TEST
Remember the Hollywood trend of remaking historical stories into contemporary teen romances – Clueless, She’s the Man, Ten Things I Hate About You? Would you like to read a book that does the reverse and sticks modern high schoolers in the Regency? Neither would I.
Lady Grace has had a crush on Mason Fredericks – a fellow natural scientist who, unusually, has no issue with her scholarship – for years, but he’s never noticed her as a woman. She comes up with a plan: get her friend Sebastian Holloway to make himself over as a rake and pretend to flirt with Grace. The attentions of a high-status (yeah) male will lead Mason to see her in a whole new way. But after Sebastian’s makeover, and to Grace’s surprise, the person seeing things anew is herself. Don’t worry, though – she and he will drag out this easily resolved question over the remaining hundred plus pages to ensure a good word count.
In addition to a character-driven plot that the characters refuse to drive, the book is marred by superficial, clichéd characterization. Grace’s science career… yikes. Having the characters throw science-y words around is not a substitute for giving them actual scholarly personalities. Scientist Grace and anthropologist Sebastian assume that a thirty-year-old etiquette manual is an infallible resource and never think to try observation. Our dedicated herpetologist never appears in a scene with any live animals. Grace loves using Latin nomenclature, which is not done in casual conversation by any scientist I’ve ever met. Other than read books about other cultures, I can’t figure out what Sebastian actually does. And I disliked the cliché of yet another nerd girl who was ‘above’ conventional femininity. Female scientists can still love fashion, dancing, and conversation on topics other than their academic field!
Historicals can and should address genuine social issues, but not in a way that makes their characters sound like time travelers. It’s historically plausible for Grace to object to the slave labor involved in tobacco production (although most activism was around sugar, and she seems to have no problems with sugar or Sebastian’s indigo coat), but when Sebastian opposes smoking because it “serves a ceremonial and spiritual purpose for many tribes in the Americas” and smoking “would be like stealing from them”, the author lost me. White Englishmen during the Regency era rarely blinked at the physical theft of indigenous land, property, and even individual people; I don’t buy one concerned about the metaphorical theft of tradition.
Other modernisms:
- Sebastian’s “gut churns” at the “sense of cultural and racial superiority” in Western anthropology (which it should! But I doubt it would have in 1817!)
- Sebastian and Grace want sex education for women
- Rotherby argues for measuring “true rake”-ness by pleasure brought to partners instead of quantity of conquests (another way in which this book reads like a discount version of The Countess Conspiracy)
- a not-at-all-veiled critique of negging
- Grace and her friend bemoaning the killing of animals to produce taxidermy specimens
- Grace clucking about the provenance of the Elgin marbles
- Grace being inspired by the destruction of a pond to study science so she can teach “the harmful effects of humanity on the natural world”
I’m not saying I disagree! But I live in 2019. I am not a character in a romance novel set over two hundred years ago. If an author wants to make sure their characters express the views of our current day, why write a historical?
Which brings me to my recommendation: this novel should be rewritten and released as an American teen movie set in a high school.
Science nerd Grace loves reptiles. She’s not popular with the boys, though, who see her as a freak – except, that is, for her long-time crush and lab partner Mason Fredericks, and Sebastian Holloway, with whom she spends her free periods in the library. But while Mason respects her scientific skills, he doesn’t see her as a girl. So Grace cooks up a plan. Invisible Sebastian will become a cool kid (with the help of his buddy Noel “Duke” Rotherby and the strategic removal of a pair of glasses), and ask Grace out in a way Mason can’t help but notice. But what happens when Grace realizes she likes her fake flirtation more than her crush?
Wouldn’t that be cute???
So why haven’t I given this book a D? The conceit of making over the hero instead of the heroine is cute – I like the idea that there’s nothing wrong with her, just with men who can’t see her properly (although of course she doesn’t see Sebastian properly…). And while it’s a terrible match for me because I’m someone who prizes settings, I can see this being a reasonable read for someone who doesn’t. You may also like it if you’re someone who’s just happy to see the issues listed above mentioned at all, even in an awkward and implausible way. You’ll still have the problem of two characters who can’t just have the ‘So… maybe we like each other?’ conversation for weeks, but you won’t be smacking your head like I was.
