What does Historical Fiction need if it doesn't have romance in the plot?

[Dave]

The topic question is a serious one and who better to ask than avid readers such as our community? Romance plays some part in many highly regarded historical novels. The list is long. But what do you think is/are emotionally satisfying elements in historical fiction that keep you reading when romance is not part of the story? (Please exclude military history novels) Will you recommend specific novels, too? Thanks to everyone.

[Abigail]

I like historical (and other) novels that present the protagonist with a meaty ethical challenge—the sorts of human dilemmas that are common to people of any age. It is through examining and trying to resolve such problems that we all learn and grow. I would say The Weight of Ink might fit into this category. This is a type of historical novel that is set against a historical backdrop but emphasizes human commonalities.

I also like historical novels that show how ordinary people are affected and changed by major historical events. The Summer Before the War might be one of those.

[Carol]

I am not a fan of romance in historical novels and intentionally avoid HF that includes it. It distracts from the pace of the novel and renders the fascinating trivial. Then again, I'm not seeking emotional satisfaction. I read HF to experience another time and/or place, to learn about a culture with which I'm not familiar, and without the Monday-morning quarterbacking of nonfiction history books.

Examples are

Gates of Fire: An Epic Novel of the Battle of Thermopylae by Steven Pressfield

The Winter King: A Novel of Arthur The Winter King (The Warlord Chronicles, #1) by Bernard Cornwell

Pompeii by Robert Harris

Pride of Carthage by David Anthony Durham

Wolf Of The Plains by Conn Iggulden

The Whale Road by Robert Low

Dissolution by C.J. Sansom

Sarum: The Novel of England by Edward Rutherfurd.

There's another HF group here on GR, Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction, that expressly avoids romantic elements in its books. I prefer this group for interaction and book discussions, but it's easy to peruse AMHF's bookshelves to see hundreds of examples and also to learn about the non-romance HF reader.

[Carol]

Abigail wrote: "I like historical (and other) novels that present the protagonist with a meaty ethical challenge—the sorts of human dilemmas that are common to people of any age. It is through examining and trying..."

I'm glad you reminded me of The Weight of Ink, Abigail. I must get to that this year.

[Gretchen, Keep your head up or the crown slips]

Hilary Mantel's books Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies come to mind as books that I found satisfying without being romantic. I know that people are very split on their opinions of Mantel's work. As a pretty avid reader of Tudor-era fiction, I always appreciate when an author can capture the moment without turning everything into a bodice ripping, roll in the sack.

[Dave]

Abigail wrote: "I like historical (and other) novels that present the protagonist with a meaty ethical challenge—the sorts of human dilemmas that are common to people of any age. It is through examining and trying..."

Abigail wrote: "I like historical (and other) novels that present the protagonist with a meaty ethical challenge—the sorts of human dilemmas that are common to people of any age. It is through examining and trying..."

Thanks, Abaigail. I've added them to my TBR list.

[Dave]

Carol wrote: "I am not a fan of romance in historical novels and intentionally avoid HF that includes it. It distracts from the pace of the novel and renders the fascinating trivial. Then again, I'm not seeking ..."

Thank you, Carol. I tend to agree on the distraction effect of it in HF. Love? Passionate living? Yes. Romance, not so much. I've added the books you suggested to my TBR list.

[Dave]

Gretchen wrote: "Hilary Mantel's books Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies come to mind as books that I found satisfying without being romantic. I know that people are very split on the..."

Thank you, Gretchen. Agreed, and I liked Wolf Hall the best, of the two.

[Dave]

Abigail wrote: "I like historical (and other) novels that present the protagonist with a meaty ethical challenge—the sorts of human dilemmas that are common to people of any age. It is through examining and trying..."



Thank you, Abigail. Now we're talking!

[Dave]

Not sure if I made my replies properly and they went out. So, to everyone, thank you very much. My TBR list has grown today.

[Carol]

Dave wrote: "Not sure if I made my replies properly and they went out. So, to everyone, thank you very much. My TBR list has grown today."

