Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction discussion
General Discussions
>
Random Thoughts
Lisa wrote: "You really do wonder where your "dream" head gets stuff from, don't you? The other week I had a dream that my only friends were real life emoticons!!? What the hell does that mean! No, don't answer..."I read somewhere [Psychology Today, the magazine?] it's your brain processing stuff while you sleep--it could be something minor like a picture you saw, something you read, something you or someone else did or said in real life, a memory...your subconscious puts them together and makes some kind of story out of them... it's supposed to be healthy to dream.
Darcy wrote: "I too am an introvert and very shy. This conversation reminded me of something Anson Mount (of Hell On Wheels) tweeted. http://themetapicture.com/how-to-inte..."
I was thinking about that last night. It is the most brilliant explanation of introversion vs extroversion that I have ever seen.
Margaret wrote: "Darcy wrote: "I too am an introvert and very shy. This conversation reminded me of something Anson Mount (of Hell On Wheels) tweeted. http://themetapicture.com/how-to-inte......"
Ok, after reading that I think I am both at once, confused, is that possible? Lols
Mark wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Darcy wrote: "I too am an introvert and very shy. This conversation reminded me of something Anson Mount (of Hell On Wheels) tweeted. http://themetapicture.com/how-to-inte......"
It's like anything, Mark, there are shades to it. I've known a few extroverts with introvert tendencies.
Nate wrote: "Terri wrote: "Alicja wrote: "I just finished The Pale Horseman by Bernard Cornwell and I can't stop crying. That ending!"LOL. I don't remember the ending. Can't rememb..."
Ahhh right. Gotcha.
Margaret wrote: "I think the problem is that people confuse being introverted with being shy. Two different things.I'm not shy and don't have problems meeting new people. However, don't stick me in a party with..."
yes. People do get them mixed up. I sometimes say I am shy because it is what people understand best when I am trying to explain why I don't mingle well. or socialise. But really I am not shy.
I am confident and can hold conversations with strangers perfectly fine.
But I avoid social gatherings and when I do go to them I generally sit down somewhere on the outside of the gathering and detach, or talk one on one with someone.
I have been told before by people that, until they started getting to know me, they thought I was aloof. Because I didn't seem shy, but i don't go out of my way to join in. I keep myself at arms distance.
Its because I am an introvert.
Dawn wrote: "Maybe I should start using introvert instead of anti-social or loner!So what I'm getting here is that the reason I can't find anyone to talk to in real life is that all the people I like are intr..."
Yes, you are getting it right. ;)
Marina wrote: "Same here. Perhaps that's why I hardly ever comment on this thread...But this I had to share - I had a dream (nightmare, rather) last night that someone hacked into my GR account, changed the use..."
A pink rabbit!? What kind of sicko was this hacker. :)
Allie wrote: "I'm not an introvert and can usually find something to talk about with anyone. So I guess that makes me the girl at the party that talks all you guys into coming out of your shells!"haha. :D
Nah. I can do that. I can talk about anything and always find something to talk about. I just prefer to go home and read a book. :]
EDIT: I read Darcy's link. Seems there is another introvert who wants to go home and read a book. lol
Terri wrote: "I have been told before by people that, until they started getting to know me, they thought I was aloof..."Me too! Totally threw me off the first time someone said that to me. :)
Natasha wrote: "Portia wrote: "I'm guessing everyone has hear of this book Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can't Stop Talking. It shot to the best-seller list soon after it was publi..."Always much rather be home. So much better stuff going on at home than at social gatherings. :)
Dawn wrote: "Me too! Totally threw me off the first time someone said that to me. :)"
It threw me too when I first heard it. I had no idea that is how people perceived me. Since I consider aloof means people who won't integrate because they are disinterested in others, and I most definitely do not fit that description.
I was very surprised. Didn't know how to explain that aloof is not my plan. That I just don't like filling the air with words unless I have to. :)
Terri wrote: "Allie wrote: "I'm not an introvert and can usually find something to talk about with anyone. So I guess that makes me the girl at the party that talks all you guys into coming out of your shells!"..."
I do prefer staying at home and reading books rather than partying. Books are a party for the brain ;) plus pj's are way more comfy than any other attire.
Alicja wrote: "I like people in general but they drain me. My girlfriend teases me that after a big event with lots of people I become a hermit over the next few days, retreating into my cave (office). But she is..."Congrats Alicja! I can't even stick with a phone plan for 2 years lol. I'm glad your gifts came while you were home to get them before she had a chance to!
Hope you have a lovely anniversary tomorrow, Alicja!
Alicja wrote: "So, tomorrow we will be officially 3 years together. And it seems like just yesterday we've met for the first time..."How sweet is it? Wishing Alicja a happy 3rd anniversary.