Still would be cuter with teenagers, though.
Buy it at: Amazon/Apple Books/Barnes & Noble/Kobo
Visit our Amazon Storefront
Grade: C-
Book Type: Historical Romance
Sensuality: Warm
Review Date: 28/11/19
Publication Date: 11/2019
Recent Comments …
Yep
This sounds delightful! I’m grabbing it, thanks
excellent book: interesting, funny dialogs, deep understanding of each character, interesting secondary characters, and also sexy.
I don’t think anyone expects you to post UK prices – it’s just a shame that such a great sale…
I’m sorry about that. We don’t have any way to post British prices as an American based site.
I have several of her books on my TBR and after reading this am moving them up the pile.
I'm a history geek and educator, and I've lived in five different countries in North America, Asia, and Europe. In addition to the usual subgenres, I'm partial to YA, Sci-fi/Fantasy, and graphic novels. I love to cook.
Related Reviews
It would be lovely if the stuck-up, condescending, judgmental and opinionated commentators elsewhere (definitely NOT here!!!) who think romance readers are uneducated bored housewives or little old ladies (all with IQs below 80) haven’t graduated beyond the (so-called) bodice ripper, could read some of the very interesting dialogues on this site. It’s sometimes like being at Wimbledon and watching the finals! I don’t always agree with some of the comments made but I do relish a good argument and it’s great when contributors back up what they say with reasoned argument and educated, experienced opinion. I don’t come here to attend Sociology 101 (already done that and have the T-shirt) but it’s comforting to me to know that the contributors here seem to be sensible, intelligent, motivated and articulate people. Thanks, everyone – even when I want to take PC in hand and reply to a post that makes me seethe or caresses all of my personal buttons, I know that I can return the next day to another stimulating discussion.
“It’s sometimes like being at Wimbledon and watching the finals!” Great analogy!
I remember watching a YouTube video with Christopher Rice, Anne Rice’s son, where he said there is an odd cultural tendency to sneer at forms of entertainment with a majority female audience versus equally fanciful pastimes designed and consumed for and by a largely male audience. He made a good point, and I agree with it. Nobody, for example, says men are unintelligent or unrealistic if they like shoot-em-up films where the army, navy, air force, and marines somehow can’t hit the broad side of Arnold Schwarzenegger. But a woman enjoying a Regency romance with a happy ending is somehow a mark of her supposedly inferior intellect? Give me a break.
And if anyone is interested, here is the link to the Christopher Rice/Christina Lauren interview clip I was talking about: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY7gfmwgZvU. It’s only 3 minutes 31 seconds, but well worth watching.
A good historical romance writer often deals with the improbable, not the impossible. And there is a fine line to be drawn there. However, the zeitgeist has to be taken into consideration. There is a “spirit of the age” and to go against it makes the book modern in feel.
There are things that never happened, and there were highly unusual events that did happen. A shortcut in research is look for a real life example, and then follow it through. Look at the circumstances in which it happened, and the consequences. There was only one Lady Hester Stanhope or Mary Wollstonecraft. They did not start movements, they were oddities. By the 1870s, there were more of them, so much that a movement to improve education began. But not in the early years of the century.
I want to travel back in time, not go to a place that didn’t ever exist. If I wanted to do that, I’d read The Game of Thrones rather than They Speak No Treason.
Wow. You have summed up perfectly what I couldn’t easily express. It never occurred to me to use the word zeitgeist to explain my thoughts. And it is a great use of the term. Thank you, Ms. Connolly. I agree with everything you said in this post.
I study and regularly teach Wollstonecraft’s writings and view her as iconic but also part of the radical intelligentsia, along with other women writers, such as poet Anna Barbauld. Wollstonecraft emerged out of Enlightenment theories and philosophies examining education for men and for women. Her ideas were often in response to some of the well known men writing about rights and democracy, such as Rousseau, Voltaire, and Paine, and so the leap from democracy for men to democracy for women was in some ways linear and logical to an Enlightenment mind like hers. There were distinct links between the emerging male-dominated democratic rights movements of the period and the ideas women were contemplating, especially around education for women and even social power for women. One of my former professors wrote a wonderful study of Austen called _Jane Austen among Women_, published by Johns Hopkins Univ. Press in roughly 1998 that looks closely at the relevance of Wollstonecraft on Austen’s ideas about women. There was an emergent feminism during the 18th century that took gradually shape into full-fledged activism in the public sphere later in the 19th century, and so it’s inaccurate to assume that 19th century feminism sprung up out of nowhere. I’m not at all asserting that feminism as we know today it existed in the 18th century, but many of the ideas debated are necessary precursors. I also don’t want to detract from Wollstonecraft at all, as her writings are important to read, but she was greatly influenced by the female poets and non-fiction writers preceding her too and so the idea of her reduced to a historical oddity strikes me as problematic.
