Do you read Historicals?
I was having an interesting conversation the other day about historical fiction, and I was genuinely surprised when I was told by a friend that she didn't read it.
As a history nerd, I was SHOCKED. I blame my love of history on not have a television for a period as a child, which led to looking to alternate sources for stories. That, and a mother who loved history even though she failed it miserably at school. (Hi, Mum!) Because it occurred to me at a very early age that history, literally, is EVERY STORY IN THE WORLD EVER. And how is that not awesome?
But my friend told me that she finds it difficult to invest emotionally in historical fiction, since the protagonists -- had they lived -- would already be dead now. Which I can kind of understand, but also I can't. Because If I only stuck to stories that might be real and happening now, wouldn't that restrict me to contemporary, realistic fiction? And if I did that, wouldn't I be missing out on a lot of great fiction?
sourceI love history, so I'm completely biased on the subject. I"m also currently writing another historical, so yeah, I've got a horse in this race.
I love when the world-building in historical fiction is vivid, and I love when the writer gets the details right. On the flip side, I HATE it when they get it wrong. I read an m/m historical recently where there was a very big Public Display of Affection, and it threw me out of the story straight away. Because no way, just no fucking way, would two men kiss and grope each other in public in the middle of the day in Victorian London. Just no.
You're writing history, not rewriting it. Just...just don't.
Of course if happened. The proof is all over Victorian Gentlemen in Love. But it happened in private, it happened underground, and these men must have lived in constant fear of discovery. Let's not diminish that by jemmying in PDAs that couldn't have happened.
Wow. That turned into a slight rant, didn't it? So let's get back to the point: Do you read historical fiction, or does it just not work for you? Whatever your answer, I'd love to know your reasons.
As a history nerd, I was SHOCKED. I blame my love of history on not have a television for a period as a child, which led to looking to alternate sources for stories. That, and a mother who loved history even though she failed it miserably at school. (Hi, Mum!) Because it occurred to me at a very early age that history, literally, is EVERY STORY IN THE WORLD EVER. And how is that not awesome?
But my friend told me that she finds it difficult to invest emotionally in historical fiction, since the protagonists -- had they lived -- would already be dead now. Which I can kind of understand, but also I can't. Because If I only stuck to stories that might be real and happening now, wouldn't that restrict me to contemporary, realistic fiction? And if I did that, wouldn't I be missing out on a lot of great fiction?
sourceI love history, so I'm completely biased on the subject. I"m also currently writing another historical, so yeah, I've got a horse in this race.I love when the world-building in historical fiction is vivid, and I love when the writer gets the details right. On the flip side, I HATE it when they get it wrong. I read an m/m historical recently where there was a very big Public Display of Affection, and it threw me out of the story straight away. Because no way, just no fucking way, would two men kiss and grope each other in public in the middle of the day in Victorian London. Just no.
You're writing history, not rewriting it. Just...just don't.
Of course if happened. The proof is all over Victorian Gentlemen in Love. But it happened in private, it happened underground, and these men must have lived in constant fear of discovery. Let's not diminish that by jemmying in PDAs that couldn't have happened.
Wow. That turned into a slight rant, didn't it? So let's get back to the point: Do you read historical fiction, or does it just not work for you? Whatever your answer, I'd love to know your reasons.
date
newest »
newest »
Eed99 wrote: "I love historical fiction. I go in fits and spurts for just which periods I like the best, but admit I am always a sucker for anything set in an ancient setting (Rome, Greece, etc) and the Regency..."I've always wanted to write an Age of Sail book, but the sheer amount of research puts me off! All that rigging... :)
I do tend to think that in a historical romance that the historical aspect should take precedence over the romance, and of course in so many periods PDAs were just as unacceptable between m/f couples...although you wouldn't be hanged for them, your reputation could certainly be ruined. I am a stickler for accuracy in historicals, particularly when it comes to attitudes of the time, however horrible they are to modern sensibilities.
I love historicals and have read some really good ones. The Persian Boy was one of my springboards to imagination for many years when I didn't know M/M existed outside of my own notebook pages.
Kaje wrote: "I love historicals and have read some really good ones. The Persian Boy was one of my springboards to imagination for many years when I didn't know M/M existed outside of my own notebook pages."Ooh, that looks really good!
I am a stickler for accuracy in historicals, particularly when it comes to attitudes of the time, however horrible they are to modern sensibilities. I totally agree with this. One frustration I have with historicals is when the author essentially applies 21st century western culture mores to their historical setting. It just doesn't work and I find myself nitpicking the story rather than enjoying. I have stopped reading some books because of this.
I sometimes think if an author is determined to have their characters operate with current mores, they would do better to write a fantasy with a historical setting than an outright historical.
Eed99 wrote: " I totally agree with this. One frustration I..."Absolutely! Fantasy is great for when you can't make history fit. :)
I really like a well done m/m story that comes across realistically. I think some periods lend themselves better to m/m than others, and authors should keep in mind that a m/m relationship in some periods was a hanging offense. Can work to create some tension, but PDA was going to be out of the question.