Then our work here is done! :)

[Harold]

I enjoy historical fiction that emphasizes universal themes. I contend that man, regardless of time or place of existence, is essentially the same regarding human desires, attributes, and failings. I like to see this revealed in different historical settings. Two historical novels that are examples that come to mind are The Trees by Conrad Richter and The Way West by A. B. Guthrie Jr.

[Barry]

I think, given our genre driven world, there's a big difference in romance in a novel and a love plot. To me, these days, romance implies the sorts of gimmicks romance writers use to draw tears and not just the simple idea of people being in love.

I won't read a romance novel, historical or hysterical. I read a lot of books that have people in love. So I'm really not sure what question is being asked.

Barry

[Eileen]

by Geraldine Brooks. I don't recall any romance there.

[Eileen]

Barry wrote: "I think, given our genre driven world, there's a big difference in romance in a novel and a love plot. To me, these days, romance implies the sorts of gimmicks romance writers use to draw tears and..."

I'm not a big fan of romance novels myself. There's a lot more to life than that.

[Barry]

I don't have any problem with a love story. Most novels, or at least a lot of them, have some kind of love story in them.

Romance novels, though, play dirty tricks on the reader, in my limited experience with them. Things like having a character react to a situation by saying something entirely wrong for the story, something that we'd all like the character to say but that we know would ruin the story, something lengthy, and then finishing with "she would have said if she dared". Anything for a tear!

In general I'm opposed to the death penalty. I could see making an exception for telemarketers and romance novelists. :)

Barry

[Dave]

Barry wrote: "I don't have any problem with a love story. Most novels, or at least a lot of them, have some kind of love story in them.

Romance novels, though, play dirty tricks on the reader, in my limited exp..."

Thanks for following up, Barry. I see how you think and can't agree more that love stories are more than sex scenes. I think a lot of writers are tempted to throw in sex (or sometimes mixed with violence) to attract readers hungry for it. There certainly are superstar authors doing it, evoking tears and emotions that come from romantic situations, however overblown they may seem. It is all entertainment, just not, as I see from the kindly responses here, everyone's cup of tea.

[Dave]

Harold wrote: "I enjoy historical fiction that emphasizes universal themes. I contend that man, regardless of time or place of existence, is essentially the same regarding human desires, attributes, and failings...."

Thanks, Harold. I appreciate your recommendations and I'll add them to my list. I'm thinking all of us on this discussion agree on the universal themes across time. For us in the West, aren't the Greek myths, the hero tales still resonant? I give you Madeline Miller.

[Kymm]

I don't mind a little romance in my historical fiction, but I don't like an abundance of it or sex on every other page. I just don't feel a good historical book needs it When I pick up a historical fiction read I want to know about the people, places and time, not about their sex lives. A romance between a couple characters is fine with me, but not if it's explicit and unnecessary.

[Sara]

Eileen wrote: " by Geraldine Brooks. I don't recall any romance there."

I love this book and our book club just read it, too. There is a bit of romance but it's such a small and subtle/interwoven thing, and so not part of the overall plot it just adds flavor only - there's far too much other amazing stuff going on!

[Dave]

Sara wrote: "Eileen wrote: " by Geraldine Brooks. I don't recall any romance there."

I love this book and our book club just read it, too. There is a bit of romance but it..."

Thanks. I liked March, so, I'll check out People of the Book.

[Eileen]

Dave wrote: "Sara wrote: "Eileen wrote: " by Geraldine Brooks. I don't recall any romance there."

I love this book and our book club just read it, too. There is a bit of r..."

Geraldine Brooks is a fabulous storyteller. It is the story of a book, from its creation as hand written and illustrated manuscript, through the centuries at is passed from one person to another. You get a snippet of the life of each person who owns it.

