Historical Fiction v. Historical Romance
I had an interesting phone conversation with a friend this morning who doesn't typically read romance, but has really been enjoying my books. She is, however, a historical fiction reader. We got into a discussion about the differences between the two--which at time, admittedly, can be difficult to qualify (Outlander comes to mind, as do Katherine, or The Other Boleyn Girl). In general, I think romances focus on the relationship whereas in historical fiction, the romance is just one of the plot threads. I read both, and I guess I've always assumed that readers of historical romance probably also read historical fiction (although not necessarily the other way around) but maybe I'm wrong. Not surprisingly though, my favorite historical fiction books have a strong romance plot.
Since you are reading this blog, I figure it's a good bet that you read historical romance...but do you also read historical fiction? (Phillipa Gregory, Sharon Kay Penman, Dorothy Dunnett, Anya Seton, Elizabeth Chadwick, etc). What about Gabaldon . . . do you consider her books romances or historical fiction?
Posts
18 comments:
Monica,
I just finished Highlander Untamed and loved it! Part of why I loved it was that it was based on real historical figures. I have a minor in History and have always read both historical fiction and historical romance. The woman in me likes my historical fiction to also have a romantic plot.
I read most of the historical authors you have mentioned and always enjoy when the story is based on actual historical events. I try not to get annoyed when liberties are taken (such as with Phillipa Gregory) knowing that sometimes to make a good readable story, things have to be changed or altered. One book I love and believed was as accurate as she could get, is Allison Weir's Innocent Traitor. Considering Allison Weir is normally a non-fiction writer, i can see her desire to be accurate.
As for Diana Gabaldon...I really have to put her work in the historical fiction with a love story element. She just happens to write some pretty good sex scenes as well. I agree with Ms. Gabaldon when she says a romance book centers on the romance and they typically always end. her stories just continue through the life of a couple in love. That is not common in romance works.
Great discussion topic Monica...thank you!
Hi Kat, I'm so glad you enjoyed Untamed! I always love to read romance based on real historical figures and events so I'm glad I'm not alone.:)
So funny that you mentioned Allison Weir--she is one of my favorite Historical writers (I love Antonia Fraser as well). I don't think I've read Innocent Traitor--nor did I realize it was fiction. I'll have to go check it out. Sharon Kay Penman is probably my favorite--When Christ and His Saints Slept is one of my top 5 books.
I think I'm with you on Diana Gabaldon, although a few years ago I probably would have put her in the "romance" category. As a reader I never really made that kind of demarcation between the love story being the center of the story. To me Outlander felt like a romance, but now I can totally see why she says it isn't.
Monica,
For sure try Innocent Traitor! There is not a lot of romance, but for once I did not care. Allison Weir does such a fantastic job of portraying Lady Jane Grey, a girl who is mainly known for being the 9 day Queen, as a real girl with real feelings. A say girl, because the poor thing never had a chance to grow into a woman and was killed at 17.
Thank you for the suggestion on Sharon Kay Penman. I have never read anything by her and love to find new great authors (such as yourself). ;)
I am jealous of your work! I swear I need to start writing historical books, just for an excuse to take a trip to England and Scotland (I love your web site and the pictures you have!). My husband is not so keen on going and thinks I want to just so I can get pretend everyone I meet and talk to is Gerard Butler!;)
Kat,
You've discovered my secret--the travel is one of the best parts about writing Scottish historicals. LOL. Okay, not to make you too jealous, but right now I'm planning my next trip to take pictures for this series. I can't wait. And I'm so with you on GB. I took my kids to see Nims Island this weekend for my fix. :)
Thanks for the recommendation, I love the story of Lady Jane. I'll definitely check it out!
Great topic, Monica, and one close to my heart. When I first discovered the historical romance section (years and years ago), I was excited to find all these books with historical settings. I didn't really differentiate them from historical fiction. I don't think I really started to understand the difference until after I was first published writing historical romance. Even then I think the lines are blurry. But as you say, I think it's a question of focus. Historical fiction may also have a love story, even a central love story, but the focus isn't so tightly on the main couple. Borrowing from the words of another writer friend who's written both, in historical romance there's a spotlight focused in tight on the main couple, whereas in historical fiction it's more as though the lighting shifts, catching the main couple (if there is one) at time, but also secondary characters, political intrigue, historical details. By that definition, I'd call Diana Gabaldon's books historical fiction. I tend to call the books I write now "historical suspense fiction"--nothing like a nice broad definition that covers lots of bases :-).
Kat, I have "Innocent Traitor" tbr. I've heard wonderful things about it from two different friends.
Hey Tracy,
The inspiration for this blog of course came from our coffee break on Monday. Like you, before I started writing I never made the distinction, but I do now. The spotlight example does work really well, but like romantic suspense I think there can be variations (i.e. think of it on a continuuum. Some RS is really romancey and some is more gritty/thrillerish (don't you love all the words I'm making up today!))