Have a wonderful Anniversary, Alicja and Plus One!!
Margaret wrote: "Mark wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Darcy wrote: "I too am an introvert and very shy. This conversation reminded me of something Anson Mount (of Hell On Wheels) tweeted. http://themetapicture.com/how-t..."
I'm one of those introverts that once I'm comfortable with the people, the situation, the locale, I can be quite extroverted. But it will never be a large group, in a small space with a higher noise levels.
Generally though, I'm quiet, in the corner and observing.
I think it is time we have 'the talk'....;)Why is it so baaaaaad to say something is historical romance?
I don't understand why people get their back up when someone says they think a book is a romance or has romance themes.
I get why it is bad to say something is a bodice ripper or smut if it is not. because those kinds of romance books are primarily about the lust and have very little to do with the historical era.
But why on earth do people get defensive if someone calls something historical romance? Why is that so bad?
It seems as though bodice rippers, mills and boon, Harlequin etc etc...have tainted the genre and sub genres of romance.
Nowadays, many readers do not want to believe nor understand that there are many different kinds of romance.
They think romance means Harlequin type stuff and that is all.
I choose to avoid romance altogether. It does not suit my reading tastes. If something is romance on any level I move on from it. That does not mean that I (or others who don't like romance) look down on books with romantic themes.
but this post is not about me. It is about putting the feelers out to get others' opinions on why the term historical romance makes people flinch...even if they read historical romance.
You tell 'em Terri :) I do love me some historical romance fiction (no bodice rippers, eww) but I also love me some bloody battling, sweaty gladiator/warrior historical fiction and that's why I joined this particular group. And I've found some amazing books because of you guys. I also joined the group Historical Fictionistas and found some amazing historical fiction w/ a romantic tendency there so I have my options when looking for HF. When I want a "battle-it out" kind of book, I know where to look and vice versa. This groups great!
If I come across a book described as historical romance, I'm going to avoid it because I'm going to assume that romance is the primary theme. I don't mind a little romance in books, but if I perceive it to be the principal subject, I'll definitely avoid that book.
Allie wrote: "You tell 'em Terri :) I do love me some historical romance fiction (no bodice rippers, eww) but I also love me some bloody battling, sweaty gladiator/warrior historical fiction and that's why I j..."
That's the whole idea of this group! :D Giving readers another option if they want it.
So that's great. :)
We feel that members can pick and choose from all the groups on offer on GR. The gals over at Fictionistas are mates of mine and I am always comfortable directing people there for HF with a romance theme. there is no rivalry because we are such different groups and we compliment each other.
I think it is good that there is variety out there. Someone can be into supernatural romance, historical romance, Unisex and male marketed Historical Fiction, Historical fantasy..whatever..and they can be in this group for unisex and male marketed, and different groups for all those other things.
But nobody should feel guilty or be defensive because they like romance in their books or in some of their books.
Derek wrote: "If I come across a book described as historical romance, I'm going to avoid it because I'm going to assume that romance is the primary theme. I don't mind a little romance in books, but if I percei..."Maybe this is why some people get defensive when they don't think a book is Hist Rom and someone calls it Hist Rom. Because they think it will put others off reading the book?
That sounds feasible. Especially if the author or books are favourites of that person.
Because they have different perceptions of what historical romance is and don't believe something is historical romance. To see someone else call it that offends them because they think it will put others off.
Oh absolutely, they shouldn't feel guilty! No one around me reads so when I meet someone knew, I'm just glad they read at all even if what they read isn't even close to the same genres as what I read. But that's what's awesome about goodreads...theres so many groups out there. Something for everyone. I'm just surprised you had to keep posting about what types of books this group reads, it should be easy to make the distinction!
I know right! haha. :DIt is in the group rules when someone joins that we don't do tear inducing melodrama of the romantic kind. That makes it pretty clear I thought. :]
Because it's been misused. Women authors have found hard to shake off the perception that 'women write romance'. George Eliot used a man's name "to escape the stereotype of women only writing lighthearted romances." (Wiki) Women's novels are still given romancey covers & marketing when they aren't romances... (had this discussion in another group)... and then they are dismissed by those who avoid romance. Manda Scott shifted to initials because, quote from an interview: My publishers thought it would help to sell books – most men won’t buy a book if they know it’s by a woman. If the author is gender neutral, then they’ll pick it up and if they discover later that the author was a woman, that’s fine. So we go from 80:20 women: men to 50:50 as soon as it’s not obvious who I am. It’s entirely commercial. And, very sadly, it worked.
This history makes it a can of worms.
