Aug
Let’s Talk Research with Sophie!
Well, for my last blog here at RI, I thought I’d return to the subject of historical romances… as I suspect it’s the one thing that draws so many of us here together. My heart is firmly lodged within this sub-genre. My earliest reading roots stem here. I think of it as the bread and butter of the romance genre. In my opinion, historicals are never NOT popular. Goodness, just browse your local bookstore. Look how many of the romances are historicals. Maybe there have been certain times when it has been harder to “break” (ie, sell) into this sub-genre, but I believe that’s only because the market is flooded not only by the backlist of great authors, but also all the great new books (by established and new authors alike) coming out every month. There is only so much shelf space, after all.
So what is it about historical romances that make them such a perennial draw for readers? Well, the romance, of course! Historicals feel romantic. The manners, the dress, the traditions, the glittering backdrop … I could go on and on - it all creates a splendid setting for two people to fall passionately in love.
People often ask me how much I research. In fact, this is only second to the question, “where do you get your ideas?” I look up a few things before I start a book, during and after. I do enjoy reading about the history of the era I’m writing in, but only a small amount of this information actually goes into the book. Also, with a degree in history, I came to write historical romance with a good foundation already in place. Yet - I’m going to go ahead and say this - don’t let research bog down your story (a fictional work, may I remind). Nor should research distract you from the story you’re trying to tell. The love story between the hero and heroine is key. If you’re more interested in the history, then write historical nonfiction. When I hear people attacking the historical accuracy of authors of historical romance, I just want to roll my eyes. True, glaring errors can pull you out of the story, but we are writers of fiction. When I first started reading historical romances at the tender age of thirteen, I read it for the thrill, for the escapism, not for historical trivia.
One more thing that always occurs to me when I hear people attacking the historical fine points of a novel is this: historical romances are inherently anachronistic. Period. And that’s okay. We have heroes and heroines with modern sensibilities and ideologies behaving in ways far too progressive for the era. Naturally. How can we write them any other way? We did not live in Medieval, Regency or Victorian England. No matter how much research is done, how many primary sources read - nothing can grant us that unique firsthand knowledge. Certain attitudes that we give our characters, such as their tendency to psychoanalyze themselves and each other, were not even realized until Freud brought such theories to the world’s attention in the early 1900’s. And how shocking and ill received were those first “theories” received by the world then? The internal conflicts our characters struggle with in agonizing, angst-ridden degrees is thoroughly modern in nature. Existentialism, a philosophical movement of the twentieth century, also shaped modern sensibilities to a large extent, kicking off the habit we all possess now to brood over the state of our existence and “being” in a world gone mad. My goodness! That sounds like every tortured hero I’ve ever written! Only this mindset was unknown to the Regency/Victorian gentleman.
Okay, let me rein myself back in now. I can go forever onfiltered 
My advice and the point of this blog? Write and read the historicals for the love of it, for the thrill, to escape. Don’t sweat the research. The average reader wants you to sweep them away. So if you write - get to sweeping. And if you read - well, then enjoy being swept away!
Well’ it’s been a joy to be here with all of you again. Thanks to all the Romantically Inclined ladies for the invitation. In the next few months, I’ll be updating the website with all my paranormal and historical news, so be on the lookout. If you ever get a chance, drop me an email. I’d love to hear from you. Happy writing and reading!
Warmest regards,
Sophie
Um . . . yeah, but–for me–the whole POINT of writing and reading historical romances is that it’s supposed to be HISTORICAL. The plot needs to be grounded in the historical reality of the era the writer has chosen. It makes me nuts when the basic premise of the book, or the thing that makes it all work out, is historically impossible (marriages that would have been illegal, bastards becoming the heir to a title, etc.).
I can gloss over little mistakes (anachronistic words, incorrect costume details) IF the writing is strong enough to have swept me away (though I have a tough time forgiving the corsetless heroine), but I can’t get past impossible plot flaws, and I can’t get past REALLY modern feeling protagonists (like the recent spat of Regency heroines who don’t want to marry because they want to be career women).