Double standard? Perhaps. I’m not much of a Regency fan myself, and I think royalty/nobility is largely overrated, but how many anachronistic/implausible scenarios one can tolerate is largely a matter of personal preference. (We could also get into other things like hygiene and other nasty historical issues few people actually want to read about, but I digress.) For me, it comes down to “Am I being entertained, or is something the writer is saying pulling me out of the story by making me roll my eyes?”
Speaking of norms, there were like 31 dukes and around 140 earls total in the whole of England/Ireland/Scotland. But somehow an attractive, young, unmarried duke who is a war hero and marries a penniless governess can be a “norm” and not a modern fantasy nor a checklist. Yet a diverse character with unusual political views – no way, that’s anachronistic. If you want to apply the real historical standard, I rather think you should be rejecting both. Otherwise it seems very much a double standard.
I definitely see a double standard in some of the comments criticizing “accuracy” and “checkpoints”. That is why I enjoyed Courtney Milan interjecting about all of the straight, white, male norms that pervade romance writing and are unremarked upon by the same readers.. On the topic of rejecting anachronisms, I can imagine the problems readers with angst over diversity and historical accuracy would have reading literature, such as Othello, a play filled with more than one issue on diversity! And on the topic of accuracy, Shakespeare played fast and loose with history when it suited his purpose. These arbitrary rules of what is good writing is bemusing.
I read romance novels for the romance(s). Not for characters who are now, currently, being used as ideological place holders for a segment of 2019-era society on a variety of topics which are now, currently, being debated, largely on the internet and in media, aka today’s pamphleteering.
In a competent, good-to-great HR romance, a character may be “modern” in their views, but it requires a deft hand to pull off successfully this kind of character. Sadly, few HR novels currently being published do so, and I, a reader of HR since the wild 1970s, find myself avoiding this kind of story like the plague. Why? Because it has no soul, no romance, this checklist of 2019-era topics which stand in for characters we, the readers, are supposed to like. To root for. To love.
Also, often these kinds of books have elements of reverse sexism that drive me effin’ bonkers. Equality, it’s for everyone! Ahem. I.e. this book is predicated on a manipulative female protagonist who not only uses a close male friend for personal gain, but does so by changing him?! Argh. It’s icky to the extreme, and does no one any favors. Especially hip young female scientists….
I have not, and will not, read this book. I probably would have done if the author had taken one item off her checklist, and let her characters organically act, react, and interact with it without having to employ double standards to do so.
Finally, ending on the obligatory snarky note: Another series with RAKES in the title? C’mon. Isn’t it time other garden implements get their moment?
” Isn’t it time other garden implements get their moment?” How about hoes?
Seriously, though, you are right about the whole checklist thing. (I’ve gotten in a lot of trouble for using that term, so I’m glad it’s not just me.) Characters acting organically is definitely the way to go.
I come from a different school of thought on the role of ideas and ideologies in art. Fiction has always been about ideas and ideologies, sometimes overtly and sometimes subtly, but it’s always there in any book, and this is not something new in 2019. Historical fiction is always as much, if not more, about the current moment than it is the past. That has always been the case and always will be the case. Authors do not exist in vacuums but instead exist in the world right there with all of us, and so if you see ideas expressed in a work of fiction that resonate with our current world events, authors experience them as well. And even if an author deliberately tried to avoid current ideas from infiltrating their writing, it would be impossible to do so completely. However, some authors are definitely more overtly making current ideas the plot of their stories. That’s also always been the case. I do agree that it requires a deft hand to pull off a thoughtful examination of ideas, but isn’t that always the case about any of these issues? And yes, referring to a “checklist” of issues is often code for race, gender, sexuality, disability, age, etc. As Courtney Milan so quickly captured the issue a month ago in response to reader comments here on this site, white, straight, middle/upper class male is never defined as a “checklist,” while books about marginalized peoples and issues often are. Double standard? Yes. And reverse racism isn’t a real thing – but it is a great example of white ideology.
