AAR readers have long loved historical romance, a trend that appears to still be true. You chose historical romance (44 votes) as your favorite genre in romance by almost twice as many votes as the next winner: Contemporary romance (26 votes). Fantasy (14 votes) came in next, followed by romantic suspense, historical mysteries, and other, each of which garnered 7 votes each.
What is it that you so love about historical romance? And do books written in another time call to you in this very stressful year?
Another fun question! I’ve always loved historical fiction, so moving on to historical fiction romance wasn’t that big a leap. What’s in it for me is the world building, the adventure of literary “time travel,” and the guarantee that the main characters aren’t going to die at the end. A lot of historical fiction tends to go the literary fiction route where one of the main characters has to die tragically in order for the book to be regarded as “important.” No thanks. Especially not right now with the world as it currently exists. I’ll take the thrilling setting of Ancient China/Egypt/Rome/American West/wherever with a guaranteed HEA, thank you very much.
In the past 18 months I have probably read more contemporary romance than historical, but over the course of my romance-reading life it’s been more historical. From Barbara Cartland to Diana Gabaldon. So many Regencies (there was a time when I rarely missed a new title from Signet). I started reading romances before I began to study history. When I was in grad school and got an idea for a book of my own, it was a historical setting.
Part of the appeal of historicals as a reader is the chance to learn something new. Like any grad student, I had a narrow focus (culture in France and England between 1775-1825). As it happened, that focus overlapped with the settings of the vast majority of historicals I’ve read. But – especially in the last ten years – new settings have opened up, and new treatments within the conventional settings. More-diverse characters, deeper looks at social/economic/cultural realities, and generally a way to keep reading historical romance without the repetition that sent me to SF and mystery for a lot of years.
I do read for escapism. I would rather read a romance novel than look at the news. I wouldn’t say that historicals serve that purpose better than contemporaries. It’s more a matter of finding an author I like and glomming down all zir books (quite a few of my favorites write in different time settings) no matter what the setting is. :-)
I voted for historical romance. Of the books I own, the books I’m interested in, and the books on my favorites shelf, they’re overwhelmingly historical romances. But my reading preferences in 2020 have definitely been influenced by the supply of romances available.
I am not seeing new or active authors who fit my preferences for lush, lyrical, or subversive historical romances (i.e, in the style of Meredith Duran, Cecilia Grant, or Sherry Thomas) so I’ve looked outside my favorite sub-genre.
This year, I’ve read as many fantasy romances as I have historical romances. But, like historical romance, I think adult fantasy romance is rather weak as a sub-genre overall at the moment and in response, I’ve turned to more New Adult or Young Adult fantasy romance than I’d ultimately prefer. I’ve read great and interesting books, but it’s been a compromise and I’ve stretched myself to turn to genres I wouldn’t normally be interested in.
I chose HR because it was always my go-to genre and it still is when done well. Sadly, as I’ve said here several times – and like CeCe has said, I’m also not coming across many authors right now who are putting out strong stories with interesting and believable characters for their time period.
I’ve been reading (and reviewing) a lot more m/m novels as I’m finding those are offering me those things – strong stories and intetesting characters – more often than not. I’m reading a fair bit of romantic suspense (m/f as well as m/m, which is generally out-performing the m/f RS) and contemporaries, which also tend to be m/m. I’m also listening to and reviewing a LOT more in audio; last year was the first time I listened to almost as many books as I read, and this year looks like it’s going to be the same. I go for the same genres mostly, although a good narrator may tempt me to try something new.
Traditionally I have been much more of a historical romance fan, but as many people have stated it’s harder and harder to find new authors turning out excellent quality historical romance novels.
One new author I have discovered thanks to AAR, that I really enjoyed is Julia Bennet. As she is new however, she only has two books published and not a huge backlist to keep me busy.
As many others have mentioned, favorite authors like Meredith Duran and Joanna Bourne have either stopped writing or slowed their output considerably. It seems as soon as I find a new voice they either stop or slow down as well.
