Lately I’ve been asking writers whether their time period is necessary for the unfolding of their historical romance—especially if the chosen time period is not the norm (as in clearly a medieval or a regency or a pirate setting, etc.)
Needless to say, the question gets people riled up. Of course the time period is imperative. Otherwise it’s just a story that can be set at any time.
Well, exactly.
Hang with me here. I’m actually moving toward what I hope is an interesting point.
Some romance stories are indeed timeless and can literally be set during any time period and will still have a powerful impact.
This is not to suggest that historical romance writers don’t do a ton of research or don’t fall in love and become experts at certain time periods. I know all that is true. And I’m certainly not suggesting that writers write willy-nilly without this background to support the telling of the story. Historical romance writers should definitely be savvy about their history.
What I’m driving at is the “timeless” element. Is your story big enough that even though the setting is important, the theme itself could transcend the time period and be written just as well as a medieval, regency, or pirate era romance?
It’s when you start answering this question that I think magic might happen and historical romances really capture readers’ hearts.
Here’s a good example. Julia Quinn’s THE VICSOUNT AND I. The bigger story is about a young man learning to accept the early death of his father and by doing so, learns how to live, marry a woman he loves, and be happy.
Is there any reason for that particular story to be told as a Regency? Besides the fact that it’s one of the books in the Bridgerton series and Julia writes Regencies. Not really, except that Julia loves the regency era, has a great expertise in it, and writes in that time period.
This “bigger” story (accepting death and living life fully) could be explored in any era really. And it’s that timelessness that readers embrace and react to. And if you can, why write a romance in the Pleistocene era (and yes, I’m being facetious) when you could choose a more marketable period for your timeless story—a time period more likely to get an editor on board and excited?
Just something to think about…
Related posts:
This “bigger” story (accepting death and living life fully) could be explored in any era really. And it’s that timelessness that readers embrace and react to.
I would say the theme is what resonates with me; simple human experiences like love, jealousy, loss…
A story that could have been set anywhere or -when, is an instant turnoff for me. I _want_ stories that are deeply interwoven with the period and society they are set in. That means that the circumstances are unique and the characters think like people of their time, not like the Joneses next door. (That goes the other way as well. Two young people eloping because one is Jewish, the other Catholic, and the parents are against it? There are times and places for that story. 2004 is not one of them.)
If your Stone Age story can be set in the Angevin Empire, you shouldn’t write it at all; not until you have found the place and characters where it belongs. I am always wary about stories that start with theme. Theme, to me, is something that grows out of living characters having interesting adventures; not something one should sit down and construct a story around.
Hey! I’m right in the middle of a romance set in the Pleistocene!
(Just kidding; really it’s the transitional period between the Neolithic and the Bronze Age.)
I wonder why some time periods are more marketable than others — and why some periods come into vogue while others fade, only to become popular once more in the future. Could be oversaturation of the market, I guess.
That said, I love historicals that weave in specifics to the time period, whether they relate to the customs, the work practices, the social mores, political climate, or whatever. Madeline Hunter is one of the finest when it comes to entrenching the characters, story and setting without making the reader feel like she’s giving a history lecture. My reading experience goes that much deeper, with even richer enjoyment of the story.
Historical writers kick this can around a lot . . .
It seems to me that the popularity of the Georgian/Regency/Victorian setting is that it’s far enough back in time to have a bit of fantasy (pretty pretty Disney Princess!) about it, but modern enough that it doesn’t feel totally alien (esp. post 1780 when young men begin to wear their own hair rather than a wig for all but the most formal occasions).
As for the setting being shiftable, I think that’s true for pretty much every story I can think of if you just take the most basic theme as the “story”. What’s not shiftable is all the minutiae that make that particular expression of the theme work. If the story is grounded in the time period (and I’m not claiming that they all are, or even that they need to be) then it can’t be easily shifted to another era or place.