And while existentialism might be mainly a 20th century philosophical movement, it’s roots run back to the early 17th century, back to Descartes (yeah, my BA is in philosophy, with an emphasis on skepticism and existentialism). So you can conceivably have a character who ponders his own existence, and what it means to BE, you just have to give that character’s angst the right foundation.
August 24th, 2006 at 10:53 amWhoa. Did I stumble into this one or what?
Enjoyed both of your posts, ladies. You’ve given me far too much to think about on a Thursday morning.
Lacey
August 24th, 2006 at 11:05 amIt varies for me, I do like the stories I read (and write) to be historically accurate, but I’ll accept some deviations here and there to make the story better. (And I have to admit the corset-less heroines doesn’t bother me all that much, although they probably should *lol*)
If someone has a couple dance a waltz a couple of years before the waltz was socially accepted, it doesn’t bother me. If a bastard inherits a title, it’d probably jar me. If he inherits property that wasn’t entailed, that’s naturally not a problem.
If there is a mistake in a dress, it really doesn’t bother me, because to be honest, as a reader I don’t care much beyond the colour of the dress, the rest I fill out myself anyway. A lengthy and detailed description of a dress is more likely to bore me than make me marvel at the historical accuracy *lol*
I think that, yes.. try (obviously) to stay away from huge historical inaccuracies.. but don’t worry too much about the details. I don’t care if they have a Queen Anne chair or an Edwardian settee, just saying they sit down on a settee is quite enough for me.
After all, there are certain things we do to make our historicals a bit easier and more fun to read. A lot of situations probably would never have happened back in the day, but we keep writing them, and I love them (as a reader AND a writer).
The improper conversations, the stolen kisses (and sometimes more).. The way they speak.
On the whole, I want the story and the characters to appeal to me. (And ok, maybe skip the Porsche Boxter that you intended the hero to drive away in at the end..) That’s what I care about. The romantic relationship.
If that means that some historical detail is lost, that’s fine with me. If I want to know lots of historical details, I’ll read something else
August 24th, 2006 at 11:13 amEmily (aka Babbles)
Sophie wrote:
Existentialism, a philosophical movement of the twentieth century, also shaped modern sensibilities to a large extent, kicking off the habit we all possess now to brood over the state of our existence and “being” in a world gone mad. My goodness! That sounds like every tortured hero I’ve ever written! Only this mindset was unknown to the Regency/Victorian gentleman.
And then Kalen wrote:
And while existentialism might be mainly a 20th century philosophical movement, it’s roots run back to the early 17th century, back to Descartes (yeah, my BA is in philosophy, with an emphasis on skepticism and existentialism).
Not to whip up an argument or anything, but goodness, doesn’t the whole “angst of existence in a world gone mad” go back a good deal farther than Descartes? Might not have been called “existentialist” of course, but what was all that “To be or not to be” stuff in Hamlet if not existentialist angst :->?
And though I’d have a hard time coming up with an example right off the top of my head (my MA in Classics is way too far behind me), I’m sure I could dig up some decent existentialist rants from Greek tragedy if I put my mind to it.
August 24th, 2006 at 11:35 amThanks so much for your posts this week, Sophie. I really enjoyed reading them
August 24th, 2006 at 12:03 pmThis post has been removed by the author.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:31 pmI mirror just about everything Emily said. Some inaccuracies just don’t bother me (waltz, dress etc.). That being said, I certainly don’t want to hear a duke called “my lord” or a baron’s daughter called “my lady”. If I want to read about exact history, I’ll pick up a history text. But of course, that’s just my opinion. Everybody’s is different.
Thank you so much for blogging with us this week, Sophie! I have really enjoyed your blogs and I hope you’ll come back to visit real soon…maybe around the time TOO WICKED TO TAME releases.
August 24th, 2006 at 12:40 pmHugs,
Andrea
Well, did I pick a hot topic or what? Figures I’d go out with a band. lol!
Sorry, Lacey - didn’t mean to make your head spin so early in the morning. =) Did you have your coffee?
