Thursday, March 27, 2008
Passing the Historical Test
I’m the only historical writing pirate on this boat, so I thought perhaps it was time I stop shirking my duties and start representing (er, representin’?) with some historical appropriate bloggage. One of our lovely wenches, Kelly Krysten, blogged on her personal blog this week about historical historicals and how much accuracy is really necessary for a historical to pass the “historical” test. That got me thinking about why there has to be a historical test in the first place.
*Gunner Marnee clears her throat and attempts to look sheepish*. So far, despite the fact that I am writing a Regency novel and I have done some research, I haven’t been killing myself with research or gotten myself all twisted up over it.
*The Captain sashays to her feet, searching for an empty rum bottle to throw at her gunner. Finding all of the bottles still have some rum left in them, she settles for placing her hands on her hips and scowling fiercely*. Not stressing about research?! What sort of half-ass approach to writing are you pulling around here?
*Her gunner gives a cheeky grin*. I’m a PIRATE. I’m relying on wit and sass.
*The crew grumbles a bit, but can’t find any fault to GM’s logic. They fall silent as the gunner continues.*
Personally, I think it’s more important right now to focus on just spitting my story out. I assume that I’ll start pulling it apart for historical inaccuracies later. But in first draft, I am just focusing on writing my characters and plot. I’ll deal with the colors of petticoats, fabric types for nightgowns, and all that other craziness later.
To continue my historical writing confessions, I have to say that my heroine and hero tend more towards the post-modern than what would have been appropriate back then. I know we’ve chatted before about historical heroines feeling too contemporary, as if they spent a healthy amount of time burning their bras and reading Gloria Steinem or Betty Friedan. That bothers
some, but to be perfectly honest, I prefer it.
*The Captain does grab the nearest rum bottle now, without regard to the inch of liquid still left in it. The Boatswain hurries forward to pacify her in her ire but more likely attempting to save the booze. Sin and Lissa watch the proceedings as if such occurrences happen aboard the RWR all the time. (They do, you say?) Gunner scurries behind a nearby cannon, ducking before she continues.*
In fact, the things I love about novels set in the historical settings are things that have primarily been made up by romance authors. They are the lovely character types historical novel readers have grown to love. But, the reformed rake, the bluestocking who finds someone to love her for her mind, and the governess who gets the lord all feel like the stuff of fantasy. From what I know of history, these sorts of things didn’t happen in reality. At least they didn’t happen often.
The women and men of those time periods would have made the women I know get out their “slap some sense into these people” sticks. I did a report in grad school about medical care (or lack thereof) for women and it made my feminist sensibilities howl in protest. Feisty women who attempted to rebel could easily find their ways into insane asylums. Women were not permitted their own property. Nothing about that is romantic to me.
My heroine’s a witch and she has magical powers. She hardly seems the sort to let anyone push her around.
With all of this said, you might be wondering why I bother writing in a historical setting at all.
For one, I like the tension inherent in male/female relationships back then. If people were caught in compromising situations, they had to get married. Unmarried sex was more risky without the advances we have today in birth control. In contemporary novels, the stakes don’t feel as high to me and the situations don’t feel as dire.
I also like that I’ll never REALLY know what it was like back then. It lets me make parts of it up, though admittedly not all. In order to give historical romances their historical flare I admit that there needs to be enough accuracy to convince the reader that it could have happened. But, I’m not convinced it has to be completely authentic. Leave out the excrement floating in the streets, please.
But, because my characters are destined to have a contemporary feel (as I would argue most historical heroes and heroines do in recent historicals because of authorial bias), I approach my writing more as if I’m writing fantasy and that historical detail needs only to give it authenticity.
In the end, I hope my characters keep my readers reading and that said readers don’t even
notice they are missing out on all the historic details.
What do you think about historical details in novels? Do you think they should be as authentic as possible or are the post-modern historicals ok by you? If you write historical, why and why not some other genre? If you don’t write historical, how comes why not?
