Romance Unlaced: Not 'romances' but still romantic
There are many examples of historical fiction that are not considered historical romances, even if they share similarities. There may be a strong — perhaps very strong — love story included in the plot. There may even be *gasp* sex. Maybe lots of it. But these books are not considered historical romances, according to their publishers or the market. As for the writers — I was curious to know how some of them feel about the distinctions, and whether they are more than marketing.
The line between romantic historical fiction (for lack of a better term right now) and historical romances can be very clear or pretty fuzzy. I am a believer that there is a difference, having to do with focus, but I have read some of the former that in my opinion really were the latter.
Let's start by making clear what are NOT the differences:
• "Historical fiction has more history and historical romance just uses history as a backdrop." This is right up there with "historical fiction is more concerned with accuracy." This rather insulting explanation is normally given by people who have never read much historical romance.
• "Historical romance has a happy ever after ending and more mainstream historical fiction does not." Sometimes the characters in mainstream historical fiction end up happy — there is no obligation that every one die on stage at the end.
• "Historical fiction has a real plot separate from the romance, while historical romance is all about the romance." There is a lonnnnnggggg list of historical romances with lots of plot, historical events and people, etc.
So, having cleared away the nonsense, what is the difference?
Lauren Willig has written historical fiction that has crossed the invisible boundary and is sensitive to how fuzzy that boundary can be. "My books fall in the wobbly middle between historical fiction and historical romance. I've had mainstream readers complain that the book is really a romance and romance readers complain that the book isn't a romance — with the same book! It really depends on the individual reader's expectations going into the story and that's very hard to predict, person to person," she says. "I've always read across genres, so, when I sat down to write my first book, which I thought was going to be a romance, it came out as a hodge-podge (or, more elegantly, 'cross-genre'). I've been typed as historical fiction, historical women's fiction, historical mystery, historical chick lit, historical romance — all for the same book. I never sat down and said, I'm going to write historical fiction with strong romantic elements. It was just the way the stories went."
For other authors, the subject of the book is such that it would never pass muster on the romance shelves. Gillian Bagwell writes fictionalized accounts of the lives of real historical figures. Some of them had multiple husbands and varied love interests, and perhaps not even that HEA that is part of romance readers' expectations. "My novel The Darling Strumpet has plenty of passion, love and sex in the book, but the heroine, Nell Gwynn, is involved with several men during the course of the story, " she explains. "Her journey from street urchin to popular success as a beloved comic actress and finally to being Charles II's most unlikely and engaging mistress and the mother of two of his sons, and all she experienced along the way, is more important than any one relationship."
Donna Thorland, who writes novels set during the Revolutionary War, thinks there is another big difference, and it is not what one would expect. "In a word: marketing! I think that if my books had come out a decade ago, they would have been shelved in romance. My favorite romances have always had a swashbuckling element, a hint of danger and excitement, a duel or a midnight chase across rooftops. Publishers have tended to move these books to other shelves in recent years, so if you're looking for something with the adventure of Loretta Chase's Mr. Impossible or the danger and intrigue of Mary Jo Putney's Silk trilogy today, you might have to look in historical fiction to find it."
—
A clipped, aristocratic male voice, rich with humor, drawled, "I hate to intrude..."
There was a man. A man standing just inside the doorframe.
No, not standing. Lounging. He leaned bonelessly back against the old oak, his pale gray suit molding itself to his long form, a miracle of expert tailoring.
The man looked just as expensively constructed as his suit, along the same long, elegant lines. Beneath close-cropped, curly black hair, a pair of high cheekbones slanted down across his face. His lips were red and sensual, lips for eating strawberries with, but his black eyes were alert and all too keen.
Right now, they were focused on Rachel.
From The Other Daughter by Lauren Willig, coming July 21
—
That shift in focus from the romance to other developments can sometimes be subtle — so subtle that some readers do not notice, and find the distinction artificial. As a writer who initially received "it is neither fish nor fowl" rejections, I became sensitive to how that focus works in a story. When one composes a painting or photograph, for example, there are many elements in it, but often there is a focal point. The composition cannot work without the other elements — they can be vivid and important — but they tend to lead the eye back to the focal point. In a romance, that focal point is the romantic relationship. In historical fiction, it might be the woman's journey, or historical events.
Sara Donati, whose books have attracted historical romance readers, but who does not write romance as such, explains the difference this way: "Straight historicals tend to be longer and more detailed, because the time and setting are more central to the story. The main characters are part of the story, not the story itself. Also, a straight historical will sometimes sacrifice the HEA for the sake of the story. That's rare in a historical romance, unless there's a sequel that will resolve the problem."
