Why historical romance?
Posted by CM under Romancery on Fri 19 Jan 2007
write historical romance because most of what I read is historical romance. I can count the number of contemporary, non-paranormal authors I’ve read on one hand. And I really haven’t liked many of them (except I liked Toni Blake’s Swept Away, and I adore Jenny Crusie).
Why?
Simple. It’s because contemporary books are that much more likely to be wallbangers. And it’s a function of the time period. Here’s how it works. In order to interest your readers, your heroine is going to have to want something. What? I don’t know. Maybe she needs to pay her rent. Maybe she’s got a kid that needs a father. Who knows?
Now, there are one of two possibilities. 1. She does not need the man to help her with her problem. 2. She does.
Of course, it’s always possible that HE’LL have a problem and SHE’LL need to help him. Which is always fun, but it rarely occurs. But let’s assume that she’s got the problem. It’s a romance, and so he’s going to have to get involved somehow. And he’s supposed to be sexy, so we have to assume that eventually he helps her sort the problem out.
At this point, I throw the book against the wall and shout at the heroine, “STOP BEING SO NEEDY!” I hate needy women. I hate women who can’t solve their own problems. I hate the “man takes over and solves everything” ending. I especially hate it when she tries to get it right, but fails for two thirds of the book, and then BAM! He waves his right big toe.
This happens. A lot.
I hate it.
Also I hate it when they’re barely getting along and then they resolve all their differences and he says, “Marry me, my sweetest!” and she says, “Of course!” I feel like I’m looking at five years to a divorce, tops, and it lends a bitter note to the saccharine ending.
Now, in historical periods, there are a lot of things that a woman just can’t do, and so she does actually need men, at least if she doesn’t want to be a total social recluse. In fact, she can be incredibly independent and way ahead of her time, while still needing to rely a little bit on a man.
So that’s why I like historicals. Because the women can be smart and independent–at least in the historical sense–and still not make me want to shake them until their teeth rattle out.
What about you?









January 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm
I have no problem with modern romances. I lean a little toward Romantic Suspense with the hero and heroine needing each other to survive. I keep thinking I should like Romantic Comedy because I like humor, but often feel the plot is too thin. Maybe the heroine doesn’t need enough or is too needy? I’m as likely to dislike an historical for neediness as I am Single Title. So I don’t really agree.
Alice
January 20th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Hm. This is interesting! The reason I don’t care much for contemporaries is my inability to suspend disbelief, which is basically what you’re saying! I just have trouble forgetting all the “real world” problems these characters would face every day. With historical, surely they had more problems–not less–but since I don’t live and breathe them I can forget. I think. That’s what I think I think, anyway.
January 21st, 2007 at 8:29 am
I read both, but far prefer historicals. They avoid those wretched real-time problems like AIDS and the war in Iraq (I know, I know. The pox. Napoleon. Got it, but I’m removed from it). There’s nothing so killing in a love scene than when the guy reaches into the bedside drawer for a condom in a contemporary, and you HAVE to write it that way to set that good example.
And I think fictional historical characters are permitted to be more “serious,” too. They can talk and think about duty and responsibility and honor, themes that only seem to evoke chuckles in today’s society.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Right. In historicals, people only die of battle wounds, or diseases that make them pale and wan, expiring in silent agony. There’s never any uncontrollable vomiting or loss of bowel control.
January 21st, 2007 at 3:51 pm
I read both historicals and contemporaries (Jenny Crusie is one of my favorites, too). I think it’s possible to have a modern heroine need the hero without being needy or losing her independent spirit. For me, it’s about how skillfully the author, historical or contemporary, is able to rope me into suspending my disbelief about the plot and involve me in the characters themselves. Whether it’s through the humor, or the suspense, or whatever device the author chooses, if I’m able to connect with the characters, I can forgive some leaps of logic as far as the plot or the “outside world” in whatever setting is used is concerned.
January 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Rock on, CM! I’m totally with you on this - it’s the difference between Elizabeth Bennet and Bridget Jones or, in film, Barbara Stanwyck and Meg Ryan. We’re supposed to find these slightly neurotic and charmingly inept heroines endearing - perhaps because these days we prefer to see people like us (hello, reality tv!) rather than better than us. I also find historical romance more compelling because societal strictures provide believable barriers to couples being together that can drive the conflict. Our contemporary society places such a stong value on love and personal happiness, that pretty much the only reason for two people to stay apart is because of their own insecurities.
January 23rd, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Well, I would second most everything mentioned above. One other bonus of historicals, IMO, is the whole “propriety/impropriety” dilemma. In a modern tale, if the h/h dig each other (unless they’re involved with other people or have some sort of icky superior/inferior relationship that should preclude it) there’s no good reason why they shouldn’t just get horizontal. In a historical, every little touch and kiss is a forbidden pleasure. It raises the excitement level - like the thrill of being a teenager again, making out in your basement while your parents are upstairs. It feels sooo good, but it’s oh-so-wrong. I totally get off on that.
January 24th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Interesting post, CM. I never read contemporaries. Mostly because of what Tessa said. It’s the illicit thrill of historicals that does it for me. All those layers of clothing…and layers of delicious guilt. It’s just meatier and more interesting than reading about love in the age of immediate access.