Some updates on History Ever After

For a moment there, I wondered if I was getting to Sydney for IASPR at all. One of the legs of my journey was canceled, and it took two international calls to clear up the mess. (I think I’ve done it…we’ll see if I actually board a plane). When I hung up the phone, I thought to myself: “Gee, I would rather put the finishing touches on my History Ever After talk than grade those thirty-six exam essays waiting for me.”

(I would have probably also opted to fold laundry, clean out the fridge, and even scour the shower if any of those would get me out of grading. I feel bad about this reluctance because I teach really great students, and I love to see them succeed. But staring at such a large pile is disheartening.)

In any case, I procrastinated a few hours and updated the data on my slides. The last time I posted about my research, I only had about three months worth of market data to crunch. Now I have six. Not surprisingly, the results have not changed so much. The dynamic duo of Regency and Victorian romance still dominates the industry. Of the historical romances that make the New York Times, Publishers Weekly, USA Today, Amazon, and Barnes & Nobles bestseller lists, 63% are from 19th century Britain. And of those books on online retailers, the dukes are kings:

With the royal wedding this past month, I do get the appeal of the royalty-slash-nobility fairy tale—though this wedding was far more inclusive and kick-ass than any Heyer book you could mention, I dare say. (While I am thinking of the wedding, though, thank you to my good friend Andres for bringing me a commemorative tin of shortbread. I may have been a little excited—ahem—when I received it. However, that “best by” date sticker had me confounded. I mean, really? The tin is what I want. That doesn’t expire. Who the heck cares about the shortbread?)

Anyway, I get it. I really do. But come on…if you throw a stone, you will hit a duke in historical romance. A third of the Amazon Top 20 in Regency has duke or duchess in the title, for crying out loud! (See the above slide.) About the same number of historical romance novel finalists in the 2018 RITAs have duke or duchess in the title, too. Not just in the book; in the title!

The New York Times Review of Books just put out a Summer Romance Reads list. The Review‘s new romance columnist (yes, they learned to ask someone who actually reads romance to write about romance) indicates a fresh trend: poking a stick at the genre’s reliance on aristocracy. I would have cheered this news loudly if it were not for the fact that 3 of 4 historical romance novels mentioned have peerage or peerage-adjacent heroes (2 duke offspring—one illegitimate—and a marquess).

I have no doubt these books are great, and I look forward to reading them. I love all four histrom authors featured, and I have even interviewed Joanna Shupe on this very blog! And a few of these books challenge the chronotope in different ways—for example, Cat Sebastian has written a bisexual marquess and a nonbinary love interest. Cool! But I want more competent men with daily employment. When did that become hot? Maybe it’s just me.

Really, the problem is not any one individual book. The books are great if they are good stories well told. The problem is the effect of the aggregate. The overreliance on two chronotopes—19th century Britain (especially peerage heroes) and medieval England/Scotland—distorts readers’ view of history and makes the market less friendly to diverse books and authors. This is a theme I will expand upon late this month in my recap of my talk, History Ever After. Stay tuned.