Derek wrote: "If I come across a book described as historical romance, I'm going to avoid it because I'm going to assume that romance is the primary theme. I don't mind a little romance in books, but if I percei..."I'm the same Derek.
I don't read a lot of women authors. That isn't coming from a perception though, but experience. I have read plenty of women authors and they don't write what I want to read. Don't suit my tastes.It is the combination of emotional writing with over described personal relationships.
Male authors who have personal relationships in their books tend to simplify them more than women. From my experience. And it is what I prefer.
Only on rare occasions do I find a woman author that I feel writes in a 'no b#llshit' style. M.C. Scott is one of them. (NB* again, I regard too much emotional stuff in books as bullshit.lol. I respect that others don't feel that way. that is just my tastes)
Edith Pargeter is another (although I have only read one of her books).
These are authors that I find can write personal relationships without it becoming too over wrought with affairs of the heart.
But that is still a sexism issue. I am not sure it is attached to my query though.
We have women who get defensive when something is called historical romance and they don't think it is. It isn't because it is written by a woman.
This morning I made a comparison to a non woman author. Bernard Cornwell. I regard Azincourt as a historical romance of sorts. I really disliked that book and the love story was part of the reason I disliked it so much...the awful writing was the other. ;)
The authors gender doesn't make any difference to me. I've got Dreaming the Eagle & plan on reading it soon. Also trying to track down Rome: The Emperor's Spy.
I really liked that one many years ago when I read it. The fantasy element got a bit much for me and the bed hopping. Everyone sleeping with everyone. :0)Otherwise, well written book. She is an excellent writer.
Terri wrote: "I really liked that one many years ago when I read it. The fantasy element got a bit much for me and the bed hopping. Everyone sleeping with everyone. :0)
Otherwise, well written book. She is an ex..."
Would you call it historical romance? Just out of curiosity;)
Otherwise, well written book. She is an ex..."
Would you call it historical romance? Just out of curiosity;)
I think it's tangled up together, Terri. I liked your Azincourt comment. I felt that way about The Religion: it had blatant romance. But few out there are going to slap the romance label on them guys. Let's do that more often.
Thank you all for the anniversary wishes!! I've hidden the presents well, she has no idea what's waiting for her tomorrow. :)Terri wrote: "Why is it so baaaaaad to say something is historical romance?"
It's not but I think the connotation that historical romances have is what offends. To me if someone says "historical romance" it means a damsel in distress and a big rippling muscle-y guy coming to her rescue. I know that exists because my mom reads that crap. My favorite romances go along the warrior, romance and camaraderie on the battlefield kind (there tends to be some kind of killing in my romances in general). But no one thinks of that when they call something a historical romance.
Allie wrote: "I do love me some historical romance fiction (no bodice rippers, eww) but I also love me some bloody battling, sweaty gladiator/warrior historical fiction"
Haha, you haven't read some of the m/m romances out there. "Bloody battling, sweaty gladiator/warrior" takes on a whole new meaning. :P
Alicja wrote: "Haha, you haven't read some of the m/m romances out there. "Bloody battling, sweaty gladiator/warrior" takes on a whole new meaning. :P .."Oh God, I did not need that image!! :D
Bryn wrote: "I think it's tangled up together, Terri. I liked your Azincourt comment. I felt that way about The Religion: it had blatant romance. But few out there are going to slap the romance la..."
That's the only problem I had with The Religion. That book was a great adventure, but all that blatant romance, that you mentioned, turned me off. It might have been a 5 star book for me, otherwise....but then it would have been a different book. But, like you said, I wouldn't label it as historical romance. I don't know....it's a tricky label.
I pledge to gather more info about books that are referred to as historical romance, before passing on them. That's the best I can do:)
That's the only problem I had with The Religion. That book was a great adventure, but all that blatant romance, that you mentioned, turned me off. It might have been a 5 star book for me, otherwise....but then it would have been a different book. But, like you said, I wouldn't label it as historical romance. I don't know....it's a tricky label.
I pledge to gather more info about books that are referred to as historical romance, before passing on them. That's the best I can do:)
@Derek Agreed on The Religion -- a might-have-been five for me too.
I am yet to read The Religion. All the talk of romance has me shying away from it. I did buy it though, so I have to read it at some stage.I don't have a problem calling books written by men romance. If they are romance. If romance is flowery and over done and the writing goes along with that feel.
Whenever I come across a male authored romance, I will mention it. Promise. :)
As for me, if I see people shelving a book as historical romance, or it looks like romance, I will give a wide berth. If one or two people out of hundred shelves something as romance I will reconsider, but when it is a lot of people shelving it as romance. That speaks volumes to me.