[Shell]

I'm quite new to historical fiction, but when looking through lists of books in this category I'm instantly put off by titles such as "bedding The Highland Duke" and such like, which are really romance novels with a historical setting. However, I'm quite happy to read a novel that does have a love story at it's heart as long as it has a proper historical theme. For example, I recently enjoyed Katherine by Anya Seton, which was greatly about the relationship between Katherine Swynford and John of Gaunt. However, by the time I'd finished it, I'd learned a lot about how people lived in those times and also a lot about how business and trade was carried out. I like a book that sends me off to do a bit of research as I'm reading and, as I'm a recent reader, I like books which involve some characters who lived in those times. Kings and Queens, so I am cementing in my memory what they were like. For example, I just read, recommended by this group, Angus Donald's Blood's Game, which gave me a great idea of what Charles ii might have been like and sent me off to look him up and find out more, but wrapped up in a really exciting and entertaining thriller. Also, other events of that period were dotted throughout the novel and now I'll remember where, in history, they took place.

[Zahra]

once i read a book about jane grey i think its name was innocent traitor. unfortunately i don't recall the writer name. but anyway i liked this book very much. it didn't have romance or at least didn't involve the main protagonist and i really enjoyed it. when i decide to read a HF i expect to learn more about the encidents than the love afairs between charachters unless i'm reading a book about the lovers of Henry VIII!

[Dave]

Shell wrote: "I'm quite new to historical fiction, but when looking through lists of books in this category I'm instantly put off by titles such as "bedding The Highland Duke" and such like, which are really rom..."

Thanks, I'll check out Blood's Game.

[Edward]

Carol wrote: "I am not a fan of romance in historical novels and intentionally avoid HF that includes it. It distracts from the pace of the novel and renders the fascinating trivial. Then again, I'm not seeking ..."

Carol wrote: "I am not a fan of romance in historical novels and intentionally avoid HF that includes it. It distracts from the pace of the novel and renders the fascinating trivial. Then again, I'm not seeking ..."

Yeah, I think romance can often be distracting also so I am with you there. Like the shoutouts to Pride of Carthage and Wolf of the Plains. When it comes to the Conqueror series, I think my favorite is the one that focuses on the battle of badger's mouth. the Kublai Khan novel was pretty interesting also. I much prefer the Conqueror series to Iggulden's other series. Am I crazy for thinking that?

[Lindsey]

I also think Iggulden's Conqueror series is his best-mainly because he let me explore a culture and events that I hadn't encountered in historical fiction before. That freshness of story lines made for fantastic reading.

[Alice]

Edward wrote: "Carol wrote: "I am not a fan of romance in historical novels and intentionally avoid HF that includes it. It distracts from the pace of the novel and renders the fascinating trivial. Then again, I'..."

Oh yes, I loved Wolf of the Plains (#1). But in Lords of the Bow (#2) (about the conquest of the Xi Xia Kingdom of Tanguts), there is some historical inaccuracy - Iggulden confuses the Jin Dynasty (of Jurchens) with the Song Dynasty (of Hans). But I did like the battle scene at the Badgers' Mouth.

[Alice]

Barry wrote: "I think, given our genre driven world, there's a big difference in romance in a novel and a love plot. To me, these days, romance implies the sorts of gimmicks romance writers use to draw tears and..."

Well said, Barry. I have the same feelings. I don't read romance novels, but in historical fiction, a love plot is acceptable to me as long as it doesn't overshadow the story. Love is a human emotion, and where humans are concerned, it is as natural as water.

[Klara]

I think this is such a good topic. All too often we see historical fiction being confused with or taken over by romance. For me what truly makes historical fiction is when the historical side of things is the predominant trait of the book. Nothing else. Also, a historical novel can have one or more love stories and even have love as the predominant theme without falling into lengthy, tacky descriptions of the physical side of love. Just like love is much more than sex, a good lovr story is not just a Sandra Brown book. I think a good story arch and compelling characters that you can identify as real life beings, peppered with a dash of mystery, action and adventure while staying true to the historical context is what makes a good historical novel. Quite similar to what makes a good novel in general, I would say, without the historical accuracy part.

[Barry]

I think many of the replies in this topic have been confusing. Historical novels have little in common with romance novels and the question implies that they are somehow intrinsically related. And about half those who reply, maybe more than half, seem to think romance is just sex.

