Saturday, January 13, 2007
The Return of the Historical?
Melissa pointed out this post from agent Kristin Nelson's blog Pub Rants. She says editors are asking for good historical romances. For years, the genre has been on the decline, but apparently it is on the upswing. When I signed with my agent, I told her I also wrote historicals and she said great since historicals are coming back. So Ms. Nelson isn't on her own in this. I do wonder, however, what kind of historicals are being looked at. Is the spectrum broadening for eras and settings? What do you think? I've seen the emergence of historical paranormal romance, so it seems as though their is a sense of adventure needed. More danger, more darkness? Is this style of romance going to outpace the light historicals?
Monday, January 01, 2007
Creating the Strong and Beliveable Historical Heroine
It has been a very long time since I've been here, mainly because I've been working on a non-historical. I just finished a fantasy romance which took place in contemporary times.
There is a certain freedom to writing contemporaries as opposed to historicals. The contemporary heroine can be a strong "kick-ass" kind of woman without constraints. The path is more difficult for the historical writer.
Yes, there were strong women in history, we know their names. But when it comes to writing a romance, I think it is tough to create a strong heroine while still maintaining the flavor of the period.
Strong women are a mainstay of my writing. So writing a woman of strength is necessary for me. But making a heroine believable and strong in a historical setting brings its own challenges.
Oh, there are the Napoleonic spies or the heroine who dresses as a highwayman and steals from the rich to give to the poor. There are women who become knights and the like. Those stories are great, but that is surface strength. I want to write a heroine who isn't extraordinary, whose strength is within and sees her through the adversity of being a woman in her particular time period.
Heroes are easy. I know, that is a blanket statement, but there is more freedom to give a man traits which exemplify strength and yet not leave the realism of the period. A woman's strength needs to be more subtle, we don't have the advantage of just putting it out there. We have to lay a foundation if we are going to make her extraordinary. Too many authors don't do this I find in historicals. It makes their books lightweight and easily forgotten. To dip into a heroine's true inner strength and make her someone we find formidable isn't nearly as easy.
I think writers are concerned that creating a strong heroine can make her unlikeable or less appealing. Maybe. But less appealing doesn't mean less compelling. We create this awesome heroes who are strength personified then give him a heroine considerably less powerful. She doesn't have to wield a sword or a gun to be strong. She doesn't have to take on a man's role to be interesting.
We need to find what makes a woman strong in her period, give her the obstacles she would find in her life. Take the weaknesses or constraints she would face and build up her character from there.
So many of the historicals read as light weight costume dramas, I'm turned off. I want to read books with more backbone with interesting characters. Not that there isn't room for both, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer historicals out there that take full advantage of the period, that gives the reader a reason for reading the historical.
There is a certain freedom to writing contemporaries as opposed to historicals. The contemporary heroine can be a strong "kick-ass" kind of woman without constraints. The path is more difficult for the historical writer.
Yes, there were strong women in history, we know their names. But when it comes to writing a romance, I think it is tough to create a strong heroine while still maintaining the flavor of the period.
Strong women are a mainstay of my writing. So writing a woman of strength is necessary for me. But making a heroine believable and strong in a historical setting brings its own challenges.
Oh, there are the Napoleonic spies or the heroine who dresses as a highwayman and steals from the rich to give to the poor. There are women who become knights and the like. Those stories are great, but that is surface strength. I want to write a heroine who isn't extraordinary, whose strength is within and sees her through the adversity of being a woman in her particular time period.
Heroes are easy. I know, that is a blanket statement, but there is more freedom to give a man traits which exemplify strength and yet not leave the realism of the period. A woman's strength needs to be more subtle, we don't have the advantage of just putting it out there. We have to lay a foundation if we are going to make her extraordinary. Too many authors don't do this I find in historicals. It makes their books lightweight and easily forgotten. To dip into a heroine's true inner strength and make her someone we find formidable isn't nearly as easy.
I think writers are concerned that creating a strong heroine can make her unlikeable or less appealing. Maybe. But less appealing doesn't mean less compelling. We create this awesome heroes who are strength personified then give him a heroine considerably less powerful. She doesn't have to wield a sword or a gun to be strong. She doesn't have to take on a man's role to be interesting.
We need to find what makes a woman strong in her period, give her the obstacles she would find in her life. Take the weaknesses or constraints she would face and build up her character from there.
So many of the historicals read as light weight costume dramas, I'm turned off. I want to read books with more backbone with interesting characters. Not that there isn't room for both, but it seems like there are fewer and fewer historicals out there that take full advantage of the period, that gives the reader a reason for reading the historical.
Saturday, October 21, 2006
Marie Antoinette
Is anyone planning to see this movie? I don't know that I'll go to the movies to see it but I'd like to see it when it comes out on HBO. I was really skeptical when I heard Kirsten Dunst was set to play the role and Sofia Coppola was directing. However, I don't think Coppola is striving for historical accuracy but rather making a film about the legend of the doomed French Queen. I don't mind historical inaccuracy as long as the author/filmmaker is not trying to push it off as history. That was a problem I had with "The Patriot." Rather than saying it was a costume drama, the filmmakers presented it as history. And it wasn't accurate. I actually liked the film, although I found myself rooting for the Redcoats. I think Jason Isaacs had a lot to do with it. 