P.S. I was looking for test images and this is the best I could do. Don't be a hater.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Books by the Crew
49 comments:
Hmmm, I like both wallpapaer historicals and insanely well researched historicals. It really doesn't bother me if the hero gets help from the heroines vast knowledge of futuristic psychological analysis. In fact I don't like things to be too historically accurate because, as Hellion recently pointed out to me, brother's would probably be indifferent to their sisters( my heroine has 9 loving brothers...well really 8 and the other...oh, nevermind ).
Sometimes if there's too much historical accuracy it annoys me. Like when there's huge information dumps about how people back then laced their shoes.lol.
I do write historicals ,as you know Marn, and I do it because I love historicals. I love the way you can nuance the dialogue. I love the swish of the skirts and the lace on the fans. History is fun to read, but I'm far from a history major. But since I was ten years old I've always imagined my heroines in long dresses and tight corsets. There's something romantic in and of itself about the Regency and Georgian and Victorian periods. There's also a certain magic about the era that speaks to me.
I'll probably write a contemporary someday and love it for all of the things that make it so individual, but for now the Regency holds my heart.
Great topic Marn! (Is it vain to say that when you got the idea from me?*g*).
I can't believe you used representin' and hater all in one blog. Damn. I don't know if I've ever been more proud of you than this moment right now. Kinda make me want to break out in song. Like 99 bottle of rum in the chest, sort of song. LOL
You're so cheeky.
I like historically factual romance novels. I'm not exclusive to them or anything. I didn't sign a contract and told them I'd have and hold them for the rest of my life, or nothing. I like fantasy historicals just as much. And I like the crossbreed historical contemporaries.
Just because you haven't done much researching doesn't mean anything. I haven't done nearly the amount I should in order to make mine make sense. And I'm not writing a historical. Historical is too hard for me. I like things to be easy. Speaking historical is like a foreign language I'm trying to speak after half pitcher of margaritas (don't you dare laugh).
Goodness, you crack me up. Don't be a hater. LOL! Too funny!
Great blog. Though I have to say I prefer my historicals to be historical. But if you have them riding in some sort of carriage contraption that wasn't really used until 25 years AFTER the story is set, I will never know.
IF you have the couple dance three or more times in one night at Almacks and do not declare them formally betrothed, I will notice. So don't do that, k? LOL!
I write contemp because it's where my voice is and I HATE historical research. I would go insane trying to get the cravat right and the names right and how long it took to travel by carriage from one city or town to another. No, no, can't be bothered with all that.
I'll stick to contemporary and just get the normal stuff wrong. LOL!
I think there is a balance. I like historical inaccuracies like: teeth that never rot out your head no matter what crap they're eating, hero/ines who bath everyday, women who speak their mind without worrying about the man smacking them.
I don't like CHOCOLATE showing up 300 years before it arrived in England.
I don't like characters who do things in their stories, against the mores of the period, and it's not explained WHY they're doing it. So maybe it's less historical research and more about character development and explanation in the story.
But you're writing the kind of story you like to read--and I think that's the more important issue.
Actually I really enjoyed the Pregger test image (I'm not a hater)--even if is historically inaccurate. (You should have used a dead rabbit or some crocodile dung or something. Actually I think the crocodile dung was birth control. Probably worked. It'd certainly not put me in the mood for sex.)
Write the story as you see fit--just be prepared, if your critique partner is, oh a history minor in college, likely to constantly point out things that probably wouldn't have happened. Like Terri said: dancing three or more times at Almack's. Huge no-no. You'll get a lot of whiners if you publish that. As long as you don't care about the whiners though--that's cool. You'll have your supporters and delighted-pink readers too.
Me, I'm prepared if my Lucifer story ever publishes for scads of hate-mail...and free Bibles with certain scripture HIGHLIGHTED.
Great minds...I'm blogging over at the Vixens about historicals today (and Jo Beverley has been blogging about them at Romantic Inks all week), although my questions are different. I do like a reasonably well-researched book. I definitely want to get a firm sense of the time the book is written. In some, you'd never know the setting is Victorian because it reads like a Regency unless the author heads the chapter with a date. Little details add so much to the story. I know we historical writers don't want to bog down the reader with too much of the current events of the day (if I were writing a contemporary, I wouldn't dwell on the Iraq War for example), but the characters have to be aware of their world beyond the bedroom.
