On one of my listservs (okay, so I lurk) there was a recent discussion on why some readers categorically refuse to read romances set in Victorian England. Their reasons? The Victorian era was full of rapid industrialization, pollution, poverty, child labor and so on.
Yet these are the same readers who have no qualms about picking up a Regency romance.
Is it just me or does that logic seem a bit off?
I’ve made my views well known that I do not particularly care for the Regency. Let me clarify that stance: I don’t hate the Regency romance. More often than not, I hate how they are written.
Instead of portraying the Regency era in an evenhanded way, it has become highly romanticized. That is not necessarily a bad thing, since romance authors and readers are in the romance business. However, certain elements of the Regency period have gotten lost, convoluted, or just plain ignored with the continued popularity of the sub genre. So when intelligent readers dismiss the Victorian era, yet ignore the problems that were rampant during the Regency era, it tends to get my back up.
Let us not forget that the ruling monarch during this time period was quite mad. Now whether or not you believe King George III was nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake is incidental. However, there is no denying that his family featured more dysfunction than a Dr. Phil primetime special. The most notorious of the bunch, Prinny, is often portrayed as merely a “character.” When in essence he was a jerk in the first order. Here is a man who spent lavishly, whored freely, and tried to divorce his wife for adultery. What a guy!
There’s also the small matter (no pun intended) of Napoleon. Despite Hemingway’s best efforts, war has never been and never will be romantic. Yet Waterloo is the cheap, easy way for romance authors to write about “war heroes” without all that messy violence, disease, disfiguring wounds and post-traumatic stress. It is a rare thing for a romance author to actually write about the fighting, let alone as it must have truly been – messy, horrific and heartbreaking.
Which leads us to the most despicable Regency convention of them all – romanticizing the rake. While he is certainly not exclusive to Regency romances, the rake hero tends to be the poster boy for the sub genre.
What is a rake, really? He’s a grown man with no job, more money than good sense, who spends his days and nights selfishly pursuing his own pleasure. He does this by gambling, drinking and whoring. Wow – sounds like a great guy! Where do I sign up? Yet, this is the “ideal” hero for many Regency era authors? Frankly, if a guy like this came calling, I’d take up target shooting.
Was the Victorian era dark? Certainly, I’m not foolish enough to deny that. However, to dismiss the setting out right, then turn around and blithely read the Regency smacks of hypocrisy. Regency England was not all drawing rooms, Almack’s and witty repartee. They had problems. Problems that are often glossed over and/or ignored for the sake of escapism. While all fiction owes itself to escapism – to valiantly defend the Regency without looking at the greater picture defeats the purpose. Frankly, it defeats the whole argument altogether.
No related posts.
I have a hard time understanding why anyone would refuse to read a book set in a particular era because of the political/social milieu. By carrying that to it’s “logical” conclusion, we would cease reading novels altogether, as I doubt that anyone can find a period in history (including our own) where someone was not being exploited or mistreated by someone else. However, having stated that, I also know that when an author glosses over, or fails to acknowledge, the social reality of the time period of the book, it makes some of us uneasy, particularly when we know that “bad things were happening to good people.”
But to pick out one particular period of history as being all “bad,” and idealize another period of history as being all “good” is all wrong, as you have correctly indicated in your post. It is amazing that the few years of the Regency has such a grip upon our imaginations. It is interesting that Jane Austen, who may be responsible for this craze, wrote primarily of small country towns, and the ton did not figure greatly in her novels. Her rakes are not admirable characters either..they dazzle briefly, but with the exception of the marriage of Wickham and Lydia, they tend to lose out in the end to the more mature type of hero.
I’m currently reading “David Copperfield.” In the introduction to the Barnes and Noble edition, it is stated that: “[Dickens] fierce involvement with the issues of his day…have set an example for writers ever since, contributing to the common expectation that to be a writer is to bear at least some of the responsibility for acknowledging and articulating society’s wrongs…” I happen to agree with this, and I think it can be done without degenerating into didatic literature. But even if a book doesn’t do this, should we refuse to read it simply because of the time period? Why should we demand it of one time period, but not another?
