We listen to you, we really do. And we’ve noticed that you, along with several of our reviewers, aren’t all that happy with most – not all, but most – of the historical romance that’s been published in the past year or so. Using our Power Search feature, we looked at all the Historical Romance reviews we’ve written in 2019. We’ve given out 19 As, 47 Bs, 21 Cs, 13 Ds, and 2 Fs.
Getting Cs, Ds, and Fs were several authors we’ve reviewed positively in the past: Victoria Alexander, Lorraine Heath, Madeline Hunter, Anne Gracie, Marguerite Kaye, and Laura Lee Guhrke to name a few. Several of the DIKs are debut books are are by lesser-known authors.
So, is there a problem with historical romance right now? And, if so, what is it?
It’s not just AAR readers/reviewers thinking about how well modern values work when tucked into stories set in earlier times.
In the New York Times review of the live action Mulan movie, storied critic Manohla Dargis writes:
Excellent review. I hadn’t given a thought to seeing the movie, but now I’m interested.
This is IMO.
It all boils down to the same thing. Accuracy. Do your research, and you’ll find that LGBTQ people always existed, through every age. There were no slaves on British soil, for instance – do you know how they got around that? They used people like slaves until they died, and then they employed someone else – cheaper than owning slaves, which is the main reason why. There were people of colour everywhere – not as many as you’ll find today in the average city in Britain, but certainly enough to feature in stories. Until the 20th century, homosexuality was punishable by death – until the Victorians arrived, it was less the moral aspect, though that was trumpeted in church on Sundays, it was because there were two baby-makers wasted (despicable, but that’s what you read in contemporary accounts). It didn’t mean that none existed.
Disabled people were often locked away or kept quietly at home. Some were loved, some were not. But they existed – go to any good medical museum, and you’ll see a collection of Bath chairs (chairs with wheels that had to be pushed rather than the person sitting in it doing it themselves – that tells you something right there), crutches, walking sticks. They existed, so write about what they went through in the context of the time. Show people today how conditions have improved, and how they haven’t.
And some authors don’t know this because they haven’t done their research. Informed research, so that the reader knows the “codes” used back then for people who were not white cisgendered. If you knew a gay man (lesbianism was not outlawed), then you didn’t discuss it openly with others. You called him a “confirmed bachelor,” (which also covered men who didn’t want to marry for other reasons), or refer to his “preferences.” Because you didn’t want your friend taken up and hanged for his “preference.”
I did try to write a romance once which had the slave trade as its theme (the heroine was a protester). But I gave up, because the terms they used back then, even when they were advocates for the abolition cause were so offensive to people today. If I’d been writing a non-romance, it might have been accepted, but even then writing it would have been hard. Perhaps I’ll try again one day.
I have not yet written a person of colour as a protagonist, but that’s because I tend to do the aristocracy-type heroes and heroines, and in the top echelons of British society, there just weren’t any. Historical accuracy. But I’ve written plenty as secondary characters, walk-ons and so on. They were there, so I put them in.
Another point – I wrote my first m/m romance as part of The Shaws series – immensely pleased that Kensington allowed it as part of an otherwise mf series. It didn’t sell as well as the other books in the series, sadly, but there you go. I’ll keep doing it, when it seems appropriate.
@Nan De Plume, “My point is that there is a difference between wanting to tell a story about such a character because the author *really* wants to write that heroine, and write her well, versus just saying (or having the publisher say), “Oh, I guess such-and-such type of character is popular now. I’ll throw her into my story to win brownie points.””
Your point from this quote on diversity is racially insensitive at the least as well as disputed by a number of authors who have read your responses. See my above response.
There are lots of accusations that this thread is censored. Just to be clear: there are currently three responses that I didn’t publish because they attacked another/other commenters. Everything else has been published.
And perhaps I should have. I’m still thinking about the balance between freedom of expression and the need to make sure disenfranchised groups don’t feel debased. It’s a hard call for me because I can see both sides. As I said in an earlier post in this thread I’ve been thinking a lot about Ibram X. Kendi‘s belief that there is no such thing as non-racist, only racist or anti-racist. I think that means I have to acknowledge my belief that, in the long run, it’s more important that places of power–which perhaps in romance AAR might be–protect the speech of all than it is to curate speech for some no matter what that speech might be.
1) Historical romance HAS a problem and it’s the fact the the majority of the authors write about white privileged people. So boring, it’s always that same old story.
2)For white author’s I can understand why they don’t write about poc because it’s not their place. We should write our own stories BUT +
3)don’t be a hypocrite there’s a lot of white author’s talking about diversity and such but I don’t see them writing idk at least about the working class.
4)what I see from latest books (written by feminist authors of course) is that they write about white feminist and that’s a problem too, we want more diversity and inclusivity not just +”all women should study!” and they’re just talking about duke’s sisters/daughters
5) when I talk about historical inaccuracy for me it’s about a book that could easily pass as a contemporary, lazy writing and ridiculous plots. But I understand that a lot of people use it to justify their prejudices and that’s not ok.
6)I’ve been a follower of this site for a long time and I think it’s a shame that you give space for people to DISCRIMINATE and EXCLUDE MINORITIES. We can always disagree about plot points/ tropes/ subgenres/ writing styles BUT we CAN’T and YOU SHOULDN’T ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT people who think that being: a black/latin×/LGBT people is “HISTORICAL INACCURATE”
So you didn’t read the arguments presented here and you’re okay having a Twitter where minorities are actively silenced is what you’re trying to say?
I was right with you in agreement through all your points (#5 especially is I think what I’ve been feeling about recent HRs I’ve read) but then 6 lost me. Are you saying you think that’s what’s happening on this thread? Because I’m not getting that at all. I felt it was more that lots of readers are aware that minorities have always been a part of history ( I realize that’s a DUH statement) and are open to reading these stories when they are written with depth and genuine characters who challenge and endear us as readers. I will read almost anything if I’m captivated. (Looking at you R Lee Smith.)
Honestly, something I’ve struggled with in my own reading is this issue of diversity in romance. Should I read stories I’m not interested in because it helps grow the genre in the “right” direction, more representation of minorities? (My lack of interest stems from the quality, or my opinion of it, NOT the actual content.) I agree it’s important to support this direction but my reading time isn’t unlimited and neither are my funds. I’m also not on any kind of social media so I have no minions to activate.
Im sorry for putting “right” in quotations. It was for emphasis not questioning that it was the correct direction
You got a few authors eyeballing this blog and calling for censorship/heavier moderation of the comments. You’re not allowed to share your thoughts and feelings about the current state of romance novels unless it aligns with their views.
Anyways, I haven’t read a newly published historical romance since 2017. Either I grew up and matured or the books are just way too wallpapery now for me. Seems like all the historical romance characters being written today could easily fit in the 21st century. Also, I am sick and tired of dukes. And if the hero is working class you can bet he’ll be made a member of the aristocracy by the end of the book. I am also tired of the regency era. So many eras to choose from and it’s regency over and over and OVER.
I think for me it comes down to “it’s me, not you”. I’m just over romance. I don’t know if the authors are doing something wrong or not which leads me to believe it’s something on my end that it turning me away.