Search This Blog

Wednesday, February 21, 2018

To Be or Not to Be (Accurate) - That is the question facing authors of Historical Romance


To Be or Not To Be (Accurate)


That Is The Question
 Facing Authors of Historical Romance


In writing Historical Romance Fiction the author does a balancing act on up on a high wire.  He loves history so we strive to make it as accurate as possible.  Yet, it is fiction, which means an author may to take liberties.  The question is where to draw the line.  While this article was written to address historical do and don't questions, it could apply with any form of fictional world-building.


Historical authors really love history!  We can easily obsess over details that are endlessly fascinating―at least to us.  However, do readers really want that deep of an understanding of the past?  The answer: some do, some don’t.  After all, you are not writing a non-fiction work, historical book, not even a historical fiction novel.  It’s Historical Romance.  As when you pronounce a word, certain syllables are spoken softly while one is accented; when you say Historical Romance always put the stress on ROMANCE.  Never lose sight of that.  My editor on my first historicals, Hilary Sares (formerly with Kensington Books) says readers are tired of “clanking swords, that history is stale, cold, while romance is timeless.”  In this, she touches on the heart of what Historical Romance is:  history is the lesser of the ingredients in the mix.  Love carries the story.  Historical Romance is the cousin of Historical Fiction (which often has romance in them), but they are not the same.



Once a romance author accepts these boundaries then they are left with just how much history do you add?  History is a background for the tapestry you weave.  It should give the reader a sense of period, but never intrude upon the romance, never stall the story out, pausing to explain historical details or to give a history lesson.  After the author reaches that level of what will be good threads and elements to craft into the story, they next face a final hurdle―to weigh the importance of details, the minutiae that draws the historical authors to share their love of the past.



Only here is where it can get tricky.  Sometimes, what readers believe is accurate often is not.  “Bad” history, incorrect word usage, or even how time has changed the meaning of words can stymie the author.  Take the word acquaintance.  Noun: “a person known to one, but usually not a close friend.”  That is how it is accepted in today’s usage.  However, years and years ago the word meant something very different.  Surprisingly, when a man was “acquainted” with a woman, he was saying he had been physically intimate with her.  See the problem?  If you are going for historical accuracy and you say “Mr. Overton was acquainted with Miss Marple.”  In the historical sense you would be saying Mr. Overton had indulged in sex with Miss Marple!  Will today’s readers understand without you having to stop the story and tell them that?  Will a reader, lacking this crumb of knowledge, understand what you said, or will they just believe you are saying Mr. Overton has met Miss Marple, but they are not close friends?  If the author puts that sentence out there and wants the reader to comprehend what they are saying, then they must stop the flow of the plot and the scene and say, “Of course, we know acquainted means he has had sex with her.”  Even then, the reader might scratch their heads and go, hum, it does?  In that instant, you have taken them out of the story simply by using a word correctly, but not right in today’s eyes.  Right is wrong.  Rule of thumb: Rarely is one single word ever that important to risk using, when it can pull their reader away from the imagery to ponder if you are correct or not.



If a Historical Romance came along and used Irish Gaelic spellings instead of Scots Gaelic—which has been known to happen (lol), and this book using becomes a bestseller, then readers can often assume that book to be correct.  Then other authors come along using the correct form and people automatically presume they are incorrect.  So when readers come to the difference they often believe the right spellings to be wrong!  Okay, what then?  Do you knowingly use the wrong spellings of words to conform to what the readers have accepted as correct, or do you go ahead and be accurate and have readers think you are wrong?


Another complexity in to be or not be historically accurate―authors who set their novels in real places, such as the castles of Scotland.  Often, instead of world-building and creating their own castles, some writers pick out a very famous castle for the setting of their stories--even put the wrong clan living there, totally disregarding most castles have a very detailed historical record.  For someone not familiar with Scotland’s past that might not be a problem.  However, the author runs into the sticky wicket of having readers who do, and once more, are taken out of the story because they know the true history of the place.  We must remember it is fiction.  Authors are allowed to bend history a wee bit if it serves to make the story stronger.  I won’t go as far as Randall Wallace did when speaking of the many historical inaccuracies of his screenplay for the movie Braveheart and say history should never get in the way of a good story.  Still, authors should be able to present a romping tale without worrying about being one hundred percent accurate on every single detail.



