April 12, 2008
Focus Shifts in Historical Fiction
Posted by Tracy Grant under Dorothy Dunnett, Mélanie and Charles Fraser, Secrets of a Lady, Tracy GrantLast week I had coffee with two of my best friends, who also happen to be fellow writers–Penelope Williamson and Monica McCarty. Over lattes in a bookstore café, we got to talking about the differences between historical romance and historical fiction. Monica (who writes wonderful historical romances grounded in real events and characters–the couples in her first three books are all real historical characters) blogged about the topic and inspired me to do the same.
As Monica wrote in her blog, the differences between historical romance and historical fiction “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.” That’s certainly true of the three books Monica’s mentions. Outlander and Katherine have a central love story, where The Other Boleyn Girl has more than one romantic relationship for the heroine. The Other Boleyn Girl and Katherine center on real people whereas in Outlander the main characters are fictional. But in all three books historical events and secondary characters and relationships share focus with the love story. I’d also add in Dorothy Dunnett’s Lymond Chronicles and House of Niccolò series, in which fictional main characters are so intertwined with real characters and events that it’s difficult to separate the two. Both series have multiple love stories and a central love story for each hero (the outcomes of which are the subject of much speculations and anxiety by many Dunnett readers), but the focus is much more broad.
Penny (who moved with equal skill from writing historical romance to writing historical fiction and is now writing a contemporary thriller), summed up the difference really well by saying that 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 all over the stage, catching the main couple (if there is one) at times, but also secondary characters, political intrigues, historical details.
The line is still often blurry. Many historical novels (like those mentioned above) contain a love story and many historical romances (such as Monica’s) deal with real people and events. 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 completely started to understood the difference until after I was first published writing historical romance. Even then I constantly drove my poor editors to distraction by getting caught up in intrigue subplots, historical details, secondary characters. Going back to Penny’s description, my lighting plots tend to be broad, with lots of shifts of focus. It was when I finally realized this that I decided to write the first Charles & Mélanie book (Daughter of the Game/Secrets of a Lady).
I also discussed historical fiction/romance differences recently with my friend Lauren Willig, who like me writes a romantic historical spy series set in the Napoleonic era (it’s so wonderful to talk to a friend who also writes such a specific type of story!). Lauren said that when she wrote The Secret History of the Pink Carnation, the first book in her series, she thought of it as an historical romance. Unlike my books, each of hers has an individual central romance. But the intrigue plots and secondary characters play an important role, perhaps more so as the series has progressed. Kirkus Reviews describes her latest book, the wonderful The Seduction of the Crimson Rose, as “romantic adventure.” Lauren’s website sums her books as up with the words “Intrigue. Espionage. Romance. Sword play. Comedy.”
My Charles & Mélanie books have been described as “historical mysteries,” “historical fiction,” “romantic historicals,” “historical suspense,” romantic suspense,” “Regency thrillers,” “historical romance,” “psychological thrillers.” I tend to call them “historical suspense fiction,” a nice broad all encompassing definition 
Do you read different types of historically-set novels? What do you think sets historical fiction apart from historical romance? Does how a book is marketed affect your expectations when you read it? Can you think of examples of books that blur the lines between categories? How would you categorize the Charles & Mélanie books?
For this week’s Fraser Correspondence addition the focus shifts to Kenneth Fraser (Charles’s father) writing to the Marquis of Glenister.
Update 14 April: I’m blogging today on History Hoydens about The aftermath of Wateroo & Peterloo. I take off from the Historical Notes for the The Mask of Night and ask how people feel about books where the social and political context is the basis of the conflict. Do stop by and join the discussion.
