourne’s books, but her characters make the books more than the spy stuff). I’ve done a bit of research into military intelligence in the 19th century and it’s perceptions and it wasn’t until after WWII with Ian Fleming did spies move into the spotlight as a sexy sort of thing. Spying was the dirty side of war because any person there had to lie, cheat, steal and do everything a gentleman wasn’t supposed to do. On top of that, even James Bond is a fantasy himself, as spy work isn’t generally what he did in the books or movies.

The setting of historicals in general is starting to burn me out, not due to inaccuracy per se, but the lack of diversity in historical settings in the genre. While I’m sure there are plenty of good stories still to be told in the Regency or Victorian England, there are so many more exotic and interesting settings that can be the setting for a great story. Until then I concentrate on reading about great characters and plot than I do historical accuracy.

By: Madeleine Conway

Madeleine Conway — Wed, 27 May 2009 17:09:45 +0000

I really enjoyed this piece – it sums up a lot of the issues that stop me from enjoying 95% of the historical romances I’ve read.

I think Barbara and Miranda raise deeper issues about books that go to the heart of why romances are marginalised – the ‘it’s fiction’ approach denies one of the basic reasons that we humans need stories. The whole point about fiction is that the really great books (whether poetry or plays, novels, short stories or novellas) tell truths that are deeper than the superficial issue of accuracy. Plato famously regarded fiction as the least noble of pursuits precisely because he felt it was a form of lying. He was being provocative, because the whole point about the best fiction is that it shapes and gives meaning to human endeavours and actions. But that depends on the skill of the story-teller to sustain the world in which the story is set.

While I think romance is gaining increasing validation (thanks to professors like Sarah Frantz and Eric Selinger who are teaching romance as part of studies in genre fiction), I still think it has much further to go compared with crime fiction or spy thrillers, say. I would say that a major aspect of this is the fact that romance is regarded as less well crafted – maybe not by readers, which was Barbara’s point, but by critics. Certainly, based on my own reading, I encounter a higher proportion of wall-bangers in the romance genre, primarily because something jolts me forcibly out of the world the storyteller is building. Maybe my expectations are created by the historical fiction market, where period feel is an essential component of plot and characterisation, and where conflict is created by historical circumstances rather than the Big Mis. But I think this is an issue that romance writers could address – if you look at the critical esteem for and success of writers like PD James, John Le Carre and Ruth Rendell/Barbara Vine, and across the pond, Sue Grafton or Paretsky, Kennedy or Alan Furst there is a fine history of really excellent writing in genres like crime and the spy novel, and romance at its best could and should be competing at the same level. I don’t think it is and I think in part that is the wallpaper nature of so much of the worldbuilding that occurs in romances.

The best romances tell us truths about the most chaotic, passionate, vibrant relationships that we humans have, and the journey we all make beyond our families to the place where we start creating our own families – but that truth has to be built on a sound foundation, otherwise the important, fundamental truths that romances tell will simply sink into oblivion.

By: Miranda Neville

Miranda Neville — Wed, 27 May 2009 14:26:46 +0000

Hi Lynne – great piece. As a native Brit but almost 30 year US resident I sometimes get confused myself when writing my Regency set novels. Yes I try to be accurate and get the English “feel”. But the audience is largely American and the genre has developed its own conventions. Georgette Heyer is regarded as a mistress of period accuracy, yet she made a lot of stuff up (much of which readers now regard as gospel truth) and her voice is mid-20th century English upper middle class, not early nineteenth century upper class (if I may use that phrase in the early nineteenth century context ).
So if people want to read/write about noble spies or pirates, good luck to them. It’s fiction, folks.

By: Suzanne Allain

Suzanne Allain — Wed, 27 May 2009 13:35:04 +0000

Great article, Lynne.

I was just wondering the other day why so many of us American authors choose to set our novels in Britain, where we’re betrayed by our “Americanisms” whether we know it or not. Even spelling can betray us. I realized as soon as my latest book was published that I had used the American spelling for the word “Honorable.”

However, American historicals just don’t appeal to me, and I imagine other writers feel the same. Maybe it’s in our blood to write about Britain because so many of our ancestors originally came to this country from yours. But I do agree with you that those of us who do choose to write something set in a particular historical era should try to get it as right as we can. Anachronistic behavior by one of the characters will jolt me out of a good story. And if the author wants the characters to have modern morals and habits, why not just write a contemporary romance, instead?