Even though the basic themes of a story could apply to any era, the way characters react and think is very different in different eras. I read a historical recently that frustrated me to no end, because the characters didn’t seem “historical” at all. The details of the history were correct – the clothes, the titles, the architecture – but the characters just didn’t seem to have the right attitude for their time period. (At one point, the heroine thinks it would be fun to have a child out of wedlock with no money. In 1800.) They just seemed like modern people plopped down in the past wearing pretty dresses.
I know romances don’t really depict the full reality of living in the past, but I expect characters from different eras to have differences in the way they view the world (and in the way society reacts to what they do).
I think that trying to write in a time period simply because you think it is more marketable is a big mistake. The reader, and that includes your first reader — The Editor can often tell.
Now, I am on the opposite side of the coin here about writing a marketable time period. Lots of well meaning people in the business and this includes agents told me that ancient Rome was not a time period that would ever sell.
However, the senior editor for Harlequin Historical who bought my first Roman set bok — Gladitor’s Honor and who has purchased three other Rome set books from me, thought differently. She also has just purchased a Viking — Taken by the Viking to be published in M&B Historicals October 07, US date to be determined. Some more Vikings will follow but I am currently working on a Victorian Christmas one (basically Charles Dickens in 1843 invented the modern Christmas celebrations in the UK)
They are set where they are because that is how I wanted to tell the story.
And I know my editors are quite willing to look at ANY timeperiod as long as the romance is strong. Regency and Westerns are the backbone of their programme, but all time periods up to WW2 are open.
I say Write the Book in the time period that it needs to be written in and trust the editors (and the public) to buy it if it is strong enough.
I did.
Because not every fan of historicals likes the settings of the historicals produced. Personally I tend to stay away from anything to do with England simply because I’m Regency-ed out. I love books like Memoirs of a Geisha because it was so different (and yes I know it’s not normally categorized as a romance).
But I also wonder if it has to do with the changing mores of our society; my mom can’t get enough of Regencys and Victorian England because she grew up reading largely English books with English settings. On the other hand, I was exposed to many more different cultural influences in my reading growing up here in America. With the up and coming generation of manga and anime fangirls, I wonder if historicals will shift to eras like feudal Japan.
I guess the question is then: do you want to write something safe that you know will sell? Or do you want to take a chance and gamble on the next big thing? It’s not an easy question because as Miss Snark has said, one book is not like any other book.
I’m a great believer in writing what you love. I think it shows. Michelle’s got this one right, IMO. She writes what she loves. I’m a big Roman history buff and can’t wait to read her books!
Me, I love all things Georgian. Lot’s of folks say they don’t like men in lace and powder. *SHRUG* I love the idea of steel incased in silk. I think it’s sexy as hell. I love watching films set in the era: Tom Jones (Albert Finney or 1997 version), Aristocrats, Dangerous Liaisons, Ridicule, The Madness of King George, The Affair of the Necklace, The Lady and the Duke, The Scarlet Pimpernel (Richard E. Grant miniseries).
I love the clothes. The politics. The intrigue. The scandals.
IMO, the theme may have the ability to transcend different time periods, but the way the characters react to them will be completely different depending on the era. If I want to read an mid Victorian set novel, I don’t want social mores of the early Victorian era creeping into the book, just as when I pick up a Restoration era romance I don’t want it to read as though it could just as easily have been a Regency set historical. Otherwise, that’s how we end up with the homogenizing of the historical(eg the lumping of the 19th century as one long time period.
). It’s hard because the big publishers tend to hover around “Regency” and “Victorian” set historicals, but as Michelle Styles has said, there are a few publishers out there who like different settings. And I heartily nod in agreement with the statement that everyone will be able to tell if you’re not really into the time period your book is set in.
This “bigger” story (accepting death and living life fully) could be explored in any era really. And it’s that timelessness that readers embrace and react to. And if you can, why write a romance in the Pleistocene era (and yes, I’m being facetious) when you could choose a more marketable period for your timeless story—a time period more likely to get an editor on board and excited?
Hmmm, seems to me that exactly the reverse should be true. If the story truly is timeless, then shouldn’t that be the one to work well in just about any setting so why not try one that’s new and fresh rather than already done to death?