What you said! I do believe that how we visualise eras is down to films and TV series [and to some extent, art].
There is a current discussion about the forthcoming film PRIDE & PREJUDICE [due out this September] and quite a few posters complained loudly about the film trailer, which shows people, clothes and scenery, are as one poster puts it, “dark and grungy”. They forget one thing: it’s set in late Georgian period.
Many complained how thin actress Keira Knightley looks, which – according to many – “isn’t possible! Regency ladies of those days were CURVY!!” They were clearly thinking of Jennifer Elhe of BBC series P&P, not real Regency-era women.
But anyway, it is interesting to see how much a film or TV series influenced a perspective of an era.
I also believe that the majority of Regency romances are based on Georgette Heyer’s version of the period, not the actual period, which is a lot more wild than Heyer revealed.
The Victorian era – while I admit I’m not a fan of – does have interesting stuff going on: a lot of sports for women to try, from archery to tennis and from sailing to mountaineering. It’s also the golden era for female travellers, too.
I think when people think of the Victorian era, they think of London at its “worst”.
But there is a problem – the Victorian era lasted 60 years! How could people write that period off? When it has four distinctive time periods under Victoria’s ruling?
Wheee! I love the Victorian era because so much was happening then — roles were changing for women, women were becoming more socially aware, sex was huge and fascinating and also taboo, and modernization was affecting every facet of life. I love the Regency, too, but I applaud your point loudly — it’s been romanticized into a pale, sparkly shadow of its true self. I’ve never understand why so many readers — apparently — don’t like the Victorians.
Great column, Wendy!
Wendy–can you hear me clapping, well said.
It seems to me that no time in “history” would be a perfect setting for a romance if we were fully aware of the time periods real and true history. There are a few time periods I avoid simply because I can’t find the period romantic enough to get past true historical facts.
When it comes to historical romance and it’s settings sometimes ignorance is bliss.
Great essay. I am a Victorianist by nature and education. I also know a great deal about the so-called Regency era. The world that romance readers live in is the “Jane Austen” Regency, or maybe the invented world of Georgette Heyer, who by the way is the greatest romance writer! But what about Vanity Fare’s poor Becky Sharp. I like Regenices, but since I know far more about Shelley, Byron, and Keats, and the age they lived in, I find it ironic that anyone would think the Victorian period was darker than the Regency.
Actually I enjoy both Regency and Victorian eras, but I know what you’re saying — I won’t read books set in the Civil War because the era doesn’t appeal to me because of the political upheaval. But the reason that political upheaval doesn’t appeal to me is because I grew up hearing my relatives re-fight the battles every time the family got together, with the South somehow emerging triumphant.
The irony of hearing people complain about the political and industrial problems of the Victorian era as a reason not to read fiction with that setting, only to pick up a Regency and invoke Austen’s name is that Austen is rife with commentary about the social problems of the era. She deals with the fact that women of a certain class could left to make their way in the world without being equipped (Sense & Sensibility), the first hints of abolitionist feeling because of slavery in the West Indies (Mansfiedl Park), the problem of vagarants (Emma), and, of course, what happens when a girl elopes with a man and is away from home overnight, ruining not just herself, but her family (Pride & Prejudice).
I’m never going to stop reading historical books set in a time period because of the realities of that time. I don’t care about the realities of that time. I just want a rake, preferrably an incredibly sexy royal rake, to sweep me away for a few hours of reading pleasure.
Great article Wendy!
Lovely post.
I too dislike the Regency period romances, though I enjoy reading histories of it. I dislike reading the romances for the reasons you just detailed as well as the shoddy dialogue one often finds in them. And the romanticisation of the rake just IRRITATES the HELL out of me.
However… there’s an exception to ev’ry rule. I actually love reading Sheila Simonson Regencies. The heroes sometimes have war wounds, the social strictures are realistic, and the dialogue is whipcrack-smart. So there are a few good Regencies out there… but they’re few and far, far between.