I find this year I have read a lot of fantasy type romances in my quest for something new and exciting and a lot of that is likely a need for pure escapism. I really have been consciously or subconsciously seeking books that “take me away” from the real world. Whereas before I would escape more often to a different era I’m now escaping to different worlds.
100% agree.
Wow, somehow I missed learning about Julia Bennet, but I just took a look at her reviews here and they look amazing! Thank you for the tip, Chrisreader.
I hope you like her! I thought her books were really great and had interesting, unusual heroines but within a solid historical background.
For example one heroine is sexually experienced and has a more “modern” view of sex but she was brought up by her single, actress mother who was pretty bohemian and part of that arty set and raised around theatre people so it made sense historically. It wasn’t a sheltered titled Miss deciding “societal rules don’t matter!”
I’m really looking forward to see what her next book is.
Yes, yes, yes, that sounds right up my alley. I read one summary that said something along the lines of, “takes place in a mental institution” and was sold.
That’s my favorite one!
When I began reading romance as a teenager (in the 80s), I started with contemporary romance – Harlequin Presents primarily. This transitioned into Regency romances in the shorter form (like the Signet Regency ones that chacha1 mentioned). In my early 20s I read a lot of longer historical romances – authors like Julie Garwood, Johanna Lindsey, Amanda Quick and Judith McNaught. Reading in general cut down in my 30s when I had my children. When they were older and I had more time, contemporary romance seemed to have exploded and for at least the past few years, that is the majority of what I have read. I still have favorite auto-buy historical romance authors such as Mary Balogh, Julia Quinn, and Lisa Kleypas. There are even some new historical romance authors that I have picked up recently such as Mimi Matthews but in general I haven’t found as many new authors that I really like in this genre. What I love about historical romances is being immersed in a completely different place and time. I like the descriptions of the clothing and reading about how the characters behave (or not) within the confines of the social culture/mores. It is a true escape from the world. So why have I changed to reading more contemporary romance? I’m really not quite sure. One reason may be the development of sub-genres within contemporary romance that appeal to me. I like reading about first love/relationship/sexual experience so I have enjoyed the creation of the NA sub-genre. I have also read a lot of sports romances in the past few years. This year I started reading M/M romances and they are typically contemporary as well. I think another reason may be that I have been influenced by reviews. It feels to me like there are more contemporary romances with higher grades than historical nowadays and when spending money on a new author, I want to have a higher chance that I will like the book. A third reason may be that I became a little tired of the more narrow choice of setting and topics in historical romances. Recent contemporary romance has such a big diversity of main characters (ethnicity, occupations, etc) and their conflicts/issues. I don’t think I will ever stop reading historical romances altogether but for now, I’m very happy with my main genre being contemporary.
I know I’ve posted something similar to this before, so apologies in advance for the repetition. When it came to romance, I used to read almost exclusively historicals. Then, about five or so years ago, I started reading more contemporaries. Partly, that was a personal preference—so many historicals seemed little more than “contemporaries in corsets” with their amazingly progressive characters and full acceptance of social situations (for example, having a baby out-of-wedlock or an unmarried couple living together) that most definitely weren’t accepted until the last few decades, I decided I didn’t need the historical wallpaper but could go directly to contemporaries where at least the modern attitudes made sense. But I also believe my 180-degree turn to contemporaries was driven by the fact that I started reading primarily on a Kindle and there were an amazing number of freebies and 99-cent contemporaries available in the Kindle Store (not to mention the KU offerings). So, in some ways, my movement toward contemporary romances was driven by the device I was using to read them. I will still read historical romance (I thoroughly enjoyed S.M. LaViolette’s THE FOOTMAN after I read the review for it here), but I’d say over 95% of my romance reading now is contemporary.
DiscoDollyDeb, that is a good insight about the Kindle. I got my first Kindle about 5 years ago and it is my main way of reading currently. I think this may coincide with my shift from historical to contemporary romance. I certainly am more willing to buy a book by a new author if the book is a super low price!
I enjoyed the Footman by S.M. LaViolette as well (thanks again AAR!) I went on to read some more of her works which are a mixed bag.