It also seems to me that the reason so many other settings don’t work is that authors try such radically different stories than those tried and true timeless themes that readers are even more unsettled. Why not use those timeless themes to make the new and different a little bit more palatable rather than creating more of the same?
Sounds to me like you are talking about archetypes.
Alice
It also seems to me that the reason so many other settings don’t work is that authors try such radically different stories than those tried and true timeless themes that readers are even more unsettled.
Or that when you get outside of the familiar historical settings the author doesn’t really know how their characters would have behaved, lived, etc. so we end up with very modern feeling protagonists running around 16th century Venice, or 15th century Turkey, etc.
At least this has been my experience when I branch out as a reader.
I have to agree with the other readers here and that is simply because the theme or story arc is timeless doesn’t mean the framework surrounding it also interchangeable. One of the things I like so well about Prince of Ice by Emma Holly was the societal struggle which gave rise to the conflict between the hero and heroine. Societal differences are a common theme in romances. You see it in the Duke/Governness romances or in the Boss/Secretary romances. However, how that conflict plays out depends greatly upon the societal machinations that dictate action and reaction. To ignore the importance of the setting is greatly to blame, imo, for the demise of the historical. Too much emphasis was placed on themes and not enough on the congruence between theme and setting, hence the wallpaper historical moniker.
World building, even in non paranormal/fantasy romances, is just as important because it creates the escape for which readers are looking. If the setting is not rich, if the characters are not acting within the framework of society, then the book lacks realism.
To me, this is the worst thing about trend chasing. Too many authors get caught up with writing what’s hot instead of what they truly love leading to bland and unoriginal historicals, paranormals, or just regular fiction.
I love historicals, but would never have the patience to research for one. Mucho respect to y’all who write them. I could never do it. But I’ll read them any day of the week.
Kalen said: Or that when you get outside of the familiar historical settings the author doesn’t really know how their characters would have behaved, lived, etc. so we end up with very modern feeling protagonists running around 16th century Venice, or 15th century Turkey, etc.
At least this has been my experience when I branch out as a reader.
That has been my experience as well, which is bad because when the books not set in settings/time periods most readers are unfamiliar with(at least books published in the late-late-90s and 2000s) flop, the time period is blamed and not the execution of the book.
Jane said: To ignore the importance of the setting is greatly to blame, imo, for the demise of the historical. Too much emphasis was placed on themes and not enough on the congruence between theme and setting, hence the wallpaper historical moniker.
Agreed! All timeless themes and plots will unfold differently depending on the time period and the social setting of the characters (a barrister and governess would have a completely different conflict than a Duke and a governess). IMO, I think the love for the paranormal romance is in part because of the world-building created by the majority of paranormal romance/urban fantasy authors. Each series/book is unique to the author, so readers gobble them all up because they know no author will tell the same story even though twenty authors may be writing about vampires. There’s nothing “special” about the historical romance anymore because everything has become so locked into the settings and social circles(mainly aristocratic, mainly London, and mainly Regency).
There’s nothing “special” about the historical romance anymore because everything has become so locked into the settings and social circles(mainly aristocratic, mainly London, and mainly Regency).
I’m not sure I agree with this. Some writers overcome the “much of a muchness” and do it so splendidly I’m left frothing with jealously (if that’s possible, LOL!). Take Julia Ross for example. Her books don’t have a setting which is original, but her command of the language, her voice, totally transport me. Pam Rosenthal, too. Her deeply political plots are amazing. And then there’s Jo Beverley, whose books pretty much set the bar, IMO.
I find all of these writers plenty “special”.
(smiley faces were applied by my overzealous four-year-old)
I think the point is amazing Kristin. I just started a new scifi romance, and as I work through the general beginning and start figuring out my details, I caught myself a few times thinking “what’s the difference between this story and something from a western?” Which has made me look deeper into the characters and the story to find a way to keep it “scifi” and not something someone will read and say “it’s a western in space,” yet holding to the overall theme, which is about the strength of family, and how that endures no matter what, and how we do whatever we can for a family.
So this one hit home with me today in a very profound way.
Thanks for the post!