I love historicals and am committed to them. When my website goes up, it will contain lots of info on the 19th century, so keep me in mind. Also, all my fiction is basically set during this period, no matter what genre.
I am thinking of writing some fairy tales like Patricia McKillip, but I would probably bring them to the 19th century. I also love France.
Does anyone read novels set in France or Italy. France is a beautiful country, and Bavaria. Just look at all the gorgeous castles!
I’ve been trying to think up a HIGH CONCEPT idea for France for the last six months for the romance market. Not an easy chore. But I am determined.
High concept for France? Ooh, let me think.
Napoleonic Wars, the French Revolution, Leonardo da Vinci’s stay, the Indochinan war, the Merovian and Carolian [sp?] dynasties, the Dreyfus affair, French settlements around the world [the US, Vietnam, Africa, Canada, South America, etc.], Italian Wars [France vs. Austria], the St. Bartholomew’s Eve Massacre, the Sun King — I think you will find quite a few high concepts in there somewhere.
But seriously, it does seem difficult to convince publishers [and readers] that there is more to this world than the UK and the US. I, for instance, would like more Australia- and Africa-setting historical romances. It’s a shame because historical authors of yesteryear seem to have more freedom when comes to choosing locations.
I know there are current historical romances that take place outside the UK and the US [e.g. Lisa Cach's IN THE WILDERNESS [Malaysia], Candice Proctor’s BEYOND SUNRISE [South Pacific], etc.], but there is so few, which is a crying shame, IMO.
And, Janine, good luck in finding the perfect high concept for your story!
“And, Janine, good luck in finding the perfect high concept for your story!”
I suppose it’s a matter of associations (and possibly clothing). Since romance involves two magnetic objects moving closer, the nature of the obstacles in the path makes a big difference. I’m probably not alone in associating the Victorian era with a distinctly unsexy and often fusty-seeming concept of virtue, especially as applied to (often to the point of suffocation) women. And on a practical note for writers, the layers of women’s clothing and tight corseting present a challenge in pacing a love scene…
“The Victorian era was full of rapid industrialization, pollution, poverty, child labor and so on.”
Wait, people are squicked about these issues in the Victorian era but aren’t squicked by these same issues in Regencies? Tell you what, the British East India Company was causing all sortsa havoc all over Asia (India in particular) during that time period. And child labor, as far as I know, was pretty common in Regency times as well, ditto horrible poverty. And when have the poor NOT been oppressed? Poor people are being oppressed and enslaved as we speak–there are hundreds of thousands of people enslaved right now in the US, and five cases of slavery have been successfully prosecuted in the past ten years.
Anyway. What very, very odd double-standards to have.
“Regency England was not all drawing rooms, Almack’s and witty repartee.”
This is *exactly* why I wrote a dark and gritty mystery series set in the Regency! I features an ex-cavalry captain who saw much horror in the Napoleonic Wars and now faces the “dark side” of Regency London. Berkley Prime Crime publishes it and it’s sold in the mystery sections of bookstores.
I wanted to write what went on in the back streets as well as the glittering ballrooms, and I have to say the series is proving to be popular. Some readers complain that it’s not light-hearted, but light-heartedness was not my intent. Regency Noir was!!
It is interesting to note that while the Victorian era is not popular in romance, it is hugely popular in mysteries, and Regencies are few and far between.
Please check out my site–www.gardnermysteries.com–if you are interested in a darker portrayal of the Regency (there is romance in the series as well
Jennifer
aka Ashley Gardner
Thanks Maili. One comment on all those clothes! I think it made for better conversations and flirtations, and just think how erotic undressing could be if it were written correctly.:idea:
oops, my Ashley Gardner url didn’t come out right. It’s
http://www.gardnermysteries.com
Regency noir mysteries.
I found it, Jennifer and linked! You’re new to me so I am excited to see what you write. You look like a busy bee from your website. And I like the idea of a darker Regency romance.
I’m an aspiring Regency writer. I’ve become fascinated with the grittier side of the era, particularly the Napoleonic Wars, and my stories reflect that. (And so far everything I’ve written has been set well before Waterloo–one of my pet peeves is how many Regencies seem to reduce the entire long, complex series of wars to one battle.)