I really enjoyed the first half of The Music of Love (#1 in the Academy of Love series) which was a very interesting historical romance with an unusual (albino) hero and an independent and interesting heroine. The second half seemed like a totally different book it became 100% a Victoria Holt gothic.
Melissa and The Vicar was also enjoyable -if you can buy into a romance between a prostitute/madame heroine and a virgin Curate- (he’s not actually a Vicar) who has very progressive ideas about sex and romance. LaViolette doesn’t shy away either, Melissa isn’t a faux courtesan, she’s a madam who isn’t shy about running her business and her employees and she worked (and may still work from time to time) as a prostitute. There were times I wanted to shake the heroine but the author kept enough twists coming to keep me interested.
After reading THE FOOTMAN, I tried a couple of LaViolette’s erotic romances—one of which, HIS COUNTESS, reminded me in some ways of THE FOOTMAN (man from a socially lower station becomes involved with a widow whose late husband treated her very badly). Those books were fine for what they were, but could have benefitted from a thorough proofread and edit (trying to recall which of two women he had buttsecks with, the hero “couldn’t remember which one he’d taken annually”—I suppose one would forget if it only happened once a year). Anyway, I am looking forward to THE POSTILION, which features the doctor from THE FOOTMAN and a young woman who has disguised herself as a man.
OK, that cracked me up. And, I suspect, many women would be happy with annual anal….
OMG I am cracking up because I read that book too and I remember that mistake! I read a few of her works and there was one word in all of them that was used incorrectly and no editor caught it! I wish I could remember what it was. I think it was a homonym.
One book I am SO curious to read from her won’t be published until 2021 but it’s a supporting character from Melissa and The Vicar. It’s Hugo, the male prostitute who delights in his job, takes clients of either sex and never says no to anything. He’s getting his own book and by the title- which is “Hugo And The Maiden” it should be very interesting!
Oh, dear. A while back, the author asked me if I’d be interested in editing for her – and unfortunately, by the time she was ready, I wasn’t able to do it and she found someone else. I’m pretty sure I’d have spotted a whopper like that!!
Wow, this comment melted my mind a little. I’ve never thought about it, but now that you’ve pointed it out, DiscoDollyDeb, I don’t think I would’ve read a single MC romance if it wasn’t for KU…I’m continually surprised to discover the ways Jeff Bezos has changed my life for the better & worse.
I was a mystery reader who started reading more mysteries with romantic elements, and realized the relationship aspect was becoming as important to me as the mystery. I then looked for romantic mysteries, then romantic suspense, where I found Linda Howard, Jayne Anne Krentz, and Nora Roberts. That led to reading contemporary romances as well as Sci-fi rom when I could find it. (I miss Linnea Sinclair!) For years, I only read historical romances for book club. Then I discovered Georgette Heyer and Carla Kelly. At the time, I had to scour used book stores for their books. Then I found Heyer on audio (pirated copy from England, but I honestly didn’t know that at the time) and Kelly was released in ebook format. After that introduction, I started reading more historical fiction.
Fast forward to today. After a 5 year break from romance book, or from much reading at all, I found I’m not clicking as well with contemporary books. Much of the RS is military/police based and it’s not as appealing right now as it used to be. Lighter, rom-com type books just aren’t feeling funny, and the more emotional ones feel sappy. In the meantime, I found a couple of new authors who write wonderful historical romances, such as Stella Riley, on audio and I’ve been listening to everything I can get. Lucinda Brant isn’t quite as good, but still very entertaining. I’ve also gone back to some tried-and-true authors and listened to more of their books. I had a great time recently listening to His at Night by Sherry Thomas.
I put historical on my survey because that’s what I’ve been reading/listening to the most, but I still love good romantic suspense and fantasy, especially good urban fantasy. I also would love to see more Sci-Fi romances.
And like Caz mentioned, contemporary and RS m/m books are working better for me at the moment than m/f, and I’m not sure exactly why.