She is touching on a difference that often shows up right away — one of pacing and of how the story unfolds. Straight historicals often spend more time creating that setting.
Do authors make a decision at the outset on which way to go? Surprisingly, not all do. It just happens. Either the story demands the way it will be written, or publishers make a marketing decision later. "I never think about how a novel I'm writing will be classified, because the story has got the upper hand and I have to follow it or risk disaster, " Sara explains.
For Gillian, the subject matter decrees the way the book will be written. "The books I've published so far have all been based on the lives of real people: Nell Gwynn; Jane Lane, who helped Charles II escape after the Battle of Worcester in 1651, saving his life and the future of the monarchy; and Bess of Hardwick, who rose from humble beginnings to become the most wealthy and powerful woman in England after Queen Elizabeth. I was fascinated by their stories, who they were and what they did, and while love and romance were part of their experience, it wouldn't have been possible to write their lives as romance novels without altering history and doing them a grave injustice. "
Donna Thorland aimed for the historical market, even though her books cross genre. "I love a rich setting with lots of danger and intrigue. I wanted to write British-occupied Philadelphia during the Revolution — where Howe's army tried to re-create decadent Georgian London in conservative Quaker Philadelphia. I knew the American setting would make the book tough to market as a romance, but I was passionate about the story, and determined to win readers over."
—
The king was close enough now that Nell could see him clearly. Big and broad shouldered, he sat tall in the gilded saddle, long booted legs straightening as he stood in the stirrups, as if he could not stay seated in the face of his people's adulation. His long dark curls cascaded over his shoulders as he swept his hat from his head and waved it, turning to either side to acknowledge the cheers.
He smiled broadly, laughing with exuberance at the tumultuous welcome. "I thank you with all my heart," he called, his deep voice ringing out amidst the clamor and cries.
"God save King Charles!" Nell realized it was her own voice. The king looked up, and Nell caught her breath as he looked her full in the face. He grinned, teeth showing beneath his dark mustache, eyes twinkling in his swarthy face, and called back to her, "I thank you, sweetheart!" Impulsively, Nell blew him a kiss and was immediately overcome with horror at the audacity of her act. But the king threw his head back and laughed, then blew a kiss to her, waving as he and his brothers rode on.
Nell giggled and bounced off the windowsill. "Did you see? He blew me a kiss!"
"Aye, and from what I hear of him, he'd offer you more than a kiss, was you close enough for him to reach you!" Nick guffawed. "He's got a mistress who's another man's wife, and two or three merry-begotten brats by other women, they say. For who will say nay to the king?"
Not I, thought Nell.
From The Darling Strumpet by Gillian Bagwell
—
For a writer, marketing a novel to a publisher can still run into the "is it fish or fowl?" issue, even though there is a large market now for these more mainstream historicals. Gina Danna is currently experiencing that with her novel The Wicked North. "It is historical fiction, the past comes alive with characters that are from that period (Robert E. Lee, Phil Sheridan, etc.), but it also follows the journey of our hero and heroine, and the hardships of that period, both society and war, constantly demand certain responses. Since it is the first of a series, it has the HEA, yet their situation isn't certain because it is in the middle of a war, one they themselves are divided in. So I've had historical fiction editors claim its romance but romance editors claim its historical fiction."
—
He moved closer and noted her wide, expressive eyes and fine skin. Of her body beneath the shapeless jacket he could tell nothing. Her skirts were wrinkled and appeared damp and charred at the hem, and he suspected that the granules clinging to her hair were bits of piecrust. He was, against all reason, enchanted.
From The Turncoat by Donna Thorland
—
Readers do not always pick up on the signals that these books may not fulfill expectations if they want to read a romance. Or, romance readers may sort of stumble upon these books, and think they are in fact romances and respond in that context. Gillian remembers one such experience. "When The Darling Strumpet was up for best first book (in the 2012 RITAs), a romance blog that was reviewing all the finalists wrote a very bitchy review, giving the novel an A-minus as a book and a D as a romance. Which was stupid, because of course it was never intended to be a romance."
Sara has readers who treat romance in novels as a guilty indulgence. "I get mail from readers that starts 'I generally don't read historical romance, but I loved…' For better or worse, the public sees historical fiction built around a love story as something to be embarrassed about. Try to get one of these people to acknowledge that Jane Austen wrote love stories, and you'll have a lot of convincing to do."