Another is nationality.  It can come into play in perceptions of what is wrong and right.  Take the simple way you name the floors of a building.  In Britain and Europe, even today, the first floor of a building is the ground floor.  In America, you work on the first floor in New York, while in London you are working on the ground floor.  The first floor in Europe is actually the second level.  When Regency and Victorian periods were in flourish and they had their Seasons in London, they lived in fancy townhouses.  The first floor (second floor to Yanks!) was where they did most of their entertaining.  So, if a woman entered the front door, and went upstairs to the first floor many Americans would assume the author is making a boo-boo, despite they were being entirely correct!



These are just a few of the bumps facing historical authors when trying to keep the faith with history, yet also do a balancing act with the today’s readers and just how accurate do readers truly want their historical romances to be?


Just remember to keep rooted, and that romance and flow are vital to telling a whopping good yarn.



 Deborah Macgillivray
http://deborahmacgillivray.co.uk
Internationally Published Author of the Dragons of Callon™  series

#PrairieRosePublications #HistoricalRomance #MedievalHistory #ScottishHistory #AuthorsTool  #WritingHistoricalNovels 

14 comments:

  1. I ran into this in a PRP story where my hero had an appaloosa. In 1875, appaloosa was a coat color, not an official breed; therefore, not capitalized. However, all beta readers capitalized it. I realized readers would think that was a mistake on my part or poor editing, so I changed the horse to a chestnut. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perfect example. What the readers THINK something was, isn't always the reality of what it was. I recall a writer of Regency getting trashed on Amazon. She had her character go into the house, up the stairs and to the first floor. ACCURATE. Only an American reader called her twenty shades of stupid for making the mistake, because the readers is used to it being a second floor. You either do what the reader thinks is right, you do what you KNOW is right and hope they learn, or you makes changes...lol

      Delete
  2. Deborah,

    I’m dealing with this balancing act as I finalize a book that begins with the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. I’ve put the protagonists at the site of this infamous event but, while it lurks at the fringes throughout the rest of the story, I’ve not made it a history lesson. Another historical aspect of writing this story has been including the slang of the time, which is certainly colorful.

    As a reader, I like an author to include just enough history in the story that it prompts me to research the details on my own.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think people prone to write historicals -- whatever the period--loves history. But we have to remember we are penning a story, and it is fiction. I recall one historical author, who used castles in the 1400s that didnt' exist for until late 1800s. She did an acknowledgement at the end of the book, she knew the castles did not exist at the time of her story. Frankly, I would have just gone world-building. Make your own castles. Problem solved.

      Delete
  3. I've always felt story is the main ingredient and historic details the added spice. Now, finding the right mix is the fun. I personally love reading a story and learning a piece of history I didn't know, but like it to flow within the context. Authors do face choices and each finds the balance for their story and their readers. High Wire is a perfect visual for that. Thank you for bringing the subject out for discussion. I appreciate it as a relatively new author who loves history and writes non-fiction on thise historic subjects. Doris

    ReplyDelete
  4. One of the big reasons I don't write Regency romance is because I am not acquainted with titles, the social demands, and the words used in that era. I love to read them, but I would not attempt to write one.

    You are so right about historical details, Deborah. As Jacquie mentioned in her comment about a horse detail, the writer can have done their research and correctly used the information, but the reader doesn't accept the information as correct. To keep things accurate, but also please the reader, sometimes you just have to ditch that nugget of research and insert something else. I think you're right; we have to lighten up on the details and just get enough history in to set the tone of the story.

    The worst thing I've encountered in an historical novel is the insertion of modern phrases. It throws the whole story off.

    This was a good reminder for us to keep it accurate but simple when it comes to historical fiction.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes, I recall in my second novel (I was pushing hard because of a deadline) I said the character "sussed" a detail out...face-palm! It's modern slang, but when you are used to using a word, you sometimes forget to pause and question the date the word came into use.

