Limberger or sense

Pat Rice checking in:

I’m still pondering last week’s discussions on why we choose certain historical eras and settings over others.  As usual, the comments were quite enlightening, and I’m thoroughly enjoying this opportunity to pick the brains of our readers—especially since there are days when I’m quite certain my brain is made of limburger.

I think it was our littlest wenchling who mentioned that historicals struck her as fairy tales of the Disney variety, and I think there’s a lot of truth to that.  We want those vivid images of our childhoods, the twirling ball gowns and glass slippers and justice (or the ugly duckling) prevailing at the end.  And we want it all wrapped up in a pretty bow.

This theory would certainly explain why we can’t abide the dust of westerns or the perceived lack of cleanliness in medievals.  But it certainly makes life difficult for a writer of historicals to get the details right!  My heroines are much more likely to be rural (and let’s face it, hundreds of years ago, most upper class families were wealthy because they owned LAND) and falling in hog swill or mucking stalls than dancing at balls in the latest fashion. I can dress them up like Barbies, but if they’re going to be interesting to me, they need to DO something besides flirt and hunt for a husband.   

I think this is where historicals meet fantasy.  Once upon a time, readers gobbled up anything writers produced in the way of sexy historical romance, but now we’ve become jaded.  We don’t want to read the gloomy stuff anymore, not after we’ve learned that escapism is even more fun when it’s all glamour and wit.  But it’s really tough to write real history or even good conflict if everyone is rich and having a good time. 

So, if we can’t write about bloody revolutions and civil wars or slums or even latrines in romance anymore, then what’s a writer to do?  Write about evil magic, of course!  Or superheroes or Glynda, the Good Witch.  But with real history.  That way, everyone knows it’s safe to read about a bloody war because it’s not a REAL bloody war. It’s one with ribbons and bows on.

A story needs some kind of conflict, some kind of battle to be won, to make it interesting. And if the protagonists can’t fight poverty or real wars or slumlords, then why not have them fighting imaginary—or metaphorical—evils? And doing so within the context of history, because that’s as distant and fascinating as any fantasy world that we can conjure.

Does this make any sense? Or is my brain so much limburger today?

Comments

[Teresa]

Hmmm, I hope there's still room for both kinds of historicals. I like the ones with the nitty gritty details and dark overtones. Not that I don't enjoy lighter stories or ones with magical elements, but my first choice would still be those with lots of history and a happy ending :-)

[Nina P]

>>"I think it was our littlest wenchling who mentioned that historicals struck her as fairy tales of the Disney variety..."

Yup, that was me. The one creating a fantasy world loosely based on a blend of the Spanish Inquisitions, Hitler and the apocalypse. Yea, it's dark. And gritty. But that just makes the light (hope) seem that much brighter. (Hey, we heard the shot that took Bambie’s mom, Snow White’s evil queen plotted the heroine’s demise right before our eyes and Baloo and Baggie returned their little man-cub to the village, despite his protest.)

While doubtless there is an art to balancing the light and dark, I like the dark tones in a book, especially romance. To me, this is the hook in the book. If I can't see the axe coming, I don't care that my hands are on the block. You don't need to flip my stomach but I do need to know I'm in dire straights, there are things worse than death and the only way I'm going to get out is to turn the page. Tender love scenes, quiet moments, gentle walks along a babbling brook are great. But, for me, there's got to be a greater cause -- a big one. (Like Much Ado About Magic. Great book, btw.)

IMHO, love might be able to conquer all, but it does it wearing different disguises. I like it when an author explores those disguises. Makes me think. Wonder why. Play ‘what if’ with my suppositions. Then I grow. And change. Find myself better for the reading. And I buy more from the same author.

--the littlest wenchling hopping off her little soap box, ribboned pigtails a fly’n

[Susan Wilbanks]

"Once upon a time, readers gobbled up anything writers produced in the way of sexy historical romance, but now we’ve become jaded. We don’t want to read the gloomy stuff anymore, not after we’ve learned that escapism is even more fun when it’s all glamour and wit."

Chiming in with Teresa to hope there's still room for darker, grittier historicals, because the description above is the opposite of my reading experience! I'm becoming jaded because I have a hard time finding romances that feel grounded in the reality of a specific time and place, that feed my passion for history as well as my passion for, well, passion. I'm not saying I want to wallow in blood, angst, and bad hygiene, and sometimes I enjoy a light, escapist romp, but I *like* grit and realism. I *like* reading (or writing) about protagonists in the midst of real wars or struggling against real injustices. And while I guess you can get that in historical fiction, I've tried several of the currently trendy historical novels and not found what I'm looking for there, either, since I'm not not much of a litfic reader. Right now my favorite reads are the Aubrey/Maturin and Sharpe series, and thankfully they're nice LONG series that bear re-reading.

So I don't know where I fit anymore. Sometimes it feels like every trend in the publishing industry is moving away from the kind of stories I'm most passionate about, and it puts me in a gloomy mood. Sure, I can always re-read keepers, and there are quite a few established authors whose current works I enjoy, but I want to fall in love with new authors and stories, too.

[Edith]

>>So, if we can’t write about bloody revolutions and civil wars or slums or even latrines in romance anymore, then what’s a writer to do?>>

We can't??? Then what happens to the book I was going to write about a girl in the French Revolution who fell into a latrine as she was running from a bloody mob and met a man hiding out there, who was waiting for the civil war to begin?