I miss Linnea Sinclair, too :(
I agree with everyone here who’s saying it’s getting harder to find lush and lyrical HR that feels true to the time period rather than 21st century time travelers playing dress-up. I think there are two main reasons for this:
1) Our current time period filled with internet vitriol is not the best atmosphere for authors wanting to write something that is uncomfortably historically accurate. While most of us probably read romance with the understanding there is a fanciful element that does not delve too deeply into poor hygiene practices and an improbable number of serving girls marrying dukes, a great deal of the past is just plain unpalatable to a lot of readers today. Hence, you wind up with anachronistically enlightened heroes and crusading heroines. I’m not saying outliers didn’t exist, but writers are almost forced to create these 21st century wallpaper historicals to avoid being pilloried on social media. Forget trying to create a nuanced portrayal of the conflicted son of a plantation owner in the antebellum south- whether as a hero or as a side character. You’re just asking to get crucified. A haughty baron who thinks women as a sex are prone to hysteria? OMG, you sexist pig- and that goes for the writer too! And so on.
While reader tolerance varies greatly when it comes to controversial subject matter, it’s a disturbing trend that so many complainers on the internet throw a fit when historical fiction characters fail to uphold their 21st century beliefs- even in minor ways. Uh, this may be as a surprise to them, but people’s mindsets were radically different even a few years ago. And in many ways, they were just like us. But isn’t that the point of historical fiction? To be swept away into a different world while relating to characters who share similar qualities but not exact qualities with the 21st century reader? I mean, if you want to read about characters who follow your 21st century activist playbook, you’re probably better off reading a contemporary.
2) Production times for publication have been sped way, way up. Some content mills expect authors to produce a book per month at their most extreme. Seriously, how can you write a well-researched HR in only a month? Or, let’s be generous, one every three or four months. Back in the day, an author could spend months or even years just researching things for a historical fiction. Not anymore though. By economic necessity and changing internet search algorithms that favor new work, authors are forced to crank out those puppies as fast as they can write them. Not a good thing for quality.
I think that’s a big conundrum and why many “historical” romance authors are really kind of writing alternate history- historical romance because so much of the social reality just wouldn’t be palatable to a 21st century audience.
The whole risk of a child out of wedlock was so severe even a few decades ago. I think of Thomas Hardy and “Jude The Obscure” and how even though they were living as couple with children HE couldn’t get work because he couldn’t produce a marriage license. It wasn’t just about punishing the woman.
I was also thinking about Loretta Young and how she had a child out of wedlock by Clark Gable (horribly- it’s now speculated the result of a date rape) and the subterfuge she had to go through to bear the child secretly and then “adopt” it from an orphanage in order to keep her daughter.
One of my solutions to the conundrum would be to invent a separate category for “wallpaper historicals,” sort of as a compliment to alternative history in SF having categories like “steampunk” and the like. But I know that wouldn’t go over well among a lot of authors, and maybe not a lot of readers either.
I think one of the great things about Steampunk was that it allowed authors to take things like a Victorian setting and make upper class society more diverse than it was historically and create alternate history that allowed for more cultures in the mix.
Agreed!
I absolutely adore the steam punk or paranormal-historical romance sub-genre; Bec McMaster’s “London Steampunk” or Kristen Callihan’s “Darkest London” series are forever favorites.
The thing is “wallpaper” as applied to HR is sort of an insult… so I can’t see it becoming an actual category. I know what you mean, but I don’t think that’s the right term.
What about something like “alternative history historical romance (AHHR)?” Of course, that sounds a bit unwieldy. HR-lite? Any other ideas?
“I agree with everyone here who’s saying it’s getting harder to find lush and lyrical HR that feels true to the time period rather than 21st century time travelers playing dress-up.”
I recently wrote a post about tropes in HR that I was tired of seeing, and overly anachronistic characters make the list more than once.
Marian, you had me laughing out loud with that hysterical list. Thank you!!!
Brilliant, Marian!! Loved your list.
OMG – it’s like a check-list of 90% of today’s HR. The Lydia Bennet comment is spot on.
Ok, forgive me if this is redundant or off-topic, but I keep having this nagging idea about historical romance.
As I’ve written already on this comment thread, I want lush, lyrical, and subversive historical romance that is grounded in its historical setting. But when I’ve seen this discussed online or brought up in podcasts, it seems as if this sentiment has been misunderstood.