Barry

[Jean]

Barry wrote: "I think many of the replies in this topic have been confusing. Historical novels have little in common with romance novels and the question implies that they are somehow intrinsically related. And ..."

I think the problem is that many authors of historical romance are disingenuously promoting their books as historical fiction and it's not until you start reading that you realize that what you have in hand is a romance novel. And in some 'steamy' romance novels the focus is on sex and not love.

[Gretchen, Keep your head up or the crown slips]

Jean wrote: "Barry wrote: "I think many of the replies in this topic have been confusing. Historical novels have little in common with romance novels and the question implies that they are somehow intrinsically..."

I don't think the authors get all of the blame for that. Unless the books are self published, the publishing company plays a role in how books are marketed.

[Carol]

Barry wrote: "I think many of the replies in this topic have been confusing. Historical novels have little in common with romance novels and the question implies that they are somehow intrinsically related. And ..."

I don’t actually see the confusion. Historical fiction readers have fallen into three camps for years : (a) those who prefer HF focused on plot lines other than what you refer to as a “love story” and many of ya term “romance;” (b) those who prefer HF to have an element of romance in them; and (c) those who are copacetic either way. For those in the first group, the seemingly obligatory romantic plot line is a distraction from the focus of the book, like Captain Kirk’s random love interests in the original Star Trek series. And it’s not all easy to tell from blurbs which is which, so reader reviews often flag this so that prospects can determine whether the romance element is a feature or a bug and either read or avoid x. I credit Outlander for creating the reading world’s easiest way to determine who is and isn’t my people. If you liked it, you’re sorted into the romance house. lol

The perplexing thing about this thread is the initial question which assumes that there’s something missing from an HF novel that doesn’t have a romance plot line, which to my mind is akin to asking what does a HF novel need of it lacks [chariots? palm trees? kilts?]

[Cheryl A]

While I don't believe that HF needs "romance" in it to be emotionally satisfying, a novel does need to have strong interpersonal relationships. Some of these may comes across as a traditional "love" story, but most are deeper and more complex than just a romance.

Most of my 5 star reads have these strong interpersonal relationships and are integral to the novel, but few would be classified as a historical romance (except The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society).

Just a few (heavy on 20th Century - actually, all 20th Century):
The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society
All the Light We Cannot See
Ragtime
Exodus
The Book Thief
Last Days of Summer
The Invisible Bridge
The Shadow of the Wind
A Gentleman in Moscow
The Moon Is Down

[Dave]

Carol wrote: "Barry wrote: "I think many of the replies in this topic have been confusing. Historical novels have little in common with romance novels and the question implies that they are somehow intrinsically..."

Hi, all. Since I started the thread, let me clarify to Barry asking: "The perplexing thing about this thread is the initial question which assumes that there’s something missing from an HF novel that doesn’t have a romance plot line, which to my mind is akin to asking what does a HF novel need of it lacks [chariots? palm trees? kilts?]"
I was not trying to make any assumptions of what's missing. As a reader and writer I like stories that show love and affection. Who doesn't? But as for your example of the Outlander, romance, i.e. modern concepts of it, are essential to the historical tale. I have no problem there, rather I asked what other readers like about HF when they choose the genre while not wanting romance as a strong element. And thanks for commenting.

[Dave]

Cheryl A wrote: "While I don't believe that HF needs "romance" in it to be emotionally satisfying, a novel does need to have strong interpersonal relationships. Some of these may comes across as a traditional "love..."

Yes, and thanks. I agree with the examples you've listed.

[Murielle]

Alice wrote: "Barry wrote: "I think, given our genre driven world, there's a big difference in romance in a novel and a love plot. To me, these days, romance implies the sorts of gimmicks romance writers use to ..."

I also avoid 'romance' or 'sex' stories, if that's the focus of the novel. But history is about people and how they react intellectually or emotionally to the world around them. It's not only about historical facts--that's what history books are all about. Historical fiction depicts real people with real emotions. The themes of these novels reflect the same ones we live today. That's what I like most about HF, I can relate to what the people were going through then.