Hi Derek,Hmm. I don't think the Boudica books by Scott are romance. Dreaming the Eagle being book one.
It is borderline. If I read it again now, I might change my mind.
There are some moments where tender love is experienced between pairs, but it isn't over done. I feel that the book never loses focus on the tribes vs the Romans.
Terri wrote: "I don't have a problem calling books written by men romance. If they are romance. If romance is flowery and over done and the writing goes along with that feel."
I was trying to make a point that there are plenty of romances written by men and women that do not have flowery language or are overdone. Plenty of gritty, dark ones out there. I think with Lionheart, it had the flowery language but not really the romance. I don't think one equals the other, which is the assumption out there about romances.
Terri wrote: "Hi Derek,
Hmm. I don't think the Boudica books by Scott are romance. Dreaming the Eagle being book one.
It is borderline. If I read it again now, I might change my mind.
There are so..."
Good! Thanks for the feedback.
Hmm. I don't think the Boudica books by Scott are romance. Dreaming the Eagle being book one.
It is borderline. If I read it again now, I might change my mind.
There are so..."
Good! Thanks for the feedback.
Forgot before...Robyn Young is another author who is very capable of writing without bringing intimacy to the relationship. It is why I loved Insurrection (and why many others didn't like it)The battles stuff. This is another misconception with the romance genres.
Many people think because a book includes battles, then it cannot be a historical romance.
I don't like the intimate relationship stuff and the romance, but that doesn't mean I like battles and blood and gore.
It is the opposite with me. I don't like battles and gore. Battles bore me. I like clever. If something is clever I am in all the way. I like adventure journey HF. As in..journeys to a destination with adventure along the way.
I've seen plenty of romance books around with battle and gore in them. It goes back to what I was saying earlier.
With some historical romance books, it is more about the way it is written. With the story dwelling in the intimate relationships.
Even if there are battles and gore going on, if the story dwells on intimate love/lust/fondness relationships it turns into a historical romance.
Terri wrote: "Forgot before...Robyn Young is another author who is very capable of writing without bringing intimacy to the relationship. It is why I loved Insurrection (and why man..."Haha! I started reading m/m in the fanfiction form over a decade ago and sometimes in my head I add extra slashy scenes, I guess kind of my own fanfiction. Anyway, I think you'd find it kind of disturbing, Terri, but I did that when reading The Pale Horseman, inserted some Uhtred/Leofric slash. :P
Alicja wrote: "Terri wrote: "Forgot before...Robyn Young is another author who is very capable of writing without bringing intimacy to the relationship. It is why I loved [book:Insurrection|7930479..."I read a little m/m fan fiction. Sherlock only. :) Some of it is very good, but most of it is not.
Margaret wrote: "Alicja wrote: "Terri wrote: "Forgot before...Robyn Young is another author who is very capable of writing without bringing intimacy to the relationship. It is why I loved [book:Insur..."Mine started with Angel/Spike stuff, was introduced to it by a roommate in first year college. Then I stopped reading for some time and then it was Jack/Ianto from Torchwood (and I've found some great stories here, but your right there is a lot of crap to weed through) but since Children of Earth broke my heart and then Miracle Day was a piece of shit, I haven't read it for some time since there hasn't been anything new to write. I have read some Sherlock but like the show much better than the slash.
Bryn wrote: "I'm fond of this... ***romance alert*** My Dearest Holmes"I have been trying to get a copy of it but without success. :(
Alicja wrote: "Margaret wrote: "Alicja wrote: "Terri wrote: "Forgot before...Robyn Young is another author who is very capable of writing without bringing intimacy to the relationship. It is why I ..."If the fan fic writer doesn't try to keep the humour of the show, then the slash doesn't work. My favourites have all kept the humourous over tones of the show. Actually, any fan fiction for Sherlock needs that, or it doesn't work. I think the problem with Sherlock fan fiction is that Sherlock himself is so bloody hard to write and keep in character.
I was gifted an iPad mini thingy, so while I've been trying to keep up with the posts I was having trouble with posting. Anyway, turns out iPads are more than just a supped-up iTouch. That'll teach me.
Ancient & Medieval Historical Fiction
Books mentioned in this topic
The Berry Pickers (other topics)Fortune's Child (other topics)
Hild (other topics)
Sharpe's Command (other topics)
Edenglassie (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Amanda Peters (other topics)Nicola Griffith (other topics)
Bernard Cornwell (other topics)
Bernard Cornwell (other topics)
Allan Hands (other topics)
More...
By the way, I'm home today since the painters are painting our house and the anniversary gifts arrived in the mail today! Yay! So, tomorrow we will be officially 3 years together. And it seems like just yesterday we've met for the first time...