Maggie, the real world beyond the bedroom? Do you mean to tell me that romance isn't just smut???lol. Could you please tell my brothers that;)
Hellion, would you be offended if I sent you a bible like that now highlighted in pink?lol.
Oy! everyone's blogging about this! LOL
Know enough to tell the story, and never info dump but give bits and pieces to stay true to the timeframe--yeah not every helpful I know. It's what I try and do. For romance anyways. Historical fiction is a whole new ball game. Or if someone is changing history for their story, I want details.
The other thing I've learned... there are some people that 'think' they know everything, even some of the smallest facts, and won't stop for a second to shoot you down... learn to turn on the ignore and trust in yourself.
And I write historical... cause I like it. I think my contemp and historical voices are very different, yet the same.
Morning all!
Kelly - Thanks for the blog idea! :) I like most historicals too, though the huge info dump about the shoelacing gets on my nerves too. LOL!! And I'm exactly the same way; I've always pictured my characters in skirts and Hessian boots. :)
Sin - *wiping a tear from my eye* So glad to have made you proud. LOL! You bring up a great point, that there are a bunch of different "subgenres" to the historical.
You're right though, I'm sure I'll be doing more research at some point. But, for now, I'm just rolling with it.
PS, you only finished half the pitcher of margaritas? Where's your sticking power? LOL!!
PS I'm glad everyone liked my EPT test. Seriously, I couldn't find one picture of bubbled paper or anything. You would have thought, with our country as obsessed with standardized testing, that I would have been able to accomplish that. Alas, no. So, preggo test it was.
Ter - I think there are definitely some things that shouldn't be messed with. And three dances! The hussy.... LOL!!
I suppose I should say here that I actually do like to do research, I just have been avoiding getting bogged down in it. I could research for months without writing a word on my WIP. I just didn't wanna split my focus.
And I think our own writing voices have something to do with where we set our works. Though, I think it might be a chicken/egg thing. Is it our voice that makes us write somewhere or our desire to write somewhere that makes our voice? Who knows, I suppose it's the outcome that matters.
I love reading historical romance. I read more historical romance than I read contemporary. Strange since I couldn't write a historical if my life depended on a finished MS.
I don't pay a whole lot of attention to historical inaccuracies. If the characters are well written, and the conflict is presented well I'm happy.
The hard part of writing a historical would be getting the voice right for me. I would love the research. The dialogue would kill me. I would have them saying something totally inaccurate. The Duke would be calling his friends his "boys" and the heroine's favorite term would be biotch...but she wouldn't be a hater! LOL
Hellion - Balance. Exactly the right word. I want the places and events that happened to be accurate. But, I want my characters to have good hygiene and I want them to care about each other. None of that seeing women only as a piece of property stuff.
I also think that character development is key.
Dead bunnies? Crocodile poo? I did want our readers to comment today Cap'n.... LOL!!
Honestly, your history expertise is very welcome. You just pointed out my bow street runner comment and I might not have picked that up for months. So, keep the historical nitpicking, er advice coming!! I also think that when you publish something there are destined to be those who disagree. I can expect some level of people who won't like some liberty I take. But, we must remember it is only *fiction*.
Oh, and no highlighted bibles from me, dear.
Maggie - I agree that the frame around the story should be sound and the characters aware of the outside world. I think timing of events and places is important. And I agree that small details are important to set the scene. I just doubt I would ever be writing a series of paragraphs about how they would brush their teeth, etc.
It seems there is a line between history and historical to me.
Tiff said - "Know enough to tell the story, and never info dump but give bits and pieces to stay true to the timeframe" This is a great philosophy. :)
I haven't written anything contemporary, though I suspect I will some day. I wonder how my voice will be different....
I have never heard of that crocodile poo thing. What's the story there?
I can actually write historical. At least I've done it in small snippets. There are just too many details to do a full length book for me. The peerage, the limitations on how to get the h/h alone together, the struggle to come up with anything original.
Not that others can't do it, just that I can't.
Lisa - you crack me up. You need to write a time travel and send one of your bad boys back in time. Think of how great a Scottish Warrior he would make! And he could still call them his boys.
http://www.epigee.org/guide/
First paragraph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy_test
History of pregnancy tests is pretty funny. (They used FROGS at one point. I never knew that; did you?)