April 13, 2008 at 8:39 pm
I think historical fiction is ‘light’ on the romance part, romance deals with relationships, sex, which is always good and the good guys winning, which in reality is not always true.. I truly love historical romances, it takes me away to another world, its my time.. I just found out about you I have ordered the first book which I believe is Secrets of a lady, but the excerpt I read was just awesome I can’t wait!!!! Penelope Williamson writing contemp. thrillers just kills me, she writes greatr historical romances!!!! Keeper of the Dream is my most favorite, #1 book EVER!!! any time there is a list of your favs. etc.. that book stands out as the BEST!!! Tell her I am still waiting for the grandaughters story!!!
New Fan
Tal
April 13, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Thanks so much for posting, Tal! I hope you enjoy “Secrets of a Lady”–do let me know when you’ve read it. So glad you liked the excerpt. That’s an excellent point about the good guys generally winning in historical romances (which makes some eras and events tricky to write about). Going back to the lighting analogy, in historical romance the light tends to be filtered through a rose or amber gel, whereas in historical fiction the light may be harsher, and the ending is not always happy.
I’ll definitely pass your comments on to Penny. She’ll be so pleased to know you enjoy her books. “Keeper of the Dream” is fabulous, isn’t it? But Penny has the amazing ability to right powerful, compelling stories in a variety of settings and genres. I adore her western romantic historical novel “The Outsider,” her Edith Wharton-esque “The Passions of Emma,” and her 1920s New Orleans mysteries.
April 14, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Hi Tracy! I love this topic and wish there was an easy way of finding answers on how to bridge the categories. I KNOW there are historical fiction readers out there who would love some of the heavier historical romances, but it’s hard to know how to reach them (they will never pick up some of the books because of covers and store location). I enjoy both, but I’d love to find more of the hybrid type of stories (lots of history and a strong romance thread). Kathleen Givens’ recent books (On a Highland Shore and Rivals for the Crown) are a really good example of this kind of book (as is Secrets of a Lady). I think Kathleen’s books were marketed at historical fiction (at least initially). Like you, before I started writing I never really make such clear-cut distinctions in my head. When I first met you I think I even mentioned that I thought SOAL was historical romance. With a little perspective I see why it was marketed differently, now I would probably call it a romantic historical mystery. Probably.
April 15, 2008 at 4:15 am
Hi Monica! Thanks so much for posting! And thanks for the great blog topic :-). I love hybrid stories too. I haven’t had a chance to read Kathleen Givens’s books yet, but i keep hearing great things about them. I remember talking about how to categorize when we first met, and again when you interviewed me on the Fog City Divas site. I think it all has to do with how define words like “romance” and “historical novel.” I actually got the idea for SOAL years and years ago when I was still writing Regency romances with my mom. Even then (when I was still trying to sort out genre definitions), I didn’t think I could write it as a romance. It seemed too dark and morally ambiguous (which goes to Tal’s point above). And even though it’s definitely a love story, the focus isn’t entirely on that love story. The suspense plot is the driving thread and the focus moves off Charles and Mélanie at times and even when it’s on them, it’s not always on their relationship (which unfolds in a rather deconstructed way–it’s more a portrait of a marriage than of two people falling in love). I love trying to figure out what to call it, but mostly I’m just relieved readers are reading it :-).
April 16, 2008 at 5:42 pm
As an ordinary reader who would read pretty much anything except for horror, I don’t much care for the distinction between historical fiction and historical romance. And I have no scientific method of telling them apart, although I have noted that there often is a difference in what happens after I finish a book. Historical romance reading for me tends to be an end in itself. On the other hand, historical fiction reading often leads me onto another journey. For one example, reading “The Silver Touch” by Rosalind Laker got me interested in the practice of apprenticeship and the lives of apprentices in historical periods. It led me to searching for more information on the subject and paying more attention to artisans in other media presentations. Considering this very subjective reaction, I think that not only does the spotlight shift in historical fiction, but it also highlights previously little known/thought of historical aspects that are worthy subjects by themselves.
April 17, 2008 at 12:23 am
That’s a fascinating point, Sharon! I know my interest in history was fostered because when I was growing up I’d read an historical story or see an historical movie or television program and then ask my parents questions, and they always encouraged me to read more about it–we’d start with the encyclopedia and whatever we had at home then go to the library.
