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.
The boycott threats they’re making are embarrassing, and the number of people who are piling into the argument without doing any research about the topic are migraine inducing.
Would they all rather rely on Goodreads, where reviews are completely unmoderated and sometimes personally insulting? On Smart Bitches, Trashy Books, which covers a quarter of the scope of the romance world? Or Dear Author, which is rarely stable and functional as a website? Or Jen Reads Romance, which for all of her hue and cry about diversity, currently features only three authors of color (Beverly Johnson, Rebekah Weatherspoon and Alexis Daria) and four books featuring diverse protagonists (Band Sinister, Rafe, Forbidden and Take the Lead) out of eight on her “Most People Love These Books” front Page?
Heaven forbid they send arcs to Mrs. Giggles, who’s gone full on alt-right over the years!
Humorous that one of the authors mentioned for not being as “historically accurate” as some commenters expect, is featured in your steals and deals today. I’m sure that you don’t have control over that, but oh the irony. I happen to love her books. Too bad I already have it or I would buy it in honor of this comment section.
What I love about this beautifully humongous thread is all the debate that’s going on about both historical romance and romance in general. Wonderful! It is difficult to find blogs that are willing to entertain alternative view points, and AAR hits the mark for what it means to have an intelligent, respectful debate/dialogue.
Some takeaways for me are this:
1) A lot of commenters clearly understand that authors are often in a bind. As an author myself, albeit self-published, it is a breath of fresh air that so many other commenters in one space *get it.*
2) We have different tastes in historical romance, especially when it comes to tolerance for anachronisms, tropes, social issues, and diversity. Great! Let’s all read what we want to read, and write what we want to write.
Thank you, AAR for posting this topic. It’s been a fun, wild few days following all the posts.
I haven’t read all of the comments, but I’ve read enough. My favorite genre is historical FICTION and I expect books to be historically accurate if it’s labeled as such. I also enjoy historical romance, but I don’t expect it to be historically accurate. If the focus wasn’t the romance, then it would be historical fiction. There is a genre that will reject stuff if it isn’t accurate, scholarly publications. I’ve read a lot of HR and I’ve never had an author use England to refer to GB, Wales & Scotland.
I’ve never read Courtney Milan, but my favorite authors are Tessa Dare & Sarah Maclean, followed closely by Julia Quinn & Lisa Kleypas. Those authors’ books are very well edited and they aren’t repetitive. I like some of Mary Jo Putney’s books, but some of her plot lines are very similar. Mary Balogh, you bet there’s going to be a wilderness walk. I don’t know why that bothers me. Also, her books are poorly edited.
I love the Victorian era & would have loved to wear ball gowns & have a dance card & calling cards, but I would have not liked not voting or children working in factories so I like to see characters that speak out against that – because those are my values & that’s how I would feel in that character’s situation. Why would an author write a character that, hopefully, no one in the 21st century could identify with or relate to? That’s not going to sell books.
Lastly, my favorite books are ones that make me laugh out loud & google things. Books should be entertaining, but they should also make you think.
I think we need to focus on the historical romance genres as a whole, and not individual books or writers. Authors are battling the dictates of the publishing industry and the books they create are often twisted so far out of shape by editors and publishers as to be unrecognizable. We need to champion writers, not disparage them.
If there is a book or trope or writer you love, tell me your recs. But calling out individuals for themes and plots you disagree with just makes me turn away from your comments and think less of you.
Well, I will say, the general impression I get in this thread, is very critical, and disdainful of the books that I enjoy. I think that I am reasonably intelligent but, although I have enjoyed Carla Kelly, I enjoy the humor and joy of some of the very authors that aren’t good enough (not accurate enough) for most of the commenters here. I also see that posters here seem troubled by the addition of social issues and diversity… as though it ruins their enjoyment of a book. It’s so disturbing that social issues seem to bother folks so much. I don’t NEED approval for my reading choices, so you won’t affect my enjoyment of my books. You will affect my comfort in this space. I would love to find a book community where everyone’s tastes are celebrated and accepted. The “perfect” historians, and those looking for joy and humor and lightness and love. The fluffy stories and heavy, angst-filled books. The magic is that we can all choose to read what we want, and NOT read the rest!