In my college history courses, my professors were constantly trying to teach us out of the impulse to play “paper dolls” with history. We all tend to talk about the past through our own lens and in doing so, we tell a historical story divorced from the record and primary sources.
For me, what’s great about historical romance is that it’s constantly playing “paper dolls” with history. That’s what I want! Jam those paper dolls together and make them kiss. But I also want authors to make those dolls recognizably historical. And that’s not a sneaky way of saying, I don’t want queer, nonwhite, non-Christian, or working class characters. Or, I don’t want feminist or progressive romance.
I want historical romance authors to do historical world-building. I also want historical romance that avoids objectifying, stereotyping, and/or excluding Black and brown people, non-Christian faiths, the poor and working class, and/or queer people. Personally, I think it’s entirely possible to do both, but I’m surprised by the conversations, both for and against “historical accuracy”, that conflate or confuse the two.
“And that’s not a sneaky way of saying, I don’t want queer, nonwhite, non-Christian, or working class characters. Or, I don’t want feminist or progressive romance.”
No, of course not. And despite some clashes I have had in the past about this, I don’t mean it this way either. But I have seen quite a few eye roll inducing HRs that simply don’t handle the integration of diverse characters well for the world they would have inhabited- even when giving leeway for the confines of the genre. I.e. they often feel thrown into the narrative without careful characterization and proper research.
Allow me to give an example. I remember reading an HR that took place in 1770s America that had a couple of lesbian side characters. Fine. I have no problem with that. But they were so open short of declaring “Hey, look at us! We’re a couple!” that it rang extremely false and I kept waiting for those foolish convention-flaunters to have to spend time in the stocks. I mean, one of the women wore trousers in public, for heaven’s sake- just out and about town whenever she felt like it, in the 1770s. Although there’s a longer history of women dressing like men than men dressing like women, crossdressing was a legally punishable offense until fairly recently in history. So what gives? It was clearly a case of shoehorning in 21st century mores into an 18th century setting, by a prominent HR author, no less. Pointing out something glaringly inaccurate- and frankly insulting to the reader- like that doesn’t mean I’m against queer HR. It means I’m against flagrant disregard for history in something marketed as historical fiction rather than “alternative reality.”
“Although there’s a longer history of women dressing like men than men dressing like women…”
Oops! I meant to say there’s a longer history of social acceptability when it comes to women dressing like men than men dressing like women. I’m certain the actual act has always gone both ways. ;)
Yeah, so what I was trying to do was separate these conversations.
Historical writing, research, and world-building is a substantively different discussion than how historically marginalized characters are presented or treated within a narrative. But everyone (myself included) has a tendency to discuss these topics simultaneously and I wonder if it’s hindering constructive dialogue.
I understand how you feel about shoehorning values into the narrative, 21st century perspectives, and activism in romance, but I’m also worried that comments like that might be backfiring by obscuring or confusing a conversation about the work of historical world building.
“But everyone (myself included) has a tendency to discuss these topics simultaneously and I wonder if it’s hindering constructive dialogue.”
That’s certainly a strong possibility. But are these easily separable conversations though? I mean, if an author is doing research for an HR, she’s probably going to bump up against accounts of treatment of minorities to help inform her work. But then she has the difficult, convoluted task of using that information to find a balance between historically accurate worldbuilding and the desires and sensibilities of her 21st century audience. So the two conversations of historical worldbuilding and portrayal of minorities within historical fiction are often intertwined from the get go.
And this is where things can get really messy. It certainly doesn’t help matters any when an author has to worry about internet backlash. By backlash, I don’t mean thoughtful reviews and critiques. I mean someone screen capturing a single line from their book out of context, posting it on Twitter, and saying something like, “OMG! This writer is such a racist. Somebody please fire this person!” This is a very real fear that I’m worried is pushing authors into a corner when it comes to producing nuanced, historically believable work.
“I understand how you feel about shoehorning values into the narrative, 21st century perspectives, and activism in romance, but I’m also worried that comments like that might be backfiring by obscuring or confusing a conversation about the work of historical world building.”
