Historical Perspicacity?
I doubt many romance readers are sticklers for accurate historical details in novels – indeed, we have to gloss over so many plot-holes, cardboard characters, and repetitive writing in our quest for that happily-ever-after fix that historical accuracy is a moot point. However, placing a novel firmly in the folds of real events and populating it with real people can make the experience richer, deeper, more meaningful. I really enjoy learning something from the books I read, even if it isn’t my primary purpose in my leisure pursuits (Who reads textbooks for fun?). Anachronistic details, on the other hand, from an author who claims historical accuracy, can’t fail to disappoint.
Susan Johnson is a wonderful example of the former, an author whose historical endnotes and characters inspired by real people and events make her novels memorable and enlightening. That is an impressive feat in the Regency genre (not to mention in books of a more steamy nature). Today I finished Seduction in Mind, which finished with five pages of commentary on the historical events and personages depicted in the novel. How satisfying to get both a well-written manuscript and learn something about English xenophobia in the 19th century! Who knew that a reference to “mushrooms” had such a different connotation then than it does now? I am also in awe of Johnson because she uses words with which, despite my elite education, I am unfamiliar (today’s word – Perspicacity). And she has strong characters. She is currently my favorite Regency author, replacing Victoria Alexander (whose books have much sillier plots). (Technically “regency” refers to only the early part of the 19th century in England, but in this case it is used as a blanket term for any romance set in England during the 19th century.)
Sherrilyn Kenyon needs to make a greater effort to anchor her non-fantasy novels more firmly in time, specifically her Brotherhood of the Sword and MacAllister Series. I criticize with regret, for as you know I adore her books. However, Kenyon has published an entire reference book on The Writer’s Guide to Everyday Life in the Middle Ages, so she has an obligation to provide historical accuracy in her own novels. The two series in question are much weaker fiction because of her failure to do so. I don’t pretend to know much about the crusades, 1095-1291 AD, but the details, characters, events, and costumes of the books are embarrassingly out of place even to my novice sensibilities. Take kilts, for instance. Forget Braveheart – The earliest form of kilt, the belted plaid, didn’t appear until 1594, while the tailored kilt didn’t appear until the 18th century. Like Mel, Kenyon dresses her 13th century Scots in kilts, though thankfully she leaves out the 2nd century blue Pictish face paint. I adore a man in a kilt, but Kenyon should strive for a higher level of historic integrity.
Finally, I wish to comment on Sarah’s post that forced sex in an historical romance novel doesn’t necessarily equal rape. She argues that it’s historically accurate, so it’s okay. I argue that showing forced sex in an accepting and even positive light contributes to a current culture where rape is Not-that-bad. Conjugal relations might be an expected part of marriage, but force is never okay and we should not represent it as such. I don’t care if it’s an historically accurate viewpoint- matrimony does not equal consent. Romance novels glorify romantic relationships between the hero and heroine, and force has no place in that equation.
Tags: "romance novels", "Sherrilyn Kenyon", "Susan Johnson"
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
August 29, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Historical accuracy is tricky. On the one hand, as you say, kilts don’t belong on 13th century Scots. On the other, there are millions of ignorant readers who will be quick to criticize you when your Scots aren’t wearing kilts, because everyone knows that’s all they’ve ever worn..
I wrote a delightful (to me) screenplay called ON A ROLL, which centers on a fictionalized account of the invention of toilet paper. It’s set in 1898 in NYC.
I entered it in a few contests and got some brutal and largely justified criticism about cartoonish characters and low stakes for the protagonist.
But what absolutely drove me up the wall were the people who’d tell me that toilet paper was invented some 30 years earlier. They were so incensed by the perceived anachronism that they stopped reading, and instead went online to dig up “evidence” that I was wrong.
I can read Wikipedia too, friend. I know that they had little baskets of paper sheets or cloth towels that served a similar purpose. The origins of toilet paper as we know it today, however – the ubiquitous perforated white sheets on a cardboard roll – are decidedly later, and definitely in the “turn of the century” timeframe.
Even the title is a pretty clear hint that it’s about toilet paper on rolls. It might be subtle but it’s not exactly cryptic.
Lesson learned, though. Good writing has to be believable, and when truth is stranger than fiction, you’ve sometimes got to choose between writing a history paper and telling a better story.