I don’t think anyone here is saying that the inclusion of diversity and social issues ruins their enjoyment of a book; in fact, the overwhelming majority of the commenters here welcome it. The issue is not with the inclusion of those things, it’s with the execution; so many times the crusading heronie/businesswoman heroine etc. is there more as a token and no care is taken to show that she’s walking the walk as well as talking the talk, That’s the main cricitism – and to be fair, it happens in contemporaries as well – I’ve read reviews here that take issue with the idea of the 24-year-old female CEO who is never shown doing anything remotely business oriented.
Nobody is dissing your reading choices or suggesting you need approval for them. AAR is, in my experience, completely open to opinions of all sorts and does not – unlike some places – censure people who don’t happen to agree with it. This thread – as are the other the [email protected] threads – is meant to encourage discussion of all sorts, positive or negative, which, if you’ve read any of the other columns, you will see is taking place in a civil manner and all are welcome.
And finally – we criticise because we love. It’s important to remember that.
I completely agree with you Kim. There is a general tone deafness throughout this thread, often marked with statements like, “I’m all for diversity but…” It is pitted against “historical accuracy” or “done right.” One of these, if you would believe some comments here, BIPoC barely existed in the spaces often written about and when they did, it was maybe because they were rich. The other is a completely subjective notion of inclusivity being done right. Whether it is done right or not raises many questions and will garner several different answers depending on the individual. It’s an intellectually lazy approach.
I see KJ Charles mentioned several times as doing it right, but if you’ve read her books and do not see a message throughout, I’m really wondering where the critical thinking is? Her books have a definite message of inclusivity. As for Courtney Milan, who was much criticized, and no one objected to naming her as opposed to some other authors, you do realize she’s a WOC right? Absolute kudos to her for writing books about people that are often ignored within the romance genre and mostly absent in the HR subset as though they didn’t exist or were at best, wallpaper. She wants to give these people a happy ending. What’s so wrong about that? Harping on historical accuracy for these things and not the enumerable Cinderella tropes within HR comes across as disingenuous. I think HR needs to be upended a bit. It’s dull and repetitive, formulaic. I’ve read tons of HR as a teenager and young adult. The themes are on regular cycle, rinse and repeat. The number of books that are inclusive are but one drop within a rainstorm of sameness; hardly enough to point to the problem with HR being authors “virtue signaling,” writing “historically inaccurate” existence of characters, or so called over the top messaging. Those sound more like defensiveness.
Agreed. Some of the highlights of this thread–“what’s next? A Black left-handed Lesbian? A Muslim?” make me embarrassed. 1) Same sex romances exist, and have a market, they may be shelved in a different area of the store but you will definitely be able to tell from the cover and blurb so no need to worry about accidentally buying one. (gasp!) 2) If you think a Black romance heroine is wacky and far-out, I don’t know what to say to you, 3) handedness is rarely mentioned in novels unless it’s part of the plot but I’m not sure why you think a left-handed heroine would be so perverse? 4) Islam is…..a very old religion and there was no wall around Muslim countries keeping them segregated from the rest of the world, so don’t be surprised if a Muslim pops up in a book set in 1820. They might even be a main character! If that’s a problem for you, there are issues that are not going to be resolved on this thread.
I would be very disappointed if my favorite writers changed the way they write based on this thread. Fortunately I don’t really expect them to. Someone upthread was annoyed that they were “doubling down” instead of begging for forgiveness and ripping up manuscripts. Honestly now.
If you really need to have your romances lily white and homogenous, there are plenty out there. I get them advertised to me all the time on Amazon.
Well, I for one am grateful to the voices here standing up for diversity, feminism, politics, and social issues in romance writing. Romances have not always been a particularly inclusive genre, and they have always had plenty of conservative readers feeling anxiety about demographic changes and shifting power dynamics, many of whom post here at AAR regularly. If AAR opens the door to “quality” discussions, no one should be surprised by the conflict that ensues, especially when quality becomes conflated with diversity. You pointed to some of the posts that were among the most insensitive, and I think it’s right to continue to reflect on all of this.
@Blackjack- Speaking of conservative romance readers, I think it was only recently that the overarching industry considered m/m, f/f, and ménage part of the official definition of what could be considered romance. The source escapes me, but I also remember reading somewhere that HFNs are also fairly new to the industry across the board. And even before HFNs, category romances at certain publishing houses had a plethora of strict requirements for their HEAs (e.g. it had to end with a wedding, no explicit sex, no premarital sex, etc.) I remember you commenting about those borderline-obligatory epilogues that frequently insist the heroine got married and had a lot of children. That’s probably a carryover from the industry’s conservative roots. And from a financial perspective, whether we like it or not, maybe conservative readers form the bulk of customers keeping the romance publishing houses and authors afloat- and sticking to the same old tried-and-true narratives. Or should I say, the same old *tired* not-so-true narratives and tropes.