Kalen, when it comes to “going without” a corset, I don’t get it either - I always loved wearing them when I go to Ren Fest. Felt wonderfully supported, if you know what I mean! =) BTW, I love all the costume info on your website. Everyone, you should definitely hop over, browse her website and check out her debut. Sounds very hot!
As I said, I love the historical backdrop — that’s why I read and write historical romance. But for me, it’s foremost about the relationship — the love story, as Emily and Andrea mentioned. And I know that’s what most editors care about, too.
Jacqueline,
Hamlet’s one of my fav S’peare plays! True — what tragic heroes of S’peare didn’t ponder their existence? And as to the Classics … S’peare stole many of his plots from Greek tragedies, so you’re right. However, the Greeks had a system of “tempermental” Gods/Goddesses in place to credit all of their life’s disasters. Interesting, no?
And I’m not claiming no one EVER pondered the state of their existence, but that historically people were much more “conditioned” to accept their “lot” in life. My guess is that slavery would have been abolished sooner, and women would have had the vote and equal rights under the law a heck of a lot sooner, otherwise.
It really doesn’t bother me that heroines in most historicals possess “modern” sensibilites — that’s how they so doggedly pursue their own happiness — and believe they have a right to said happiness. That’s why we relate to them so well. And isn’t it thrilling to read about the scullery maid or simple country miss who marries so far above her station? It’s so unlikely, but we love these stories because they impart messages of hope. And for me, that’s what romance is all about — hope.
Great dialogue today, ladies!
Yes, Andrea, I would love to come back in March and talk about TOO WICKED TO TAME, which should really be titled, well … we’ll talk about that in March. Don’t want to give away too much. You know me, I gotta leave you hanging.
Best,
August 24th, 2006 at 3:06 pmSophie
Jacquelie is right. I should have said the roots go back to at least Descartes.
I’m not 100% convinced that “to be or not to be” is an existential question (I’ve always taken it as a literal question: To go on living? Or to kill myself?), but I did include Hamlet in my thesis (it was a study of the existential hero, who, IMO is the living embodiment of the absurd skeptical hero *roll eyes as I contemplate what a little freak I was in college*).
And isn’t it thrilling to read about the scullery maid or simple country miss who marries so far above her station? It’s so unlikely, but we love these stories because they impart messages of hope. And for me, that’s what romance is all about — hope.
I’m in totally agreement with this! But there is historical precedent for this kind of thing. Dukes who married their housekeepers, their mistresses, or penniless beauties. Actresses and courtesans who made good. I LOVE this kind of stuff. This is the land of the IMPROBABLE, not the impossible. There was also a wild crowd of intellectuals (Mary Shelly anyone?) who lived and loved and carried on in amazingly scandalous ways. I’d love to see books about these kinds of independent women. There is documentation for women pretending to be men so they could become anything from doctors to soldiers to heirs to an estate. Couldn’t that be twisted into a wonderful romance?
I guess I’d just like to see all the possibilities that actually existed explored more, and the impossibilities crop up less often (if ever). If history has to be radically altered to make the plot work, then maybe a new plot is in order (I’m not talking about moving the date the waltz hit Almack’s, or nitpicky stuff like that; I’m talking about changing how primogeniture worked, or completely ignoring really basic laws about marriage).
The costume glitch is my own. I readily admit that. I’d much rather an author skimmed over the clothes then provide exquisite—but incorrect—detail. “Fudging”, as my godmother calls it, is your friend.
Anyway, thanks so much for a great week of topics, Sophie. And for the compliments on my site and book. I’ll be out hunting for ONCE UPON A WEDDING NIGHT just as soon as I get back from Burning Man!
August 24th, 2006 at 4:36 pmWell as always, thanks Sophie for coming back here for a while. We do appreciate you and all your efforts.
I look forward to your new books and took your words to heart, realizing since I’ll be starting a new book soon that it isn’t historical non-fiction. Creativity, and perserverance is the key, right? lol.
Michelle
August 24th, 2006 at 11:32 pmSophie, thanks for coming back to blog here. Really apprecitate your time. Thanks for me making thing here
You’re always welcome to RI any time you like.
August 25th, 2006 at 9:17 amLook forward to your upcoming books. Take care and hugs,
Isabel