I'm the same way with books I suppose, although with books, an author has time to present the facts correctly. Maybe because I am a writer I am a tougher critic. We seem to be tougher judges on our own, I think that is pretty much true with any profession. Have you ever been out to dinner with a waitress? Anyway, what do you think? Is this movie going to do a disservice to French history or will it be considered on its entertainment merits? I can't wait to see the costumes.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
House of a Thousand Lanterns
I guess I must have been about eleven when my mom gave me one of her books to read. It was "House of a Thousand Lanterns" by Victoria Holt. After reading that book, I knew what I wanted to do when I grew up.
Victoria Holt wrote gothic romance back in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Almost all of them were historical. A couple of them were less gothic and more historical. But they all pulled me into another world, creating vivid settings and fascinating characters. She took me all over the world: Britain, France, India, Australia and Germany. Her heroines found themselves in perilous situations, quite often suspecting the hero was the culprit. Her heroes and heroines were flawed, those very flaws contributing to the plot and moving the story forward.
I fell in love with those stories. In the future, other authors influenced my choice of writing. Jennifer Wilde instilled a love of the 18th century in me. Early Kathleen Woodiwiss made me appreciate sweeping language and heroes and heroines of mythical proportions. Laurell K. Hamilton convinced me vampires could be sexy. But the author who made me a writer was Victoria Holt.
She died awhile back, but her influence is still with me today. If it hadn't been for her, I would never have picked up a pen and wrote.
Victoria Holt wrote gothic romance back in the 60's, 70's and 80's. Almost all of them were historical. A couple of them were less gothic and more historical. But they all pulled me into another world, creating vivid settings and fascinating characters. She took me all over the world: Britain, France, India, Australia and Germany. Her heroines found themselves in perilous situations, quite often suspecting the hero was the culprit. Her heroes and heroines were flawed, those very flaws contributing to the plot and moving the story forward.
I fell in love with those stories. In the future, other authors influenced my choice of writing. Jennifer Wilde instilled a love of the 18th century in me. Early Kathleen Woodiwiss made me appreciate sweeping language and heroes and heroines of mythical proportions. Laurell K. Hamilton convinced me vampires could be sexy. But the author who made me a writer was Victoria Holt.
She died awhile back, but her influence is still with me today. If it hadn't been for her, I would never have picked up a pen and wrote.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
Accuracy Versus Expectations
I try to be as accurate as I can when I’m working on a historical. I research the facts, make sure my details are true and hope to convey the feeling of the time period.
But what if these conflicts with what a reader expects?
When you are educated in history, the preconceptions of what you believe about the past are wiped away by the truth found in books. Elementary and high school history courses pretty much give a Cliff Notes version of history, coloring the world in black and white, ignoring the fact that our ancestors were human beings just like us, with the same hopes and dreams as we do. And many of the same values.
Anyway, I’m writing an 18th century historical and I know it will raise brows. The language is rough. But at the time, words we reserve for swearing now were no big deal then. They were an earthier group of people, slowly moving towards the bourgeois values more apparent in the Regency period. And the belief that women were not educated. They were and in more than sewing. It was essential they be able to converse about the politics of the day. The upper classes spent much of their time socializing and women were known for the salons hosting writers, artists and politicians. These women were educated.
On a smaller scale, so were the lower classes. No one wanted a housekeeper who couldn’t read. And a scullery girl knew the only way she could advance in her profession was to learn skills, and many times that required literacy.
Those are some specific details, there are plenty more. But in general it concerns me that as a writer I will be writing against the notions readers have based on their perceptions of the past. Does anyone else worry about this?
But what if these conflicts with what a reader expects?
When you are educated in history, the preconceptions of what you believe about the past are wiped away by the truth found in books. Elementary and high school history courses pretty much give a Cliff Notes version of history, coloring the world in black and white, ignoring the fact that our ancestors were human beings just like us, with the same hopes and dreams as we do. And many of the same values.
Anyway, I’m writing an 18th century historical and I know it will raise brows. The language is rough. But at the time, words we reserve for swearing now were no big deal then. They were an earthier group of people, slowly moving towards the bourgeois values more apparent in the Regency period. And the belief that women were not educated. They were and in more than sewing. It was essential they be able to converse about the politics of the day. The upper classes spent much of their time socializing and women were known for the salons hosting writers, artists and politicians. These women were educated.
On a smaller scale, so were the lower classes. No one wanted a housekeeper who couldn’t read. And a scullery girl knew the only way she could advance in her profession was to learn skills, and many times that required literacy.
Those are some specific details, there are plenty more. But in general it concerns me that as a writer I will be writing against the notions readers have based on their perceptions of the past. Does anyone else worry about this?
Sunday, May 28, 2006
It's the little things
I feel like there is complacency among historical romance writers, a complacency which weakens the genre. We are all aware of big inaccuracies and how they can really ruin a story for us as readers. But what about the little details?