Heh heh. You’re telling me. A few months ago, my similar statement to that effect backfired so badly, I attracted the rage of at least two famous HR authors on Twitter plus umpteen unquestioning followers, one of whom indirectly threatened to beat me up (because that really supports the argument you’re making). I won’t even get into all the ad hominem attacks and strong man arguments. But, like all scandals of this nature, the perpetually offended crowd got bored and moved on to something else. And given that I didn’t find out about the brouhaha until 4 days after the fact (I don’t use Twitter), they probably moved on before I found the posts.
Unfortunately, other authors in more respectable genres than smut don’t always have the luxury of ignoring the vitriol. Hence, I think this hostile atmosphere is part of the reason why historically accurate HRs are becoming increasingly difficult to find. These days, it’s much easier for authors to play it “safe” than play it “accurate.” And, in the long run, I don’t think this is helping authors hone their craft or give readers a variety of options to choose from.
No, I don’t think they’re easily separable conversations because the discussions often happen simultaneously. For many, many people, the topics are intricately connected.
But I think the way they’ve become so thoroughly tangled has kept people from understanding one another. I also believe it’s worth it to separate them so we can communicate more effectively.
For instance, you and I disagree on a host of issues, but from what I understand, we both want historical romance with strong historical world building. My perspective is, how can we better communicate that to mainstream publishers, the AAR community, and existing or prospective historical romance authors? How can we keep our request from getting lost in translation?
“For instance, you and I disagree on a host of issues, but from what I understand, we both want historical romance with strong historical world building.”
Yes, Cece, 100%. I think it’s great we can write to each other civilly despite our disagreements and that we can also find common ground. I’d definitely like to see more of this kind of exchange on the internet and have really only seen it on AAR. :)
As for communicating about HR with a strong historical foundation to mainstream publishers, I think we’re sadly outnumbered by customers who happily gobble up what might be described as HR-lite. Let me be clear that I am absolutely not disparaging readers who like the kinds of books that drive me nuts. We should all read what we want and write what we want. The more books, the better! But, keeping in mind that big name romance publishers don’t go broke pumping out a steady stream of anachronistic Regency-duke-marries-the-serving-girl stories, they really don’t have a compelling incentive to change a formula that works for a big chunk of their fanbase.
I’m biased of course, but I think KDP has been one of the greatest gamechangers in literary history since the Guttenberg printing press when it comes to accessibility and variety of the written word. So, my recommendation would be for more HR authors who have been rejected from mainstream publishers to stop second-guessing themselves and publish on Amazon. Yes, I realize there are definitely drawbacks to this approach. But the upside is, if you have written a historically accurate romance that major publishers didn’t want because it strayed too far from the tried-and-true mold, you have an option that didn’t exist even a few years ago. You can get that book in front of readers. And the more people who do that, possibly pulling away customers from mainstream publishers, the Big 5 might pay attention.
This isn’t a wistful, impossible dream. I’ve read articles by a number of traditionally published authors over the years who said that KDP’s program broke down barriers to publishing that made the Big 5 treat their writers a lot better because they no longer had a monopoly that enabled them to demand exclusive contracts and strict option clauses. Some became hybrid authors, something that never really existed before on a wide scale, getting the best of both worlds.
I can’t help but think a similar approach could help improve the quality of HR. Flood the market with enough “rejected” high quality HRs that subvert tropes, and people might start to take notice. Because the only thing big publishers will listen to seriously is the sound of money flowing out of their coffers to someplace else.
I agree. I’d also point out that trends in romance feel cyclical and it might just be a matter of waiting until the genre swings in a direction I enjoy more.
Mainstream publishing seems to have gone through a period in the recent past when all of my favorite authors were working at the same time — Joanna Bourne, Meredith Duran, Cecilia Grant, and Sherry Thomas were a golden age of historical romance all their own (2008-mid-2010s) and they were the literary descendants of Laura Kinsale and Judith Ivory. Today, top historical authors like Sarah MacLean, Joanna Shupe, Tessa Dare, etc. are ascendant and they’re working in the tradition of Lisa Kleypas and Julia Quinn. I read their romances too, but I don’t see them as “my type” of historical romance nor do I rush out to buy/read those books.