Marn- you've never had a margarita at El Magueys. They make them extra special on the weekends and pour the whole bottle of tequila in. Matt and I shared one. After a half pitcher, I was toast. Even Matt was loopy. And we walked home. More like rolled down the hill to our condo. LOL
Whiskey, I can handle that. Tequila, and you better watch out. I'll be climbing on tables and stripping to mariachi music.
I don't think I can't write a historical to save my life. I would have to change my environment in order to do that.
My whole mid-set is so urban and "in the streets" that trying to write lines that involves petticoats and/or neck tie thingies would just short out the small amount of brain-waves I have left.
I can just imagine writing a fight scene between two characters:
"Didn't I tell your fancy ass to stay off my turf?" James growled as he menacingly waved the sword in Sebastian's face.
"Now why would I want to listen to anything that comes out of your jacked up mouth you aristocratic fool?" Sebastian replied as he leveled a menacing glare at his opposition.
I write about crime because it's easier to visualize for me, and I don't have to do a lot of research for it, as it just comes naturally for me to write about it. I have no idea why.
I love reading historicals though, especially anything dealing with a Highlander.
I guess we all have our talents.
I had heard somewhere frogs were involved in something like that but didn't know how. Now I wish I didn't. *scrubs brain*
Lisa - I'm glad to find one reader who will forgive me if I'm not EXACT! :) LOL! I think the dialogue is hard, though. It's hard to make it sound both proper and authentic while keeping it so that contemporary readers still understand what the heck they're talkinga about.
And I agree with Ter - your boys would be great in a time travel. LOL!!
Hellion - wow, frogs and crocs and urine burning... See what happens when we leave female medicine up to men? Sheesh...
Christie - this El Magueys sounds like my kinda place. I love Mexican anyway, and any place that roasts you with margaritas is my kinda hang out. :) The dancing on tables sounds fine to me, but the mariachi music might be much. Baby Got Back, well, then we might be talking... er, dancing....
Geisha - ROFLMAO!! That had to be the best gangsta historical scene I've ever read!! Maybe you should try a time travel too!!
Hey Marnee, do you think we should leave the whole frog thing out of our books?lol.
Also I fogot to mention earlier that I do research my book. I had a run in with a contest judge that pretty much traumatized me, so I definitely try and make sure my info is accurate.
I got drunk on marguritas once. I was on crutches at the time. I don't recommend trying to maneuver crutches while intoxicated. It's not pretty. LOL!
We need to get Marnee and Sin to Bar Norfolk.
Either everyone is getting up early or I'm sleeping later!! Sheesh... lots of posts already.
I love historicals. They are my first love. I came into contemps late in the game. I also like historical accuracy but mostly, like Maggie pointed out, because it gives me a better sense of time and place. And since I really, really hate research you could probably pull a lot over on me. Most of the facts I believe I know for sure are the ones that have been drilled into me from reading historicals for so long now.
But as I say with everything if you've got a gifted author I can be made to love just about anything!
As for what I'd write. I have a contemp and an historical started but like everyone else who hates research pointed out - the historical is harder and I'm not as sure of my footing when writing it. I love them but I'm not sure I can write them!
Ter - crutches and tequila. Probably not a happy marriage there. LOL!!
Irish - I agree about the sense of time and place. I guess I'm just not a proponent of using a historical romance novel as a history textbook. (Ie, I don't want a school lesson, I want two people falling in love.) :)
And best of luck with both the contemp and the historical. Just don't follow Lissa or Geisha's leads and have your historical hero popping a cap in the historical villain.
I don't my historical novels to be school lessons, necessarily; I don't like bunches of dates and battle simulations--which I think is what history gets turned into and why it's dreaded--but the circumstances, mores of the period, social accepted behavior and expectations MOLD character, and I do read for characters. I expect the historical setting to have influenced the character I'm reading about; and even if my heroine is outspoken and a reader of the "Vindication for the Rights of Women", I expect her to be kept in check by the society and historical ambiance around her. If she's spouting off that women should have the right to vote outside of Parliament in 1810, I expect the majority of the men to laugh at her and steer way clear of her as a potential marriage candidate.