That said, I’m always happy to read a well-written Victorian, though I’d rather travel further back in time instead–I love 18th century settings and some medievals, and I’ve always wished there were more Renaissance/Tudor romances or ANY ancient world romances. Well, to be contrary, I’ve always thought a WWII RAF pilot would make a perfect romance hero.
In general, I like a bit of grit and darkness to my stories, and while I don’t actually think war is romantic, I think the danger and drama of a war can make an exciting backdrop for romance. I like reading (and writing) about love triumphing over the worst the world has to offer.
Wow, I had no idea some people felt this way. I may not have a particular liking for certain time-periods when reading, but I would never explain it by saying, “Well things were soo evil/restricted/terrible and in the other period, well people were MUCH nicer!” Perhaps it’s A-OK if the atrocities are being committed very very far away England. .
Wendy, I was as dumbfounded as you on the reasoning being used in that particular discussion. So much so that I couldn’t think of a thing to say in response at the time. And still can’t really because I’ve generally liked the Victorian set romances I’ve read. What gets me is that all historical eras have their problems. Or they should because we humans aren’t particularly perfect.
And since when has dealing with the realities of day to day living not been part of what does make up a good romance in any era?
Wow – lots of great comments so far!
As many of you have mentioned, to dismiss time periods solely on the basis of unpleasant historical facts/events is kind of silly. I mean, no time period is immune to injustice, war, famine, poverty etc. Even contemporary times (excellent points BTW Candy!)
And since Jennifer brought up “darker” Regencies – I’d like to endorse Madeleine E. Robins, who writes a fantastic mystery series set in Regency London. Her heroine is a Fallen woman who works as a private investigator. Fantastic, gritty stuff.
http://www.sff.net/people/madrobins/
Me too Janie! France and I, shall never part. And Brava Wendy! I am always flabbergasted by this arguement, especially since I tend to lean more towards the late Victorian period and the Edwardian period.
BUT, most recent Victorian set historicals out there are merely Regencies in crinolines and corsets. Nothing separates them from a Regency Historical other than a mention of Queen Victoria, Prince Albert and maybe a railroad or two.
Mary Jo Putney made me feel better about regencies. She has soldiers suffering post traumatic shock and living with being disabled, and she has a rake whose attempts at recovery from alcoholism are central to his story. Laura Kinsale does a great job with her books set in that era, as well, although they are annoyingly out of print for the most part.
Sometimes I like the “gilded” Regency stories, as a break from reality, but the authors I come back to (for any era) are the ones who show all the layers. It just makes more interesting characters and a stronger book.
I admit that I’m shallow, but I think the reason I prefer Regency to Victorian romances is the esthetics: I just like the look of Regency clothing and furniture to Victorian. Victorian settings make me think of too many frills and furbelows, dark rooms, flocked wallpaper, and horsehair sofas. On the other hand, I love Victorian literature (read all of Dickens — even “Barnaby Rudge”!), but perhaps it’s that I don’t need to get the same “romantic” feel from how I imagine the characters and their setting in these books as I do from a Romance novel. Or is this just another example of how shallow I am?
I have another couple of bones to pick with the Regency genre. It’s unlikely that I would’ve supported Napoleon if I had lived during that era, but I have a problem with how French people are depicted so one-dimensionally. I also dislike the overemphasis on social class. I still read Regencies sometimes, but I see the genre almost as an alternate, “bubble” reality. I’d love to see a Regency-era novel where people aren’t so preoccupied with who’s gentry and who’s not. Even if one of the protagonists starts off as a commoner, the story nearly always ends with him or her becoming a member of Polite Society.
Oh, and another thing. Was every blasted nobleman in England a covert operative for the government?
I’ve never particularly cared for the contemporary novels where the hero is a SEAL or a CIA agent or whatever, and it dawned on me recently that the same trend has spilled over into Regencies.
Buy bargain deal online medications here – I can recommend it!
I really enjoy looking through your website