      The funny thing I have found, often words you think are newer in original actually were popular a long time ago, fell out of fashion, and came back in vogue. I had dozens of period dictionaries, but lost them in the house fire. Sigh.

      A nice place to help you if that word fits --- https://www.etymonline.com Online Etymology. You can check out the origins of a word.

      Delete
  5. If there is anything I hate, it is reading a contemporary story and with contemporary characters plopped into a historical setting. If I didn't want to know more about the history as well as enjoy a good romance, I would stick with contemporary romances. I read very few contemporary romances. Sometimes, what I really enjoy are author's notes at the end of a novel giving more details into the historical fact upon which the story was set.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A great post, Deborah! Like Sarah, I love to read Regency romances, but would never attempt to write one. And as Robyn mentioned, I really hate to read a romance that is historical, only to discover phrases that are NOT historical I cringe when I read something "morphed" into something else, or "It's not about you..." etc. So many of them jump out at me. LOL That pulls me right out immediately and I have to just make a decision right then and there if I'm going to read on or just put the book down. It's THAT distracting for me.

    It really is hard to keep to the times we are writing in with everything, since we don't live there, timewise. So of course, some mistakes are going to slip through, but when a book has a ton of them, you just know that the author has not researched enough to write in that time period.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did the novella Cat in Jackboots - a Regency Novella, but I fear I will never do a Regency novel. The reader base LIVE for the details and extremely knowledgeable of the period. They can be very harsh critics. I have seen books that I enjoyed very much getting slammed for period details. Ouch.

      Delete
  7. A great post, Deborah. You've talked about many of the conundrums we authors face when writing historicals. And I never knew about the different building levels in the U.S. vs. Britain. Such an easy mistake for an author to make!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Readers and writers tend to start from what they know. Such small details are very easy to miss or have no knowledge of.

      Blanket/blankets is one that bothers me. The term was just coming into being at the time I write, so I try to not over use it. Then you are struggling to find substitutes (ones you don't overuse). But the verb use didn't come into use until hundreds of years later. However, "snow blanketing the landscape"...I will admit to committing. I just don't think most people are checking the origin date of every single word. The Prose has to come first...lol

      Delete
  8. I so enjoyed your post and all the comments, Deborah. You've addressed problems that vex all writers of historical fiction/romance. My first three books were contemporary romance. I was on the phone discussing my wip with Judith Duncan, when she gave me two scenarios: to picture Samantha (my heroine) in a white pant suit, flagging down a taxi and then to picture Samantha in a long green gown with jewels in her hair singing in an opera house....which appealed to me the most? I promptly said the latter. She had realized that my writing style was more suited for an historical romance than contemporary. When Harlequin rejected my first book, one of two comments was that the writing was old-fashioned. Being naive, I thought it was because my h/h got married and then went to bed and figured I could switch that around. But that wasn't what they meant. Judith realized it was my phrasing, too formal dialogue and my word choices, that "did me in". Between high school English teacher and reading nothing but historical fiction, I talked and wrote formal dialogue. She was so frustrated with herself that she hadn't realized what was wrong with my writing. As a result, I second-guess myself a lot and am thankful when I get feedback. I also know that words were often already in use before they became official. Like I can't use Teddy Bear as a nickname in 1899. And I love the word sassy, but it, too, was introduced later. Regardless if an author writes historical or contemporary, we have to be so vigilant to not jar the reader out of the story. So, between Eilis and Cheryl, I hope you catch my blunders to prevent me from being blasted by an irate reader lol.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since I do both Contemps and Historicals, I understand your problem. Don't let your sounding old-fashioned stop you from writing Contemps. Just find a setting where it works. My Sisters of Colford Hall series -- I handled that problem by finding out of the way places where time tends to stand still.

      I have had people of accuse me of "sounding" medieval or old-fashioned. It's just how I think. I do find writing the Historicals easier. Things change so much, so rapidly in today's life, that I am often not up on fashions or trends, so I do more research for Contempts than I do for the Historicals.

      Delete