My Regency Historical Rant, or why Historicals are not Historical
Whenever I browse author blogs I see them posting information given to them by agents and editors about what they want. Nowadays, the paranormal market is squeezed, and I’ve seen many a post where an editor or agent advises unpublished authors aspiring to break into that market to work on their world-building. However, nowhere do I see agents or editors advising authors who want to break into the historical market to do this. Mostly I’ve seen them emphasizing cultivating a unique “voice”.Sheesh…and you wonder why historical romances still carry the “bodice ripper” moniker.
What really bothers me is the fact that readers complain that they don’t want “history tomes”, that shortened attention spans and the cost of paper and ink are always cited when it comes to the decreasing value of the history in the historical romance, yet these readers happily gobble up 400 to 400+ pages of urban fantasy and paranormal romance rife with world-building, multiple characters and rich settings. Looking at the most popular series, J.R. Ward’s Brotherhood, the latest, Lover Revealed, is 480 pages, and the next installment, is a whopping 528 pages. Uh uhn you say, Ward is an established author, so she gets the extra pages. Well, Book One, before anyone even knew who she was clocks in at 416 pages.
Someone must be taxing their brains to stretch their attention span for Ward to be hitting the NYT Best-seller lists.
You see, I want a historical romance that well, has history in it–or at least the history plays a part in the story and the characters. If I want a frothy Regency, at least let it be accurate. Less of the h/h pawing at one another in a kitchen pantry or at a ball, and more of them matching wits and engaging in forbidden caresses as they traipse about the ton. And please, I beg of you, no more Almack’s and Lady Jersey–there are so many places for characters to go in London besides the tiny enclave that is the West End. For a Victorian, I want to feel that this is not the Regency era. I’m so sick and tired of reading so-called Victorian-set Historicals only to discover that the author just took some popular Regency plot and slipped in a few mentions of crinolines and Queen Victoria.
For spy historicals, please be based in reality. Whether it be smugglers or spies running about the ton, the villains and the reason for spying is so lame and fantastical I now automatically ignore any historical romance with a mention of spying–even from authors I’ve enjoyed in the past. It’s one thing to say (in a Regency Historical) the French are the enemies, but what about bringing real fears of the English into the story? (Like the fact that for a few years, the English were terrified out of their wits that Napoleon would invade the country. Or people trying to break Napoleon’s code. Or just having spies who are spies and how dishonorable a position it was considered.) What about the Peninsular War? Or the diplomatic games played on the Continent?
When it comes to moving from era to era, I would dearly wish the actions of the characters matched the setting. If I see one more militant suffragist heroine prior to 1905, I think I might cry. Or a hero in the Victorian era who is an out and out rake, and is accepted willingly into the homes of society (rule #1: “thou shalt not be found out”). Please let the clothing be accurate and the movements of the characters match. If you’re writing books set in the 1860s, your heroines are wearing really wide hoop skirts. The Victorian hero is not going to sleep in the nude: he is going to wear a nightshirt, and later, pyjamas. Stop making your servants the best-friends of the aristocratic characters. The relationship between servant and mistress/master was a unique one that had nothing to do with servants being some type of oppressed subordinate.
I’d generally like to see a cast of characters outside of the hero and heroine and the suitable number of sequel baits. I’d like to see heroes who have jobs or positions, who are politicians or business owners–even if they are titled. I’d like to know what different parts of England look, feel, and smell like, not some generic shire only known as “Kent” or “Shropshire”. I want to see the consequences of a characters action because of that setting or social circle. But most of all, I’d like my desire for the inclusion of history into the historical romance to be viewed as “elitist”, and no, I don’t want to read Historical Fiction, and I have read non-fiction a lot more livelier than some of the historical romances lying on bookshelves.
8 comments July 26, 2007