I love that conversations between writers can turn into blog posts! I totally think it's a continuum. And where on that continuum is the break that marks a book as "historical fiction" or "historical romance" is largely a marketing decision by the publishers.
Any more discussions? I need a blog topic for tomorrow over at the Divas. :)
I agree about the publisher decision on where to market. I would imagine it sometimes can be very difficult to figure out exactly where a book will "fit" best, i.e. where it's going to find the most enthusiastic readership. Personally, I wish there was more historical fiction out there with strong romances--but it's hard to know where to look. Maybe what I really want is the more sweeping historical romances of the past.
I'm always searching for blog topics! You could carry this one over to the Divas. Or broaden it to include the continuum of Romantic Suspense/Thrillers with romantic elements. I love hearing different readers and writers takes on the subject. I love historical fiction with strong romances too!
Thanks, Trace. I might just do that!
Hey Monica! I have to say that I am pretty much stick to historical romances. I am a person who is interested in history, but I don't want to sit down and read the entire history of a country in a book. I much prefer bits and pieces of historical facts placed in a romance setting. I think this is one of the reasons I have never read Outlander even though I have heard it is a wonderful book.
Hey Buffie,
How's it going with you? I have to admit that I read mostly historical romance these days myself. I enjoy both--and used to read mostly historical fiction--but my reading time is so limited now, I'm fighting to keep up with my friends books and what's hot in the market as well as my own auto-buys. Outlander is a great book (although I haven't read it in 16 years!), but there is quite a bit of historical detail from what I remember.
Hello Monica,
I just finished Highlander Unmasked. Excellent! I am, sort of embarrassed to say, obsessed with one day visiting Scotland to see, smell and taste beyond my wildest imagination, the home of my most favorite romance novels. Your characters and story were so very real for me. So much so, that I went out today and purchased "Un- tamed" and "Unchained". Unmasked kept me on the edge the whole time. Your romantic and intimate details of their moments together were so beautifully and softly written. Your writing painted for me, a colorful and clear picture in my mind of interesting faces and wonderful historical facts. It was refreshing as well, to see that your character's description was indeed similar, if not exact, to one gracing the cover of the novel. It is such a let down when you are reading about the main character with red hair and the cover of the book is a character with black hair. So wrong. So, I thank you again. I am, for sure, your newest fan. I wish you continued good health and success. Sinc. Anette Angelini
P.S. Looking forward to Jamie Campbell's story. Thank you again
Anette,
Thank you so much for posting! I'm thrilled that you enjoyed Unmasked so much, and thank you for your support in going out to buy the other two. I hope you enjoy them as much!
Wanting to see Scotland is nothing to be embarrassed about--I think many of us (readers of Scottish Romance) have felt exactly the same way. I know I did. I've visited quited a few times in the past few years and words truly can't explain how spectacular it is.
I know exactly what you mean about the covers matching the description--it can be so frustrating when they don't. Ballantine did such a fabulous job with the first trilogy's covers, I'm crossing my fingers that the next one turns out just as well.
Thanks again for all of your kind words!
I know DG has always insisted that she writes historical fiction, not historical romance, but I disagree with regard to Outlander. I think Outlander is historical romance. The most compelling part of the book to me is the love story between Jamie and Clare. It's the focus.
Val,
I am 100% with you on considering Outlander a romance--I was just on the phone with my Diva buddy Bella and this subject came up. I was saying the same thing when your comment went through--talk about timing!
Monica, I think the whole discussion about Outlander is perfectly representative of the bigger question you raised here: what's the difference between historical fiction and historical romance? I know it's been discussed ad nauseum, but the fact that we still seem compelled to make the distinction causes me think we still haven't done it and we still want to!
Outlander is one of the more difficult "cases" but in the end if the main criteria is whether or not you can remove the romance element and still have a great story - I can't see that Outlander would stand up without Jamie and Clare's passionate love story.
Maybe I'd agree that the *series* eventually veered more towards the historical. Eventually. But Outlander is a love story through in through, in my opinion.
Katherine is another toughie, but I think Anya Seton's incredible attention to historical detail, the sheer weight of her painstaking research is evident in every paragraph, and makes me label it historical fiction. I think the story would have stood up without the romance between Katherine and John of Gaunt - though I'm SO glad we were treated to His Hunky Highness. :-)
Val, I agree with your analysis 100% about Outlander, the series in general and Katherine (yes, wasn't John yummy!).
It's funny that we are having this discussion when the bookstores seem to have no problem making the distinction. LOL. And that for me is one of ironic things about this whole thread--even readers "in the know" can disagree. I think there are tons of readers out there who would never dream of reading historical romance, yet they have no hesitation picking up historical fiction--having no idea how close the two can be.
Post a Comment