“And yes, referring to a “checklist” of issues is often code for race, gender, sexuality, disability, age, etc.” I would argue it depends on both how characters are presented as well as parameters of the given genre. For example, an upper class straight white cishet male duke in Regency HR isn’t what I’d call a checklist character because, well, given the time period and place, that’s what they generally were. And most of that man’s social circle would have consisted of upper class white people. That’s just the way it was. (I *do* realize there were black members of the French aristocracy, Tudors, etc., but I am speaking *specifically* of Regency era titled people in this example.)
Now, if we’re talking about contemporary romance heroes and heroines, that might be a different story. But I say *might* because even today, many people tend to live in homogenous groups. Japan, for a modern example, is an extremely homogenous society. So it might come across as peculiar if a romance that took place there had a bunch of characters from Mexico, Poland, rural Alaska, and every other place under the sun. Of course, if an author could convince me through narrative, well-rounded characters, and plausible situations that such a mix is believable and essential to the story rather than just blatant pandering, then she could definitely get me on board. Obviously, there aren’t *just* Japanese people in Japan, but it is still a very much isolationist culture where immigration is strictly controlled by law. With this understanding, if a modern romance took place in Japan, I would expect most if not all of the characters would be Japanese. (Unless, of course, the story was dealing with an ethnic enclave such as the Ainu or Koreans, etc. Or if there were international college student romances going on, or something like that.)
I judge my reading on its entertainment value. And if it feels to me like an author is pandering or forcefully pushing a political ideology rather than creating well-rounded characters with solid narratives, then I’m generally not going to enjoy the story. Obviously, it’s a subjective rubric. What screams “pandering” to one may be a breath of fresh air to another. I’m just glad we live in a time and place where publishing is easier than ever so more stories can be told.
So I see this issue differently. An upper-class, straight, white male is defined as a “normative” construct in our society, then, and alas, even now, and therefore treated so normal that these categories become invisible. That is the power of hegemony. But not everyone accepts hegemonic identities as invisible constructs. I view them critically as part of a discriminatory power structure, historically and even contemporaneously.
To give a quick example, I’m currently reading an excellent historical romance right now, Mia Vincy’s _A Beastly Kind of Earl_, which was given a DIK review here very recently. It has a checklist of issues: white protagonists = check. Heterosexuality = check. Young rather than middle-aged or senior protagonists = check. Patriarchy = check, though interrogated with respect to the discriminatory impact patriarchy has on the women in the book. Middle/upper-class protagonist = check, though interrogated with respect to the negative impact it has on those born into lower classes. Able-bodied characters = check, though interrogated with respect to the negative impact mental illness has on people’s lives and the lack of treatment options available to those unlucky enough to be afflicted. An adept author like Vincy can juggle many categories and not all authors are as good a writer, for sure, but nevertheless, ALL books feature checklists of identities. Some authors are critically skeptical of the power embodied in each category and some authors put forth these categories from a hegemonic position that positions them as static and unquestioned in terms of power structures. The word “checklist” is is a neutral term, but it embodies power depending on how it is used. If “checklist” is used only in the context of pointing out marginalized people, then it is becomes a discriminatory term.
I too judge my reading on its entertainment value, but I sense that I define “entertainment” differently than some here. Hegemonic representations are probably not going to feel particularly entertaining to me. Promoting hegemony feels like pandering and it feels like it’s pushing a political ideology. In the end, it really comes down to where one stands on an issue.
“In the end, it really comes down to where one stands on an issue.” I suppose. But for me, the term “checklist” is more of a presentational issue. A book or movie can certainly contain a diverse cast of characters and tackle a number of political issues without *feeling* like the creator is working off of a checklist. Let me give a concrete example from cinema.
