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
http://deborahmacgillivray.co.uk
Internationally Published Author of the Dragons of Callon™ series
#PrairieRosePublications #HistoricalRomance #MedievalHistory #ScottishHistory #AuthorsTool #WritingHistoricalNovels
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.
ReplyDeletePerfect 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
DeleteDeborah,
ReplyDeleteI’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.
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.
DeleteI'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
ReplyDeleteOne 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.
ReplyDeleteYou 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.
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.
DeleteThe 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteA 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.
ReplyDeleteIt 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.
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.
DeleteA 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!!
ReplyDeleteReaders and writers tend to start from what they know. Such small details are very easy to miss or have no knowledge of.
DeleteBlanket/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
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.
ReplyDeleteSince 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.
DeleteI 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.