[Jaime]

Love always has a role in history. But, I do not see how erotica has to be included in historical novels.

[Jan]

Well written characters

[Barry]

My comment about the gimmicks in romance novels wasn't really about sex. It was about the tricks romance writers use to generate tears in the reader. That's what I avoid. I don't really care if a book includes some sex or not.

I like historical fiction especially when it's about people who think and react differently than we do today. I'm currently reading a book about Sarah and Abraham and they're nothing like people I see around me and yet they're entirely consistent. Books where people are the same as they are today probably still qualify as historical fiction but they won't interest me in the same way as this book or books like Mika Waltari's "The Egyptian". People then had different necessities and different values than today.

I recently read a book about settlers in Oregon in the early 19th century and even they were very different. I think people are always changing and evolving and I like books that reflect that.

Barry

[Dave]

Murielle wrote: "Alice wrote: "Barry wrote: "I think, given our genre driven world, there's a big difference in romance in a novel and a love plot. To me, these days, romance implies the sorts of gimmicks romance w..."

Agreed.

[Dave]

Barry wrote: "My comment about the gimmicks in romance novels wasn't really about sex. It was about the tricks romance writers use to generate tears in the reader. That's what I avoid. I don't really care if a b..."

Yes, to a degree. People have moral codes of behavior influenced by the times they live in. How they cope with their moral codes is influenced by the way people process what they see and hear, etc. That processing, I think is the same for all of us across the generations. You know what I mean?

[Lizet]

If a novel does not have romance, I would still read it as long as it captures other emotions. Romance should only go when it is appropriate for the scene.

[Chris]

Any story, for me, has to have some kind of arc that involves real stakes. You want a character to feel challenged in some way and have to leave their comfort zone to either reach a destination or gain insight into life itself. Romance isn't necessary for that, although it can involve the most intense emotions and situations. As long as I can feel that a character is up against some worthwhile obstacle that will bring experience and/or insight, I'm in.

[Antonin]

Dave wrote: "...But what do you think is/are emotionally satisfying elements in historical fiction that keep you reading when romance is not part of the story?."

I'm interested in how the main characters are involved in actual historical events. For example, Harry Sidebottom's series Warrior of Rome deals with the exploits of main character Ballista during the chaotic 3rd Century AD. He puts Ballista right in the center of the action. In one of the books, I think Lion of the Sun, Ballista is present when the Roman emperor Valerian is captured by the Persians during the Battle of Edessa in 260 AD. The details of this event are obscure, but Sidebottom's depiction is very believable.

[Abigail]

I like historical novels that tell a universal human story set against a backdrop of history. I especially enjoy ones in which the main characters are not famous people but living ordinary lives in a different time. Stories like these get to focus on the texture of life in another age, and major historical events are encountered in a different way.

[Gifford]

For me it's all in the characterization. If I relate to the characters, the book is worthwhile.

That being said, all historical fiction, romance or not, must have era-appropriate dialogue, fashion, and details. Anachronisms throw me out of the work completely -- the only books I never finished had this fault. I may let one or two slip by, but if oatmeal takes 2 minutes to cook in medieval Scotland, or a 17th century girl in Venice says something is "Cool", that book's going to lose me then and there.

Research is free these days, and easily accessed. I can't understand not taking the time to get it right.

[Melissa]

Historical accuracy, and it has to feel authentic. If it seems like the protagonist's 16-year-old stepdaughter is acting like a modern teenager instead of the time the book is set, it doesn't feel like the author put much effort into it.

[Jeffrey]

Fortunately, romance is not the only dramatic issue that can be explored, regardless of time period. So long as the protagonist has a compelling cause or journey, the only thing that needs to be deeply considered is how the drama fits within the historical context of the era it's being written.

I agree with many of the other posters on the this thread who've said if the characters are not meeting the dialogue, dressed appropriately, or otherwise working in such a way that defies the standard of the time, it can really disrupt the narrative (unless, of course, those are clear character traits meant to surprise us!).