“Dog Day Afternoon,” which I have mentioned many times before, is what I would consider to be a perfect movie. For those who haven’t seen it, it is based on a true story of a bizarre robbery that became a 14 hour hostage situation in New York City in the early 1970s. Because of all the issues it tackles, someone might think I would accuse it of working from a checklist. Not so! Because the writer, director, and actors *show* rather than *tell* the story, it never feels like it’s preaching or espousing a particular view. I would not regard it as a “checklist” even though it contains all of the following issues and then some: Stockholm syndrome, Lima syndrome, race, prejudice, gender issues, homosexuality, bisexuality, transgender/transexuality, the Vietnam War, mental illness, police brutality, unemployment, fake news, notoriety vs fame, and so forth. It is how these issues are *presented* in the narrative rather than the fact they are *present.*
Without getting into too many spoilers, there is a scene in the movie in which the robbers release a hostage during negotiations- an elderly black man who is suffering from an asthma attack. When they send him outside, a number of policemen descend upon him under the mistaken assumption that he is one of the robbers. In addition to poor communication that caused confusion in the first place, the police obviously make their assumption based on sex and race. But the reason this scene works is because nobody plants himself in front of a microphone or behind a lectern to lament how racism led to an almost tragic mistake. Instead, we are simply *shown* what happens. The audience can then say, “Ah hah!” instead of some obnoxious character coming to the forefront *telling* the viewers how awful the occurrence was. All throughout the film, the viewer is treated in the same intelligent fashion. And with a story as delicate and multifaceted as “Dog Day Afternoon,” it would have been extremely easy to allow the work to decay into an over-the-top melodrama, preachy political diatribe, or cringe-worthy farce. Instead, the wonderful writing, directing, and acting is a master class in subtlety. There are so many issues woven into the narrative without ever having to bash the viewer over the head with a message or viewpoint. That’s what I mean when I say I want well-rounded characters and great stories as opposed to checklists.
So, I don’t conceive of checklists merely as a presentational or aesthetic thing, in what literary criticism calls a formalist sense, and that’s largely because books, or films for that matter, are cultural products that emerge from a society. When art endorses sexist representations or racist representations, etc., and for me that can certainly include silence on an issue, that is targeting a certain mindset receptive to those ideas, or even trying to reinforce prevailing discriminatory ideas. Alternatively, feminist and anti-racist ideas overtly, subtly, or even subconsciously challenge existing power structures. As one of my former professors declared frequently, all power is up for grabs.
What you seem to be describing from your feelings about watching Dog Day Afternoon is that inept handling of social ideas in a work of art is “working off a checklist.” I would state instead that inept handling of social ideas is inept handling of social ideas. Some artists do it well and some artists do not. Isn’t that the case with everything? And absolutely, showing rather than telling in fiction is a great artistic skill. But the “checklist” is always there, regardless of how well a story is conveyed to us.
“What you seem to be describing from your feelings about watching Dog Day Afternoon is that inept handling of social ideas in a work of art is ‘working off a checklist.'” Inept handling is a large part of it, but I also consider things to be a “checklist” when it is clear (again, this is subjective) that an artist is putting the social issues in a more prominent position than the story and characters. (I.e. characters should come first in a narrative). I’ve mentioned this before, to the chagrin of many, that there are many writers out there who have been pressured by publishers or whoever to add and alter characters/situations that were not part of their original vision. I won’t repeat here what I said before as I don’t want to be dragged into that firestorm again.
I partially agree with your statement that books and films are cultural products. But I look at things on a case by case basis. To me, it doesn’t matter *who* writes a particular story as long as it is written *well.* Being a writer myself, I’m certain there are times when I am unintentionally heavy-handed, but I always try to let the characters I create guide my writing to prevent political viewpoints from dominating when they shouldn’t. Naturally, I *have* viewpoints, but my characters do not always share them. And if a character *does* spout off something political, it is because his words are true to the character and current situation he is in, not because I am using him as a mouthpiece for my own beliefs.
Continuing with political messages in art, a lot of critics try to ascribe meaning/symbolism/political statements where none were intended. For example, James Kirkwood, who the book and play “P.S. Your Cat is Dead,” was astounded that the campy comedy he wrote was being declared an anthem to bisexuality and a pushback against feminism. His response was essentially, “Uh… no. It’s just a funny story about a bisexual burglar who gets tied to a table by the homeowner and they forge an odd relationship from that point. There’s no political message here. It’s just a silly scenario I thought of.”