April 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm
Sharon’s ‘journey’ into the background of historical fiction is an excellent definition - I’m still fascinated by the French Revolution and eighteenth century England, and all because of Baroness Orczy!
I also think there is a level of literary snobbishness in making the distinction between historical fiction and historical ‘romance’, in that I always associate the latter with Mills and Boon paperbacks and their rather lurid covers, and so tend to avoid any novels that might fall into that category. I have been tripped up by elegant covers on trashy books, but for the most, I prefer the history over the ‘conventions’ of romance writing.
April 17, 2008 at 5:20 pm
So true, Sarah. “Pride and Prejudice” (which I was first introduced to through the Garson/Olivier movie) started my fascination with the Regency era.
Excellent point about book covers. That’s why marketing books is so tricky, particularly if the book itself somehow blurs the line between historical romance and historical fiction or other genres. The wrong cover can make readers bypass books they would enjoy (or make readers buy a book when they are actually looking for something different and so are disappointed). I love the covers for the latest editions of my books–to me they do a great job of capturing a blend of history, suspense, and romantic intrigue.
April 18, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I picked up “Daughter of the Game” because of the cover - it caught my eye immediately.
I personally don’t understand the thinking behind the people who make the covers these days. Still, obviously someone’s buying them!
OTOH, I’ve found some very good books with some very *embarrassing* covers!
Personally, I like the current covers on historical romantic fiction these days. But for the record, I prefer the happy ending.
April 19, 2008 at 6:40 am
JMM, that’s cool about the “Daughter of the Game” cover. I’ve been lucky with my covers, but I often think it’s a good thing I don’t have cover control, because I’m never sure what I like equates to what people will buy :-). Even though I know the cover often has little to do with the book, I still get drawn in by a beautiful, evocative cover while a cover I don’t like may put me off buying a book I later read and think is wonderful.
I like the historical romantic fiction covers they’re doing now a lot too–I love the use of period paintings. But for the most part, I prefer happy endings too :-).
April 19, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Speaking of covers, I want to say that I love this new “Beneth a Silent Moon” cover, espeically having Mélanie (I assume) above the nightly sky as if she is watching the world beneth. I can hardly wait for the book to arrive! As to “Secret of a Lady”, I like the lovely cover, but I think I miss the mystery of the “Daughter of the Game” cover.
April 19, 2008 at 3:22 pm
I’m so glad you like the new “Beneath a Silent Moon” cover, Sharon! I really love it. I think it’s cool how they’ve combined the two paintings, which is something a bit different. I too assume the woman is meant to be Mélanie–it’s actually a portrait of Madame Récamier, but it looks like Mélanie (actually all the images of Mélanie on various covers have looked like her). And the book opens with late at night on the London docks, so the images of the Thames in moonlight is very appropriate.
I loved the moody mystery of the “Daughter of the Game” cover too, but a writer friend said she thought it looked “too gothic and not like a big enough book,” which may be true. I liked what they did on the “Secrets of a Lady” cover with the ring and the letter, implying secrets and mystery in a subtle way.
April 21, 2008 at 6:15 pm
I read mostly historical fiction, and I don’t need a romance subplot to be happy.
Overall, I like the broader scope of that genre, and I’m a cynic who doesn’t believe in Love Overcomes All so important in the Romance genre.
But I do read historical romance or mystery if it’s something special. After all, I love Fantasy and I don’t believe in elves and dragons, either.
April 22, 2008 at 6:47 am
Gabriele, do your favorite historical novels not have romantic subplots? Because the interesting thing is that most historical novels do. I can enjoy books without a love story, but I like love stories and I like happy endings (though again, I can enjoy books that don’t end happily). But I tend to prefer books in which the love story is part of the larger context of the novel, not the complete focus.