Like you pointed out, publishing is highly responsive to bestselling work too ($$$) so I’m excited by the success of Milla Vane’s “Gathering of Dragons” series because I think it heralds a reevaluation of adult fantasy romance.
I also think you’re right about self-publishing and indie publishing. The careers of Olivia Waite, Kate Bateman, Olivia Dade, Diana Quincy and Scarlett Peckham all suggest that mainstream publishing is paying extremely close attention to trends that have found a home in self/indie publishing and are eager to embrace work that they may have previously overlooked or dismissed.
I think it’s likely that writers of historical romance find it difficult to present a plausible HEA for marginalized characters without having those characters resort to compromises that were common in the past but would not be acceptable today (for example, a gay character having a “beard” marriage or a POC “passing” for white, so that people who were at the time legally forbidden from being together could be together without fear of being torn apart and, possibly, imprisoned). I suspect not many romance readers want to read stories which feature “compromised” HEAs, but without admitting the fact that in the past many people had to find ways to be together that meant they couldn’t always acknowledge their relationship publicly, romance writers do have to resort to alternate history/wallpaper/“contemporaries in corsets.”
“I suspect not many romance readers want to read stories which feature ‘compromised’ HEAs,”
I’ve come to this conclusion as well. Personally, I wouldn’t mind a queer HR that takes the “beard marriage” route, as long as all the parties involved were aware of what they were getting into. I’ve seen a couple of HRs that almost take this approach but then chicken out at the last minute for a more conventional HEA. I get the impression that the average romance consumer isn’t quite ready for the MM characters to have wives.
However, I was pleasantly surprised that the FF HR The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows had an amiable lavender marriage to protect both the lesbian heroine and her gay husband. The way it was presented felt both true to the time period (early 1820s) and respectful to all the characters involved. So, it can definitely be done!
Another aspect I loved about The Care and Feeding of Waspish Widows was its period-appropriate attitude toward whaling. Obviously hunting whales is not cool, but almost no one in 1820 would have felt that way. It was regarded as a vital industry. So again, I was pleasantly surprised that the author didn’t shoehorn in anachronistic “save the whales” rhetoric, nor did she take the opposite approach of “stupid activists, yay for whaling.” It’s just the heroine’s husband’s job, very matter-of-fact. And his reason for thinking of quitting soon due to the physical challenges of aging feels perfectly reasonable.
In short, I think unconventional HEAs and uncomfortable historical topics can be woven into an HR. It just takes a lot of skill plus authors and publishers with enough gumption to not take internet firestorms to heart.
I’m glad you mentioned Olivia Waite because I think she’s a fantastic example of what I’m trying to get at — she does a solid job building a historical world in her novels and her treatment of marginalized characters and/or protagonists is commendable. Beverly Jenkins’s oeuvre is full of historical world-building and complex, fully realized portraits of Black love. And, although I haven’t read the series yet, I’ve heard that Alyssa Cole’s “The Loyal League” shines in these two categories as well.
Conversely, I think that Evie Dunmore’s novels are full of phenomenal historical world-building (the best of the best!), but her treatment of marginalized characters is substantively underdeveloped and leaves a lot to be desired.
There’s clearly a way to do both and again, when we discuss historical romance and what we want from it, it might be useful to separate these topics.
FYI, Sally Malcolm’s The Last Kiss goes with the Beard Marriage option – it’s one of the few times I’ve come across it.
Ah, come to think of it, you might have mentioned that to me before. Glad to know alternative HEAs like that are out there. :)
Tracy Grant‘s Fraser Malcom series has that for a lovely side character couple. In general, the series manages quite well to have some „very optimistic“ solutions while fully acknowledging how hard life for a gay coupe would be, or how to „solve“ acceptance of a child out of wedlock. I like the series, though a bit of fatigue sets in.