I recently read a story where the author had obviously researched one aspect of her novel quite well, but she let the rest lapse. For example, the heroine was wearing a cotton shift in colonial America in the 1750's. Not a big deal, but if a reader knows anything about the period or knows anything about textiles, they would know the price of cotton was so high at the time that only the most wealthy could wear it. Really not a big deal and certainly not something a section of readers are going to know. However, it shows a lack of passion in the writer.
I've always believed a historical writer should write about an era they love. In loving that era, they should know all about it. They should glory in the small details. They should be trying to pass on that passion to their readers. When I read a historical, I want to be transported to another time and place. While I don't require the novel to be a hard hitting expose of the time period, I expect the writer to do her best to know her details.
Did it ruin the book for me? No, but I was disappointed. In this day and age, the wealth of resources available to an author makes me hold them to a higher standard. In ten minutes, the author could have figured out everything she would have needed to know about women's dress in 18th century America and been accurate. But she made assumptions. She was lazy. I suppose I feel somewhat insulted as a reader although I'm positive that wasn't her intent. And in all fairness, not too many people would catch it. But I find it sad that she didn't care enough about the time period to make it as accurate as possible.
I'm probably being a little harsh, but I love history and I love historical romance. I know some readers believe the crucial element is the hero and heroine, that the story and setting should be there to pump up the characterizations and conflicts. But when you as a writer take on a historical, you are taking on the responsibility of making your characters products of their times. And to make them believable, the details are important. Make me as a reader feel your love for the era. If that isn't possible, then perhaps the genre is truly dying.
I recently read a story where the author had obviously researched one aspect of her novel quite well, but she let the rest lapse. For example, the heroine was wearing a cotton shift in colonial America in the 1750's. Not a big deal, but if a reader knows anything about the period or knows anything about textiles, they would know the price of cotton was so high at the time that only the most wealthy could wear it. Really not a big deal and certainly not something a section of readers are going to know. However, it shows a lack of passion in the writer.
I've always believed a historical writer should write about an era they love. In loving that era, they should know all about it. They should glory in the small details. They should be trying to pass on that passion to their readers. When I read a historical, I want to be transported to another time and place. While I don't require the novel to be a hard hitting expose of the time period, I expect the writer to do her best to know her details.
Did it ruin the book for me? No, but I was disappointed. In this day and age, the wealth of resources available to an author makes me hold them to a higher standard. In ten minutes, the author could have figured out everything she would have needed to know about women's dress in 18th century America and been accurate. But she made assumptions. She was lazy. I suppose I feel somewhat insulted as a reader although I'm positive that wasn't her intent. And in all fairness, not too many people would catch it. But I find it sad that she didn't care enough about the time period to make it as accurate as possible.
I'm probably being a little harsh, but I love history and I love historical romance. I know some readers believe the crucial element is the hero and heroine, that the story and setting should be there to pump up the characterizations and conflicts. But when you as a writer take on a historical, you are taking on the responsibility of making your characters products of their times. And to make them believable, the details are important. Make me as a reader feel your love for the era. If that isn't possible, then perhaps the genre is truly dying.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Switching Time Periods
I just received the latest issue of Romantic Times and when I turned to the historical romance reviews section, my heart plummeted. Most of the new books were set in Regency England. Why did my heart sink? Because that's where my novel is set. And I keep thinking, Why would anyone want to buy more stories set in this time period? The market is just saturated with Regency historicals.
As a writer, I have a hard time wanting to just write in one particular time period. I have lots of ideas for stories in different time periods - the French Revolution, the American Revolution, World War II, Napoleonic France, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, etc., etc. So if I happen to sell the novel I'm working on (the Regency historical), does that mean I'm committed to writing more Regency historicals until I'm successful enough to branch out? In other words, that will be my "brand."
Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with me.
I don't want to spend years writing in the same time period because, frankly, I'll get bored. And I don't want to just do what everyone else is doing. When I started writing this book (I won't say how long ago), I wanted to write it because I loved that time period and because it was very popular. Now, though, I think it's gone overboard.
I think something is brewing in the historical market. This trend of Regency historicals can't go on forever, nor do I want it to. I love this time period, but I think there is plenty of room for other time periods, as well. I think a lot of romance readers would agree.
As a writer, I have a hard time wanting to just write in one particular time period. I have lots of ideas for stories in different time periods - the French Revolution, the American Revolution, World War II, Napoleonic France, the Troubles in Northern Ireland, etc., etc. So if I happen to sell the novel I'm working on (the Regency historical), does that mean I'm committed to writing more Regency historicals until I'm successful enough to branch out? In other words, that will be my "brand."
Unfortunately, that doesn't sit well with me.
I don't want to spend years writing in the same time period because, frankly, I'll get bored. And I don't want to just do what everyone else is doing. When I started writing this book (I won't say how long ago), I wanted to write it because I loved that time period and because it was very popular. Now, though, I think it's gone overboard.
I think something is brewing in the historical market. This trend of Regency historicals can't go on forever, nor do I want it to. I love this time period, but I think there is plenty of room for other time periods, as well. I think a lot of romance readers would agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)