Even today, I don’t think Harlequin publishes non-m/f romances under their main lines. Their imprints Avon and Carina Press do, but not under the Harlequin name. Harlequin also doesn’t publish erotic romance (except through Carina Press, don’t know about Avon), although they have been dipping their toes into racier contemporary stories lately. Make of that what you will.
But I think the publishing industry in general is slow to change with the times. Actually, they tend to be slow period. Heck, it can take *years* from acquisition for an author to see her book in print (not sure if this is true at romance publishing houses or not.) Anyone feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on any of this. I’m just writing from memory and hearsay here.
It’s an odd dichotomy. On the one hand, many romance novels/publishing houses cling to the past. On the other hand, they also embraced innovations earlier than other genres- most notably e-books. But I think major publishing houses in general are going to get eaten alive by Amazon if they don’t get with the times and keep innovating as well as listening to reader concerns and taking more chances in acquisitions.
@Cat- Thank you for itemizing your points for ease of reading. Based on your quotations and examples, I’m assuming you are referring to comments Marian Perera and I made on this thread. I cannot speak for Ms. Perera, but allow me to respond to your concerns:
1) “Same sex romances exist…no need to worry about accidentally buying one. (gasp)” I’m not sure if this was directed at me, but I’m actually fond of same-sex romances. I greatly enjoyed reading Cat Sebastian’s late-Regency m/m romance “It Takes two to Tumble.” And heck, I *write* contemporary m/m erotic romance as well as other erotica pairings. Maybe this comment was meant for someone else on this thread?
2) “If you think a Black romance heroine is wacky and far-out” I don’t. I have read a number of HRs by Beverly Jenkins as well as an HR by Alyssa Cole (the title escapes me right now. Ugh!), and enjoyed them immensely. What I think is wacky and far-out is when any character, regardless of race, feels dropped into the story to make a point rather than existing as a fleshed-out character. True, not every side character needs an arc (and probably shouldn’t for reasons of story length), but characters should be created thoughtfully. I admit fully that this is a subjective rubric. A character who screams “tokenism” to one reader may be well-received by another. That’s why it’s nice we have the freedom to write and read what we please. I say, the more books, the better!
3) “handedness is rarely mentioned in novels… I’m not sure why you think a left-handed heroine would be so perverse?” I don’t think a left-handed heroine is perverse in the least. My example, admittedly fictional and facetious, was making a point about how editors and publishing houses can pressure authors to tack on qualities/characteristics/tidbits that are not part of the writer’s original vision in order to virtue signal. Handedness is just a hypothetical example of this phenomenon, and not a very good one.
4) I don’t recall mentioning Islam in any of my posts on this thread, so I assume this was in reference to a different commenter.
In regard to your parting remark, I couldn’t find anyone on this thread insisting that romances had to be lily white. If anything, I see a lot of commenters who are tired of the same old tropes, character archetypes, and so forth.
“I’m assuming you are referring to comments Marian Perera and I made on this thread. I cannot speak for Ms. Perera, but allow me to respond to your concerns:
Personally, I decided not to say anything further because it feels like when it comes to the use of diverse characters, any comment that is not complete and enthusiastic support is equated with wanting only lily white romances, having a blinkered viewpoint, and believing that minorities didn’t exist in the past.
Basically, there seems to be no middle ground. And if there’s no middle ground, then for me, there’s no scope for discussion.
I see what you mean, Ms. Perera. And I completely agree with you here about the lack of middle ground regarding diverse characters and, Heaven forbid, subtlety. Some comments definitely smack of “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And that’s disheartening.
I also agree with you that sometimes the best choice is to not say anything further, especially if the effort bears no fruit. I think the only reason I’m still on this thread, besides the fascinating topic, is that I haven’t had a good debate in ages. (Not that I came here spoiling for a fight!)
On a related note, I wonder how many straw man accusations regarding people wanting lily white narratives come from writers versus readers who do not write books. I say this because you and I know, as authors, that being a writer is often ROUGH. I feel like a broken record here, but it’s very easy to pick on writers compared to actually writing something. Frankly, we’re easy targets (as a profession, I mean. Not necessarily you or me personally.) I heard there’s a similar camaraderie and support among comedians for the same reason. It was Doug Stanhope, I believe, who said that a comedian would have to do something terribly egregious before he would take a stand against him. But until concrete evidence surfaced, he would give a fellow comedian the benefit of the doubt and support practically anything he said- even if he disagreed- because the complainers of the world generally don’t put in the effort to create. I.e., anyone can rant about a comedian on Twitter without having put in the work and accomplish anything similar. I’m paraphrasing here, but I think it’s relevant to writers as well.