By: Lynne Connolly

Lynne Connolly — Wed, 27 May 2009 10:39:59 +0000

Barbara, I write for me first and foremost. I have to, otherwise I’d never finish! I want to take pride in my work, so I do make sure that when I use historical facts, I get them as right as I can.
One of the best ways is to look at history and find an example. For almost everything I write about, I’ve found a real life example, which I’ve taken and dramatised. There were no spying dukes. You don’t really have to know why, although it helps, but because it wasn’t done for whatever reason, the book enters the realms of superficiality.
I’m not against reading it, and let’s face it, I’ve read and enjoyed lots of superficial but fun books myself, but I won’t write it.
This isn’t a fantasy world, or it shouldn’t be, it’s a world with reality attached, and with that comes depth. One of the reasons so many fantasy worlds don’t work for me is the shallowness of the world. Dig deep and – nothing.
The truth was far from dull. If anything, I tone things down for my books. Who would believe the life of Elizabeth Chudleigh if it wasn’t real? Who could believe that a commoner fooled the whole of society when she wore a veil and called herself Princess Cariboo? How about Mary Blandy, who killed her father because a stranger hoodwinked her into doing it?
When Laura Kinsale wrote “Flowers From The Storm,” critics thought she’d taken liberties with history by introducing a strict Puritan sect in the centre of London. But they hadn’t heard of the Shoreditch Community.
You can’t replicate the sheer depth and complications of a rich, integrated society and a system. Not unless you’re Tolkein and you’re willing to devote a life’s study to it. So why not use what is there, and then why try to twist it into something it isn’t? Take what’s there and you have material for life. Impose modern mores and standards on it, and you’ve turned it into wallpaper.

By: Barbara Elsborg

Barbara Elsborg — Wed, 27 May 2009 07:47:32 +0000

Interesting article, Lynne. I wonder though if the majority of readers ‘care’ about some of the historical accuracy. Is it not just those who really understand the country and the period who are bothered? I don’t like phrases used out of the period in which the story is set but the idea of dukes spying or virgins throwing themselves at the nearest handsome man doesn’t bother me. If we only wrote the truth it would be so dull. I should add that I don’t watch TV so I haven’t seen the tudors. I have read nearly all of Phillipa Gregory’s books though. Are they historically accurate? Do I care? Not really. They were great stories and I was entertained. That’s all I ask for in a novel.

By: Jeanne Barrack

Jeanne Barrack — Tue, 26 May 2009 19:47:32 +0000

The Tudors — American audiences do not want to know that Henry VIII was obese with a festering wound by the time he met Catherine Howard. They’d much rather believe he was about 30 years old and looked a bit like Elvis, the only King we recognize! LOL
Everything about it drives me nuts except it’s so pretty looking! LOL

By: Lynne Connolly

Lynne Connolly — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:25:56 +0000

Yes, you did help, Jeanne, and I’m forever grateful. I ventured into the world of the WASP again for Red Heat, and I called the hero’s mother Bunny. It seems so strange, all these cutesy nicknames for such formidable women!

The Tudors! (smacks hand to forehead). I lasted 20 minutes. And why should “entertainment” not be accurate, too? What makes accuracy boring? Going on and on about it, yes, sure, that would be pretty tedious, but you know, just getting it right? #epicfail.

By: Jeanne Barrack

Jeanne Barrack — Tue, 26 May 2009 17:09:40 +0000

Fascinating piece, Lynne.
One of the reasons why I decided not to write about the British Isles was the fear of not getting it right and I’m one of those that wants to be right!
I think I was one of those that responded when you writing about Evan. I worked for several years at a nursing home in DC that was connected to the British Embassy through its establishment over 130 years ago. It counted the wives of several presidents, senators, etc as volunteers.
We had so many volunteers named Mitzy and Bitsy and Muffin and Chip and Bobo — that it was a joke. The wealthy give each other these silly nicknames. They called the residents inmates and spent as little time as possible actually in contact with them. So much easier to merely write the check.
You had , of course, the “lace curtain Irish” of the Kennedy clan, the Hyde Park crew, and that Eastern moneyed bunch.
I’m a tenement gal myself. So I decided that those would be the folks I’d write about.

OT, cracking up about “The Tudors” on Amercian cable. Still, it’s fun to watch some of those pretty boys. And the writer did say he was creating “entertainment” not a documentary.