I was going to call it: "Love in the Latrine, under the Guillotine," because it had a certain lilt to it.

Rats! (they were going to be in the book too.)

[Patricia Rice]

LOL, Edith, if you don't use that title, can I? I'm attempting the French Revolution next, but I hadn't thought to add rats. Rats!

I'm glad to hear that our fearless readers enjoy the reality of history, but now I'm wondering if I worded the question so only the like-minded answered.

If I admit that I'm quite capable of enjoying glamour and wit as well as the dark realities, will anyone else speak up?

I wish I had an easy answer for those of you who enjoy a gritty story, but the truth is, for me to avoid ballrooms and Regencies, I had to sneak in through the fantasy entrance. I love fantasy, so it's no difficulty, but the dark realities languish under my bed.... Maybe I ought to dust more often.

[Susan Wilbanks]

LOL, Edith and Patricia! I needed that laugh to shake me out of my glooms. It's the first cloudy day we've had in Seattle in ages (contrary to popular belief, it's not gray here 24/7/365, and our summers are extremely sunny), and I feel so cliched and predictable for being in a down mood at this early warning sign of winter. :-)

[talpianna]

Edith, if you're planning on the H/H being rescued from the latrine by a gallant Mole, guess who's NOT volunteering?

"Ve are zo poor ve don't even have a language, just zeez ztupid accentz!"

[MICHELLE]

I like glamour and wit when it's in a good story. I don't tend to like most books that are labelled "light historicals" but when a really talented writer pens a light historical, I'll probably like it.

When I first started reading romances as a teenager, I tended to love the "fairy tale" writers. I ADORED Judith McNaught's novels and had a collection of Diana Palmer books and inhaled Harlequin Presents and some of the other shorter series books. I didn't appreciate Nora Roberts's novels until I was in my twenties. For the most part, my tastes have really changed, but I still enjoy the occasional pure fairy tale - particularly when it's written by a great writer. Heck, I probably read at least a few, new Harlequin Presents every year when I'm in a particular mood. I don't even need to read the black blurbs - I already know which kind of Present title I like.

Overall, I much prefer the "darker", "deeper", "grittier", "meatier" historical over everything else, but pure escapist fun hits the spot at times.

And, I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE Loretta Chase's novels. I don't know how those are classified in historical romances, but they don't tend to be dark imo.

-Michelle

[Nina P]

Pat said... >>"If I admit that I'm quite capable of enjoying glamour and wit as well as the dark realities, will anyone else speak up?"

I'll stand up next to ya, Wench Pat. We need glamour and wit else... else... the dark realities become so... so... oppressive! I don't like that!

What I do like is gorgeous men with molten eyes and heroines who know how to... well little wenchlings shouldn't speak of such things as that.

Perhaps I shall go gather the mop and sweep under your bed.

[Laura Vivanco]

My preference would be for something which is neither twirling ballgowns nor unremitting grit and darkness. I prefer historical romance which is more like Austen (my favourite is Persuasion - wry humour, sensible characters, not too poor (that tends towards grit and gloom) but not too rich either, and conflict which doesn't involve a risk of death.

[PatRice]

I totally agree that Loretta has found the perfect combination of reality and wit. I wanta be her when I grow up.

And I agree, Austen-ish characters would be my preference as well. I usually don't have too much trouble selling the "middlin' sort" of character, but my ADD preferences require that I keep trying new and different to hold my interest. A steady diet of Austen would burn me out quickly, reading or writing.

I think maybe "balance" wins this discussion. That's a tough one for a writer to pull off, but it's the roller coaster ride that makes it fun. Ups with the downs...

thank you!

Pat, off to Disneyland

[Susan Wilbanks]

Yep, balance is the key. It's not that I want nothing but dark, gritty stories. I'm almost as big of fan of the Princess Diaries series as I am of the Sharpe books, after all. I grumble about my longing for a nice gritty but uplifting love story because right now those are the endangered species and the lighter-toned books are thick on the shelf. If the opposite were the case, I'd probably be griping about the demise of the romp!

[Liz]

Edith - You know that would probably be one of my fave books ever. You taunt me, don't you?

Pat - See, I was talking today about how much I miss historical fiction with some history - as opposed to historical fiction without romance. Or soemthing like that. But I'm bitter. I want the grit and reality checks mixed in with my soft lit wrinkle removing close up lens. I want it all. and on that note.....

All - Isn't the gothic EVER coming back?

[DeniseM]

Like Liz, I've got to have it all. I read several dark books, followed by light historicals, then a few heavier historicals, a few SFF, a little Inspirational and maybe even a contemporary thrown in here and there to flavor the pot. I get burnt out really fast if I read more than 7 or 8 of the same type in a row. Then, I'll go 2 or 3 weeks without reading anything at all.

[Teresa]

Yep, balance is most definitely the key. I love books that are well grounded in history, yet still touched by the magic that is falling in love.

[Ro]

As long as the story is grounded in its setting and the characters are compelling, I don't mind what era the romance is set in. or how "light" or "dark" it is. But it seems that more and more, "light" means frothy characters, frothy plots and frothy on the history. Not Good at all. So I avoid Regency Historicals like the plague...which doesn't leave me with much, which is why I've been drifting into historical fiction. *shrug*