The fuzziness of the border was made clear by one of Lauren's experiences. "Books are chameleons. Depending on cover and format, the same book can be many different things. I'd intended my first book, The Secret History of the Pink Carnation, as romance. My publisher decided it was something else and marketed it as historical fiction, in hardcover, with a fine art cover. Many years later, when the market crashed and romance sales spiked, they rereleased that same book in mass market with a very different, romance cover. Both approaches, I think, were valid representations of the story." She continues to straddle that border. "The Other Daughter, which ends happily, could theoretically be marketed as historical romance — but romance readers might find the romance a bit thin, since the emphasis is less on the romance and more on the heroine's journey. Non-romance readers, on the other hand, would probably consider the book a romance."
—
Above layers of silk gauze that moved with the breeze, her shoulders and long neck were now bared to the night air. In the light of the carriage lanterns her complexion took on the shifting iridescence of abalone: golds and pinks, ivories and smoky blues. The heavy dark hair twisted into a coronet and wrapped around her head set off the curve of her cheek.
All of these thoughts went through Jack's head in the few seconds it took the footman to catch up her shawl and drop it over her shoulders. As she half turned toward the footman to smile her thanks, he saw her face for the first time.
From The Gilded Hour by Sara Donati, coming Sept. 1
—
So, if these authors are writing the cousins of historical romance, do they ever have to deal with the negative treatment that historical romance authors get, or do their covers and trade paperback size spare them?
Sara has felt the media bite. ""A small paper in Oregon reviewed Into the Wilderness in about two lines, most of which was taken up with a riff on the term 'bodice ripper' and how odd it was that a university professor would write one. I actually had a chance to talk to the reviewer at a later date, and he confessed (somewhat defensively) that he had 'read just enough' of the novel to know what he was dealing with. In fact there were maybe six one-page scenes (which is what I assumed he was trying to say with 'bodice ripper') dealing with sex in a novel of 300,000 words. Somehow he managed to find those exact scenes."
Lauren recently had a similar experience. "There's a cultural supposition that anything that includes romance — or, at least, a happy romance — must somehow be lesser. Less important, less thoughtful, less interesting. Recently, I was fortunate enough to have my 14th book, That Summer, reviewed in the New York Times Sunday Review of Books, that bastion of literary fiction. Their quote says it all: 'An involving mystery whose art world implications imbue the romantic indulgences with an intellectual glow.' It's interesting trying to imagine a world in which one would, instead, talk about 'intellectual indulgences,' as though those were the weakness, and the 'romantic glow' the strong point, rather than vice versa."
If the story is good, readers cross over the boundary without too much problem. A compelling story is what counts, no matter what the cover looks like or how a publisher positions the author. "Many of the books I read as 'historical romance' back in the day would now be called historical fiction or historical suspense or something else entirely," Lauren said. "Remember that genre boundaries are artificial constructs that change over time — and do your own exploration to see where your personal boundaries lie."
If you are curious about mainstream historical fiction, with romance or not, Gillian offered some other authors to explore in addition to the ones interviewed here: "Diana Gabaldon (Outlander and Lord John series), Tracy Chevalier (The Girl With the Pearl Earring, Remarkable Creatures and others), Margaret George (Autobiography of Henry VIII, Elizabeth I and others), Geraldine Brooks (Year of Wonders, March and others), Patrick O'Brian (Aubrey/Maturin novels set in Napoleonic era), Sally Cabot Gunning (The Widow's War, Benjamin Franklin's Bastard), Barbara Hamilton (The Ninth Daughter and others about Abigail Adams solving crime in 18th-century Boston); Bernard Cornwell (Sharpe series and others), C.C. Humphreys (Jack Absolute and others). Some other favorite historical novels: The Crimson Petal and the White by Michael Faber, Slammerkin by Emma Donoghue, The World from Rough Stones by Malcolm Macdonald, Cold Mountain by Charles Frazier) and Gone With the Wind (of course!) by Margaret Mitchell."
USA TODAY and New York Times bestseller Madeline Hunter is the two-time RITA-winning author of 25 historical romances. Her next release, Tall, Dark and Wicked , will be published in October. You can find her at www.MadelineHunter.com. To contact Madeline about content for or in this column, please e-mail her at RomanceUnlaced @ gmail.com (close up the spaces). Due to the volume of mail, e-mails from authors may not be answered personally, but all will be read.