Recently I read on a list that history is all a matter of opinion, not of specific facts, so I thought it was worth revisiting the historical romance, and the knotty topic of accuracy. Does it add to a romance, or take away from it?  [Gwen ed.: read more about the Ducks’ views on historical accuracy by following the Accuracy tag here.]

If you take the various Acts of Parliament, the political history in general (it’s all documented, word for word, always has been), plus the economic developments then you have a sound basis for discussion and opinion. But you can’t do it without that framework, and in my mind it’s unalterable. There are certain facts you can’t change, and some that evolved and arrived gradually, but there are some things you can’t alter.Sometimes it’s because they never happened, and there has to be a reason why not, other times it’s anachronisms.

To take things I’ve seen in historical romances, there are some things that just couldn’t have happened.

• A known, famous courtesan marrying a peer of the realm and them being accepted into society with open arms.

Never happened. Couldn’t. Various authors (including me, I have to admit, in A Chance To Dream) have played with the trope, but you have to work really hard for it to become probable.

• Peers of the realm becoming pirates.

It never happened. You have to dig into the wherefores to work out why, but since it never happened, there must have been a reason why not. (Lots of reasons, any of which would work). The most important thing – it never happened.

• Regency gentlemen drinking whisky or whiskey from a decanter on the sideboard.

Whisky (which is Scotland-specific) or whiskey (anywhere else) wasn’t legalised until 1823 and the great technical development, the Coffey still, which made it possible to produce Scotch in bulk, wasn’t invented until 1831. A gentleman could have it distilled for his own use, but it wasn’t a common drink, and didn’t really get popular until the 1840’s. Give the darlings brandy instead.

• A medieval Scottish warrior brandishing his claymore.

No claymores until the late 16th century. They weren’t even called that until then. I’ll leave it to the weapons experts to explain why, because it’s not my area.

• A medieval Scottish warrior wearing a skirted kilt in his clan’s tartan.

Skirted kilts weren’t developed until the 18th century. Before then, they had a plaid, sometimes known as the “great kilt.” No clan tartans until the 19th century, although there were geographically-specific patterns and colors from which the tartan was developed. So you’d be able to say “from the Lomond area” but not “You’re a Campbell.” Or something. If you could see the colors, because the plaid was never washed. It served as a blanket, as well as an item of clothing.

If you know anything about history, it’s likely these details will jerk you out of the story. If you don’t, it’s likely the story will be the “generic” type and if the reader has experience with lots of historicals, they’ll notice how flat the story is, and not be able to put her finger on it. If it’s labelled “historical fantasy,” go girl, put a dragon in and I’ll run all the way to the bookstore to buy it!

Writers owe it to their readers, and to the people they are writing about to make it as real as they can – and that includes sound world-building and accurate history. By all means, speculate, discuss, but base it on a knowledge of what happened then, how people thought then, and you’ll have a great story.

Are there any books based in American history that are this far out? Would a writer of contemporaries get away with sending the traffic the wrong way up Madison Avenue, or having all the avenues in New York have two-way traffic? Why should we expect anything less of the historical writer?

It’s an insult to say “it’s only a romance, so it’s okay, I can write what I like and get away with it” or something else I’ve overheard, “They’ll never notice.” So what? The other person a writer should respect is herself and her art.

I’ve only read one Elizabeth Hoyt so far, for instance, and I already know I love her work and I can forgive her the odd slip, if she makes them, but I’m too busy reading to notice. She gets the feel right, the spirit of the age, and she works hard to fit her characters into a recognisable era and voice. I don’t ask for absolute accuracy, only that the author tries. Or calls it something else.

So if the writer respects the genre they right in, the people and the times she is writing about, and her own writing ability, she should think about getting the details right. Please. So I have more historical romances to read. I dearly love a good historical romance, and I haven’t read too many recently.

And when is the new Kinsale coming out? Please make it soon, my copy of Shadow Heart is worn out!