In my client Alissa Johnson’s second novel, Tempting Fate, the hero and heroine start fighting in the very first chapter. They’re childhood friends—rivals, really—who quarrel practically all the time, and in this particular scene it’s over a contraption called a dandy horse. Mirabelle wants to ride it, and Whit wants her to stay off of it, for her own good, of course. Now for those of you who’ve never heard of a dandy horse, it’s a precursor to the bicycle, with two big wheels, a wide wooden seat, and no pedals. You straddle it and propel yourself along with your feet, sort of like a scooter. Or the way you first rode your bike when you were a kid and afraid to lift up your feet.
I loved this scene when I first read it—the way Mira tugs at the bike and the way Whit tugs back—but shortly after Ali turned in the manuscript she called me with the news that she might be writing the dandy horse out of the scene.
“What? Why?” I just couldn’t imagine the scene any other way.
“Because the dandy horse was invented in 1817.”
And Ali’s story, of course, took place in 1813, a year after the first book in the series. Even if Whit had acquired an early prototype (he was a wealthy noble, after all), this was definitely stretching it. In the end, though, Ali decided to exercise her creative license and keep the horse. Needless to say, I was very pleased.
There’s been a lot of discussion about the importance of accuracy in historical romance. As the books get hotter and authors tackle more contemporary issues (working women, widows with children, etc.), stretching the normal boundaries of polite society, particularly in the Regency period, has become increasingly common. Some readers can’t stand the modern dialogue in Elizabeth Hoyt’s novels. Others love the combination of modern elements in a historical setting. My historical romance clients are fastidious with their research and aim for accuracy, with the occasional planned exception. One wrote a lengthy Author’s Note explaining her reasons for deviating from historical fact in the interest of the story.
What are your opinions on historical accuracy? Have you ever come across an example that you felt was annoying or unacceptable? Are there any authors (Mary Balogh and Meredith Duran come to mind) whom you particularly admire for their ability to make a time period come alive through descriptions, dialogue, and other details?
No related posts.
She could’ve written it in such a way that either the hero or the heroine invented it. After all, Gutenburg was NOT the first to invent the printing press. Quick! Who did? He was just the first to become well-known about it. Ditto with the light bulb and Edison. Airplane and Wright brothers. I could go on.
I’m big on historical accuracy and can spot a great Historical author by how she draws the reader in without resorting to contemporary attitudes.
However, I’m still getting over being flabberghasted because the background for my own novel was so historically accurate an editor actually thought I made the whole thing up.
Exactly how does one respond to that professionally? Back away slowly and realize this working relationship was not meant to be after all?
It’s not history I want to explore as a reader or a writer of romance. I want to live the feelings, the emotions, the tragedies and the traumas right along with the hero and the heroine. I want to be a part of their HEA.
I consider history as a device that sets the mood. The rules of the particular era are boundaries to be scaled by the hero who’ll give up everything except the lady he must have.
I’ll suspend my disbelief about history being rewritten, removed or relocated if I believe that the relationships are real.
Great post, BTW!
Here here! I completely agree, Mary Anne. Thanks so much for your comment!
My view is that anything which can be correct, should be correct. That is, unless the main plotline requires that something be nudged a bit (and only a bit), it should be done correctly. And if some aspect of the story is nudged, there should be an Author’s Note or something explaining what’s different/wrong, and why, and what actually happened or was done.
If the dandy horse was that important, would it have been so difficult to shift the book to 1818? Or if the series chronology wouldn’t allow it, save that cute gimmick for a different book and use something else for this one. Or heck, have the estate carpenter knock together a thing with wheels for the amusement of the local lord (or whomever Whit is), with a couple of significant differences from the actual dandy horse. This isn’t a ramjet engine, after all; it’s a simple device someone could have conceivably invented before the official dandy horse was invented or marketed. Call it something else and there you go — a one-off, something which never made the history books, and lets you have your fun scene without ignoring the actual history of your historical novel.
There are ways to do this sort of thing and make it work, and not making any attempt to do it properly frankly causes me to mentally stamp “Lazy” across the writer’s name in my head.
Caveat: if the writer and publisher make it clear up front that this isn’t intended to be an actual, accurate historical, I can deal with that. Dreamspinner Press has a line called “Timeless Dreams” which is for what are essentially popcorn historicals. Anyone who buys one of these books knows what they’re getting, and historical accuracy isn’t on the label. I’m okay with that because they’re practicing truth-in-advertising. Readers who don’t care about accuracy can buy these books and just have fun, while readers who want their historicals to actually be historical can avoid them — there, everyone’s happy.
If a book is labelled a “historical,” though, then I expect it to be historical. If it’s not, I get annoyed and am much less likely to buy another historical by that author.
Angie
I don’t mind if authors do things like incorporate a dandy horse four or five years before the dandy horse could have existed…so long as they tell me about it in the Author’s Note. I’ll accept anachronisms in the interests of the world-building. But I hate wallpaper historicals which clearly fail to understand the culture/society in which a novel is set. And as an English person reading historicals by and large set in Britain, issues like modern language, mores and Americanisms are wall-bangers for me.
The closest analogy is movies, particularly musicals. I know perfectly well that the world of Singing in the Rain or Top Hat only exists in that movie, but those worlds are so totally true to themselves that it doesn’t matter that people are behaving in ways that would never actually occur in real life. But there are movies where the mask slips, and when that happens, the plot collapses, the performers look embarrassed and my willing suspension of disbelief is out the window.