PLUS human nature being what it is, WE *want* and *need* to fit in with our peers; and if our peers do not accept outspoken women, women who run around without chaperones, women who engage in activities unbefitting that of a debutante--I expect repercussions (conflict and consequences). I'm 30 something now--and I still want to fit in with my peers, though not on the same level as I did when I was 18-22. I was a lot more COWED by authority when I was 18-22; and I feared repercussions. It takes a strong personality, IMO, to not fear alienation from peers--so if I read about a character who is flouting these things, I need to know why. I need to know their backstory. I need to know what incidents shaped them--and why they keep doing it when everything clearly says they should try to assimilate a bit more.
I think historical detail reveals character; and character is why I read books.
Cap'n - the dates and battle simulations are the parts of history and historical research I personally hate. I think the distinction you make between history affecting and revealing *character* versus history just for history sake in a romance novel is totally on point with my philosophy. :)
ITA with the Captain on this one.
*takes great satisfaction in seeing the Captain pass out from shock*
I can't see a 19 yr old girl in Regency England being aware of, understanding, and ready to explore her own sexuality. I'm well aware teens have had raging hormones since the dawn of time, but women were so sexually repressed for so long, I just can't suspend disbelief for that sort of thing.
I've heard authors who have researched the time say women were more in tune with their bodies than we give them credit, but I still can't buy it. This is a strange comparison but it's like the mother in Mary Poppins. She was fighting the Suffrage cause but still made sure to "yes, dear" her husband everytime he spoke.
OH! I love Mary Poppins. :)
And, I agree with you about that other stuff too.
Again, though, I think it's balance. Total doormats make horrible heroines, I think.
But I don't think any of us would say Mrs. Banks was a doormat.
Grant it, I'm quite tired of the classic exclamation "I don't think that will fit!" *arm across forehead in fit of the vapors* But total loss of inhibitions on the first encounter isn't very realistic even today.
Mrs. Banks. That's her name! No, not a doormat. I wasn't really thinking of her, but more historical women as a stereotype.
I agree about the "I don't think that'll fit" comment. LOL!! I also think that they would probably be confused about sexual attraction and resist it as well.
No, I don't want the doormat virgin heroines of the 1970s. Clearly heroines evolve in romances with the generations of authors who are writing them. In the late 80s, I think we started to get heroines, in all genres, with "real" careers or the "I bring home the bacon and fry it up in a pan" mentality; and the 90s pretty much carried this theme too. The heroines were feisty, BUT still seemed to fit the period, even if more on the fringes of "reality". The heroes were arrogant and alpha, but had a soft spot of sensitivity.
But it seems in the 00s, heroes have diverged into two main categories: uber-alphas (vampires, werewolves, superheroes, rakes) OR betas. (Mainly because there was pretty much a dearth of beta heroes...) And the heroines turned into these kick-boxing-attending glam-girls, obsessed with Prada shoes and their CEO promotions--and it feels the heroines of modern historicals have a lot, if not all the qualities of contemporary kick-boxing heroines. I just don't buy it.
Then again, I don't really like the Prada wearing, promotion hunting heroines either.
*ironic look at Terri* Maybe I just long for the GOOD OLD DAYS.
Sounds like alpha-heroines. :)
I have to agree about the classes you are mentioning though. I don't read chick lit or the really dark paras because I have a hard time with super alpha characters.
*resisting the bait*
Great point. LOL!
Marnee - I think Aunty Cindy over on the Romance Bandits calls them Sheroes. I love that term! LOL!
I say just make the man a man. With all the facets of human nature. But keep the societal norms in mind. Don't have an insurance salesman in Idaho challenging the giant bouncer to a fight and don't have the Duke in London doing needlepoint.
It's simple really. LOL! *says the woman who has never finished an MS*
duke doing needlepoint. LOL!!
I love how we overcompensate in our literature (i.e. uber-alphas to balance out all the beta literature) as much as we do with every facet of our lives.
Hey, real men can sew.lol.
Cap'n, the pendulum does swing, eh?