And with self-publishing, it’s easier than ever for a person to say, “You know what. I don’t like the tired old tropes and stereotypes. Dang it, I’m going to write a book that shows a (insert the blank) character as a well-rounded human being deserving of compassion, adventure, and love.” Visibility in the sea of self-publishing is sadly an issue, but most mainstream published authors never achieve fame or best selling status either. But I will say, I admire just about anyone who takes the time to research and write the story they envision. And I wish them every success in finding an audience to share it with.
“And I completely agree with you here about the lack of middle ground regarding diverse characters and, Heaven forbid, subtlety.”
Yes. One of the things I enjoyed most about Django Unchained was that there was diversity in the black characters – Django and Broomhilda were good people, but Stephen most definitely wasn’t. (Note to other commenters : This should not be taken to mean that I want black characters to be blown to bits in exploding mansions).
So what about more diversity in diversity, for lack of a better way to phrase it? Maybe certain people in the past were very supportive of civil rights, but not champions of same-sex relationships, for instance. I’d like to see romances where it’s not easy to tell at once who the villains are because they’re the racist , or the homophobe, or so on. I want development and, as you said, subtlety.
Using a Django Unchained example again, at the start of the film, Dr. Schultz doesn’t like slavery, but he seems to see it as something that backward hicks do. Initially, it offends him as rudeness might offend him, rather than as a deep violation of people’s humanity. Yet that doesn’t make him a bad person. It makes him a complex person instead. I’d like to see more such nuance.
And as I said elsewhere on this thread, it’s difficult to develop multiple issues to the same extent, so a book which tries to do too much may end up not doing justice to those issues (Note, again : This is subjective. A book that worked very well for one reader may not work so well for another reader, but this doesn’t mean one person is right and the other is wrong).
“Some comments definitely smack of “If you’re not with us, you’re against us.” And that’s disheartening.”
Agreed. Such comments are not productive in terms of spreading awareness or fostering discussion.
“I say this because you and I know, as authors, that being a writer is often ROUGH.”
Yes, it is. I will say one thing about mainstream publishing, though – even though it doesn’t guarantee that a book will be a bestseller, you can rely on a certain profit (the advance) and a certain number of sales (readers who are already aware of what the publisher releases and who trust the publisher’s brand). Self-publishing doesn’t have such a cushion, but there’s a lot more creative control. There are positives and negatives for both.
Thank you so much for your balanced approach to this very interesting discussion!
And thank you, Ms. Perera. I’ve found your comments throughout this thread both refreshing and enlightening.
Yes, self-publishing and traditional publishing have their strengths and weaknesses. One of the many joys of being a writer…
I haven’t seen the movie “Django Unchained,” or any other Quentin Tarantino movie for that matter, but I admire Mr. Tarantino’s courage and talent as an artist. Unlike some other Hollywood-types, he’s not a sniveling apologist who caves to every criticism and special interest group. The man has a backbone, and eagerly defends the works of art he creates. And because of his moxie, he is able to make enduring films which portray characters as complex people. Thank you for sharing some concrete examples of this man’s work.
For another example in movie subtlety, which you might enjoy, is the obscure 1970s film “Skin Game” with James Garner and Louis Gossett Jr. I only caught parts of it on TV a while back, and it falls into that category of “movies you couldn’t get away with making today” (unless you’re Quentin Tarantino). The story concerns two con artists in the 1850s, one of whom is a free black man from New Jersey, who pull off the following scam together: They go from town to town pretending to be a slave and a down-on-his-luck slave owner who must reluctantly sell his last slave. But when the “slave” is bought, Garner rescues him in the middle of the night and splits the money with him so they can pull off the scam again and again. What’s interesting about this dark comedy is the complexity of the characters and their situation. Yes, Garner and Gossett (can’t remember the characters’ names) are con artists, but we can root for them because they are defrauding slave owners. On top of that, the film is smart enough not to make everything all hunky-dory between the two con artists either. Their relationship is rocky (a few times, they con each other and get into a fistfight at least once that I recall), and they have some heartfelt conversations about their scheme. Gossett, for example, tells the more happy-go-lucky and oblivious Garner that playing his slave and getting sold every day is a lucrative, albeit extremely dangerous, scam- but that having to *always* be the slave really hurts his feelings sometimes, and that just because he’s a crook, it doesn’t mean he doesn’t have pride. Then Gossett starts to feel bad about the scam for another reason- they are profiting off of the suffering of others. Sure, he and his partner-in-crime have the satisfaction of cheating slave owners, but there are real slaves they could be helping instead of taking advantage of the institution for their personal gain. It’s just another example of a fascinating, subtle movie that I’ll have to watch from start to finish sometime.