Writer have the good fortune to be able to get away with anything they turn their minds to….but only if they buy it totally themselves.
I’d disagree profoundly though with Mary Anne that history is merely a device. It’s much more – it is the world where the hero and heroine live and if the surface is shattered by a periscope sticking out of the water when submarines weren’t invented, I want my money back. Detail matters, style and voice matter. That’s one reason why I read less and less historical romance – to my ears, most books read like nails on a chalkboard – howling, screeching errors that yank me out of the world and make it hard to get back in there. Jo Beverley is my honourable exception, with Janet Mullany as a real possibility.
My client Jenny Brown feels similarly, Brussel Sprout, and she’s used the Author’s Note to specify where she’s deviated from historical fact. I love that she’s meticulous, but I personally don’t require perfect accuracy in my entertainment reading.
I prefer facts (battles, inventions, etc) be accurate but lifestyles and mannerisms? Not so much. I don’t want to hear that the medieval heroine is 12 years old and the hero hasn’t bathed in 6 mths. I like a historical fantasy world.
For situations, I belong to the ‘could it happen’ camp. Could a billionaire boss sleep with his secretary without having his pants sued off and his leadership questioned (i.e. the board fires his a$$)? Sure, it could happen. Could Prince Charming marry Cinderella even though she is broke and has no political connections? Sure, it could happen.
BTW… I find what the reader thinks is accurate and what the writer thinks is accurate can differ, especially in contemporaries.
I based my first novel, Breach Of Trust, on my actual job, yet I was told by a couple of readers that the job wasn’t done that way (news to me and to my bosses). I thought that was amusing.
You make really good points, Kimber. I prefer accuracy, but ultimately it’s the story that’s the most important to me.
The Romance is the most important thing in Historical Romance, but get the facts wrong and the reader is jerked out of the story.
I think it’s safe to assume most readers of Historical Romance know their history well enough to get jerked out of the story if you get it wrong.
I’m with most of the people here. Accuracy in the historical romance is, to me, essential, or I can’t believe in the characters or the story. Little twiddly bits, not so much, but the way people thought and acted then, as well as the historical detail – priceless.
Also, and just my opinion, for what that’s worth – it’s an insult to the people who lived in those times and the modern reader to write an inaccurate or poorly researched book.
We want romance to get a better press, so this is one of the ways we can do it.
A well-researched historical is certainly far more satisfying to read. That’s why I’m obsessed with Meredith Duran right now, and I love Sherry Thomas, too. It’s become the norm for me to ask writers about their methods of research when I get pitched at conferences. That said, some bending of the truth a la Hoyt and Johnson works for me if it serves the story. It’s called fiction for a reason.
I, too, dig deep to find accuracies. It helps us as readers to really get lost in a story.
I happen to love period speak – although I understand most editors think it too stilted for their readers.
One of the hardest things I had to do as a new writer is un-learn old-fashioned, lyrical speak and add conjunctions when it sounded to modern for my taste. I still cringe when I think about it.
Did you watch the show, Deadwood? I loved the show for the very reason it showcased sophisticated speech.
G.
TOO modern*
ugh. Typo’s like that ‘ill kill ya.
G.
Genella – you meant contractions, right? I can’t think of an era where they didn’t use conjunctions!
The trouble with olde worlde speak is that they never spoke that way. In the Middle Ages they spoke and wrote Middle English, which most people today, including me, can’t read without a dictionary and some syntax rearrangements.
By the 18th century, the period I write in, they spoke English that we would understand, contractions and all. Some modern speech is too modern, but as long as you avoid obvious anachronisms, like psychobabble and words that weren’t used until after the period, you’re pretty much okay.
I love historical accuracy, too. But I don’t mind a little bending if the reader would not really know the difference. When the waltz was introduced to London? Or the difference between guineas and sovereigns? Don’t get those wrong. But the dandy horse? I would not have known nor cared.
I knew an author who obsessed over using an elevator in her story. The problem was not that elevators were not used in NYC during her time period, but that one had not been installed in the building she was using! Now that’s too much historical accuracy for me.
Just don’t unzip anything before the zipper was invented.
I write historical romance, and I also write contemporary romantic comedy. I’m not a slave to historical accuracy, especially when I’m reading, but I do enjoy learning historical tidbits as I’m enjoying a book.
My biggest complaint with historical romances lately is how “modern” the heroines’ sensibilities are about losing their virtue – almost to the point of being cavalier. There are a lot of reasons in previous eras why this action would not be taken lightly, and it seems as if this aspect is being ignored in a way that doesn’t make sense to me.
Other than that, I enjoy reading historical romances and hope there will be plenty of them for many years to come.
If I’m unaware of the wrong history, then obviously I’m not bothered, but someone will be. And if I’m aware of it, then it becomes an annoyance for the remainder of the book, especially if it’s something that could be easily found out.
I have two complaints right now with regards to historical accuracy. The first is ease at which heroines bed down with the hero like they’re some college students hooking up after a kegger.
The second is the pre-1857 English heroine who thinks that she’s getting divorced (not separated) and will live out her days quite happily shunned because she doesn’t care about society anyway. Divorce until then required the modern-day equivalent of (for USians) Congress granting you one, along with the Church. After 1857, the only legal way to ge divorced for the next hundred years was adultery. I read that in a blurb or review and the book ceases to exist.
After birthing three children I guess my subconcious wouldn’t allow me to type “contractions.”
LMBO
Yes, that’s what I meant.
G.
subconscious*
OY! This just isn’t my week!
G.