I hope historical romance authors realize that they’re not limited to one single way of presenting protagonists or characters with marginalized identities.
For instance, I think Beverly Jenkins is phenomenal at historical world-building and in Forbidden, her hero is white-passing and that’s part of the story, but she has a ton of other books where passing or colorism are less central or play little or no part in the narrative.
Similarly, as Nan De Plume pointed out, Olivia Waite has written queer characters both ways; in her first novel with Avon Impulse, the women weren’t married to men when they began their relationship, and in her second one, one of them was. And, judging from what I’ve seen online, both of her novels in the series have been popular and positively reviewed.
I think there are ways of having a happy ending but authors may have to be more flexible than just having the main characters as the toast of 19th English society. France was known for a long time as place where couples of different ethnicities could marry and live together.
There are many instances of same sex couples living out west together and of people who were born women living their lives as men there. There have always been places or ways people have found to be together or be themselves and I think the real stories are so fascinating that if the ideas were adapted or people came up with other plausible solutions they could marry “reality” and a happy ending.
I know what you mean and when I read stories that don’t acknowledge the struggle that people had to face it feels like a disservice.
“Disservice!” Thanks, Chrisreader. That was the word I was looking for earlier and couldn’t find it.
Now, when it comes to CR or speculative work, I’m totally fine with stories that are meant as pure escapism that don’t acknowledge the struggle. Honestly, I think you can make a narrative both ways. And quite a few minorities have said, “Ugh! Can’t I just be the soft heroine waiting to be rescued and not have to think about racism?”
But in HR, examples like the one I mentioned above sometimes require way too much suspension of disbelief, and, like you said, do a disservice to the people making the best of the world they lived in. Again, everyone’s tolerance level is going to be different when it comes to desired historical accuracy. But I’m hearing a lot of disappointment about how HR is getting way too 21st century in its outlook. And, as I’ve said, it’s a sentiment I agree with.
As a somewhat related aside, I think the movie The Naked Civil Servant is an excellent example of a historical piece that gets it “right.” It’s based on the life of semi-celebrity Quentin Crisp, who was openly gay in 1920s London. What’s extraordinary about this made-for-TV 1975 film starring John Hurt is how it doesn’t shy away from the uglier aspects of Crisp’s life story- including how his openness led to occasional beatings, rejection from a gay club for being too gay, poor employment prospects, and one arrest. But at the same time, the film never paints him as a mere victim for the audience to pity. He’s an extremely resilient, complex, flawed character with a dry sense of humor, an interesting assortment of friends and acquaintances, and a sex life. Every moment of this little gem rings true for the time period and place. And the fact Quentin Crisp himself adored the movie is probably the best recommendation there is for this sadly underrated flick.
I agree and I think there are two types of historical romance books being mostly written right now- one is the “alternate history” type where free love is applauded and everyone is pretty open minded and tolerant (except for maybe a villain or two) the other is where authors just avoid putting in anyone and anything that would require acknowledging that mindsets were very different and there weren’t special towns and villages and continents full of people who think like it’s 2020.
As anyone who has ever studied history knows there are tons of examples of independent women, POC, queer people and many other non-white Christians who moved through all strata of society and often made an impact on history. They’re not hard to find nowadays.
Most people don’t know it but Cora Munro in James Fennimore Cooper’s “Last Of The Mohicans” is a woman of color (her mother is/was a black woman). In 1826 Cooper wrote her as the daughter of a respected British (Scottish) General in a novel set in 1757.
It shouldn’t be that hard for novelists in 2020 to write interesting (but not typically written about) yet realistic heroines today given the wealth of historical information available to them.
YES to this.
As someone who has studied history, I’d definitely say that there’s an aspect of historical inaccuracy in narratives that white-wash, erase non-Christian faiths, present an entirely hetero-normative historical world, and/or strip most or all of their female characters of agency.
And, again, I’d differentiate between including complex, fully realized portraits of historically marginalized characters and protagonists (Yay! I want this very, very much! Please, more historical romance with people who are BIPOC, queer, proto-feminist, non-Christian, fat, poor/working class, older than 40, etc. ) and historical world-building.