I’m told Elmore Leonard, who wrote 45 Western and crime novels, was good at creating complex characters- most of whom were of ambiguous morals but believable as complicated beings. He sure wasn’t a romance writer, but his books may be worth exploring.
@Marian Perera: “The issue for me is not diversity per se, but how it’s implemented in the story.” THANK YOU! You have summed up succinctly what took me several comments to elaborate upon.
@FancyPants: Never at any time in this thread did I say a left-handed black lesbian heroine was “ridiculous.” That is your word, not mine. In fact, I have written several posts which made it quite clear I would have absolutely no problem reading about such a protagonist, and have given a number of examples of well-written diverse stories that I have enjoyed reading and highly recommend to others.
I also never said that people don’t have multiple identities. And I welcome their inclusion in fiction, provided their presence makes sense for the particular story being told. What I do not appreciate is when authors/editors/publishing houses blatantly pander rather than focusing on telling good stories with well-rounded characters regardless of their race, sexual orientation, creed, etc.
There seems to be a big hang-up about my having used the fictional, hypothetical example of a black, left-handed lesbian. To clarify, for the umpteenth time, I have no problems WHATSOEVER with a non-white, non-cishet protagonist. To use another example, I would find it just as odd and pandering if a HR that took place in say, Ancient Japan, suddenly had a bunch of Swedes, Irish, Polish, and Latin Americans show up without a sufficient excuse for them being there. And I would be doubly annoyed if their presence was only included to make a point rather than flesh them out as people. But if you could put in the research, make it plausible, and convince me through the narrative that such a story is reasonable for the location and time period, that is fantastic and I can’t wait to read it.
“Most writers seem to be coming from a place of genuinely wanting to include different narratives in their stories, or from wanting to see themselves on the page.” I am glad to hear this. As I have said many times, the more stories that are out there, the better. But that doesn’t mean I’m not allowed to have preferences or roll my eyes if certain stories are not handled well.
When I first saw the “left-handed black lesbian” heroine comment, I interpreted it not necessarily as “facetious,” but more as a sign that a little diversity may be tolerable but too many forms of diversity is off-putting. It seems to me, perhaps to contradict your analysis here a bit, that a black, left-handed lesbian might actually be three dimensional and complex and not easily typecasted, as in minorities are as complex in their identities as anyone else,. For instance, why are lesbians only supposed to be white for some readers? Why wouldn’t a black woman be represented as a lesbian, even a left-handed one? And sure, one-dimensional characterization plagues the fictional world, but when this issue repeatedly crops up around the inclusion of diverse characters, it starts to sound prejudiced. I agree that no one here to my knowledge actually came out and said the overtly racist words “lily white,” but there seemed to me plenty of insinuations that diversity is troubling a fair number of readers here, especially if an author has “too much” diversity in a book.
And what’s a middle ground between inclusiveness/appreciation for diversity/anti-racism and racism? Is that really a thing? I honestly don’t know what that means or looks like.
I also have to say that the words “virtue signaling” used in conjunction with authors engaged in diverse representations is troubling. It’s a bit akin to the terrible phrase “playing the race card.”
A left-handed black lesbian certainly could be the heroine of a romance novel, whether in historical or contemporary. No argument here. 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.”
There have been times when I’ve thought, “Oh no, not more paragraphs of description of weapons and banners and scenery. It feels like the worldbuilding is crowding out the story.”
There have also been times when I’ve thought, “It feels like the author is substituting sex scenes for a good story.”
Likewise, there have been times when I’ve thought, “It feels like the author is substituting lots of diverse characters for a good story.”
I feel that if it’s possible to have too much worldbuilding, or too many sex scenes in a story, it’s also possible to have too much diversity (which does not mean I’m saying these should never appear in a story, nor am I saying that worldbuilding/sex/diversity is bad). I also realize that different readers have different thresholds in this regard. The issue for me is not diversity per se, but how it&