Kelly - clue in my DH, will ya? He popped a button off his coat and I'm afraid of the harm he'd do to himself if I left him alone with a needle.
I never said men don't sew, I said Dukes in the Regency period (or probably any period) don't sew. LOL! Big difference.
I've never met a man who could sew.
Is this one of those alligators in the sewers kinda things? You hear about them but never see one?
I've only seem them on television. You know, project runway and all those decorator shows. I've never actually met one.
But to be fair, I don't know how to sew either. LOL!
I know that men in the marine corps have to learn to sew(at least they did back when my Dad was in). As for Duke's doing needlepoint Terrio is right I just can't see it.
Wow, so many points I agree with here. These are the ones I really can yell - "Here! Here!" to, though!
Hellion said - "PLUS human nature being what it is, WE *want* and *need* to fit in with our peers; and if our peers do not accept outspoken women, women who run around without chaperones, women who engage in activities unbefitting that of a debutante--I expect repercussions (conflict and consequences)...--so if I read about a character who is flouting these things, I need to know why. I need to know their backstory. I need to know what incidents shaped them--and why they keep doing it when everything clearly says they should try to assimilate a bit more."
Terrio said - "Grant it, I'm quite tired of the classic exclamation "I don't think that will fit!" *arm across forehead in fit of the vapors* But total loss of inhibitions on the first encounter isn't very realistic even today."
So I guess I'm with the camp that doesn't really mind the inaccuracies in the historical detail as long as you're not messing the accepted mores of the day!
The comment I quoted from Terri really resonates with me, especially in the contemporaries. Maybe I'm living in a cocoon or something but I'm not really sure women TODAY are all the comfortable with their sexuality either. I'm not really fond of the "ultra experienced, sexually active, totally knows what she wants and how to get it, heroine in the contemporaries written these days.
And... Terri - I need you to take note I'm keeping quiet on the whole "men sewing" comments!
hehehe...I do note and appreciate that, Irish. LOL!
I have no problem with sexually active women in contemporaries, but everybody has hang up in some form or another. Then again, I guess we are writing fiction. *g*
I prefer contemporary heroines who are a bit on the shy side myself. The "Are you sure it will fit" is stupid no matter the century and should be banned. But when my contemporary heroine starts whipping out the toys and batteries, I feel intimidated by her rather than someone I can relate to.
Besides I don't care how much sex you've had, when you're with someone new, you're still going to be thinking, "I hope he thinks I look good naked and likes that little trick I do with my tongue". We're far more likely to be self-doubters than self-promoters. "And this little cherry stem isn't the only neat trick I can do with my tongue, buddy-o!"
We want to root for the Underdog. The fact that the Boston Red Socks won the World Series is far more memorable than any of the recent times the Yankees did. I would rather read a story about someone like the Red Socks...someone good, but has had failures--but presses on.
It's 3:30 here. I'm babbling...I hate folders.
With historicals, I think that if you put too much of the history aspect then the story tends to read a little dry. So, my historicals always tend to have a bit of a modernistic feel in the speech.
I don't think they were they would be ignorant to the meanings of some words that we have in our vocabulary today and should not be treated as morons so to speak.
In contemporary, I excel because it is in essence much easier to not have to temper your words and wonder if anyone in your generation said them, because you know they did.
Not that I would ever give up historicals, because they are ever so much fun!
I like the compromising positions myself. And,how two people despite being strangers can find common ground and fall in love. Or with the lifetime friends, realizing that their counterpart has truly grown up and has turned into a beauty or the most handsome creature ever seen.
Either way just as long as you don't have your heros donning jeans and tennis shoes in your historical, you'll be fine. Not unless it's fantasy and he has gone back through time.. Hmm.. Interesting concept don't you think?
In essence, neither genre is going away anytime too soon and I love them both equally.
P.S. Stop by my blog sometime just to say hi and comment please. It's www.angel-elizabeth1977.blogspot.com/
Irish - I'm glad we made you cheer today. :)
Hellion - I agree about the very aggressive sex kitten.
Angela - hello welcome! Thank you for your thoughts and we'll be sure to stop by!
Post a Comment