In regard to silence on an issue, how does one judge what should have been included in a story, but wasn’t? There’s a lot of issues out there, and they can’t all be (and shouldn’t be!) stuffed into one story.
It’s obvious you and I have different beliefs regarding the nature of art and social issues. But I think the best way to make us both happy is to have as many books in the world as possible so we each have stories to read that suit our particular sensibilities.
Yes, Nan, we have completely different views on nearly everything you just wrote, and so it’s pointless to keep the dialogue going. You have a handful of people here at AAR though that share your views and so happy conversing,, or commiserating, lol.
I can say that I have been a romance reader all of my life and have actually never been happier with the state of romance writing today. Such a breath of fresh air from the past in so many ways on “checkpoint issues” of diversity, and much in keeping with the changing demographics of the country. Not only are so many of today’s romances indicative of where we are right now in our culture wars, but it’s likely our future.
Yeah, I’ll be over here reading for fun.
Me too. I don’t know what kind of books float your boat, but I just had the best time reading the Harlequin Intrigue title “Renegade Protector” by Nico Rosso.
“I…have actually never been happier with the state of romance writing today.” I’m glad for you. There are so many books out there nowadays to choose from, which is great. And there’s always room for more. Those of us who aren’t happy with current offerings have the option to write and publish stories of our own. If you were to ask me, “What is the greatest thing about the state of writing today?” I would absolutely say, “free and easy self-publishing.”
Happy reading!
I am very interested to know: which publishers have been urging authors to add more diverse characters or issues to their stories?
Based on what I have seen, publishers are more conservative than the reading public (and often more than authors). Someone once told me that every publisher wants to be the *second* one on any hot new bandwagon (eg, chick lit, vampires, rom-com) because none of them want to chance being first and spending money on a flop. If publishers urge authors to do ANYTHING, it’s in pursuit of selling more books–which is why you see so many dukes and rakes in HR. Publishers have convinced themselves those will sell well, and so they will tell authors “make him a duke.”
Indie authors are freer from those concerns, but AFAIK they also want to sell books. There are plenty of dukes, rakes, sex clubs, etc. in indie HR.
Good question. I don’t have specific publisher names, only several anecdotes from disgruntled authors who have been burned or rejected by what they describe as mainstream publishers. And I’m sure they don’t want to point fingers at specific publishers to avoid accusations of slander. But I can share a few incidents I know about. Obviously, my evidence is anecdotal, but I think these examples are illustrative.
Start with this interesting article by Ellen Finnigan. In it, she describes how different mainstream publishers tried to force her to make her *MEMOIR* either more explicitly religious or secular based upon marketing decisions. She also mentions a friend who was forced to include an accidental decapitation, drag race, and steamboat fire to his book in order to get published: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/ellen-finnigan/why-i-decided-to-publish-directly-through-amazon/.
Here is a copy and paste from an earlier post I wrote on the subject:
“A few more examples of the phenomenon I have been describing:
I know of a man who wrote a modern-day hard boiled detective story in the style of the old grisly film noirs. This man, who was somewhat established in journalism, was rejected by multiple publishers who told him, “You know what’s hot right now? Chic female college-educated detectives who know which fork to eat snails with. You want to get published? Change your character to a female, or get lost.” Now, this man was quick to clarify that he had *no problem* with intelligent, attractive female detectives. But this was NOT the story he wanted to tell. So he self-published.
See my earlier post about Ellen Finnegan. She was told to put more church scenes in her *memoir* if she wanted to be published. And other publishers told her, “Your book is too religious. Make it secular.” She self-published.
I also know of a traditionally published science fiction author who lost his contract because he was adamant about giving the robot villains a unique, albeit extremely controversial motive, for taking over the world. He ended up legally breaking ties with his publishing house so he could self-publish the story he wanted to tell.
Patti Davis, who wrote a great f/f novel entitled “Till Human Voices Wake Us,” was not permitted to publish this story traditionally because it did not feature a cameo appearance from the Reagans. (Long story.) She self-published.
It happens in nonfiction too. An economist wanted to write about his insights on life and love. His publisher told him, “You are a stockbroker and trends analyst. Those are the only kinds of books of yours that we will publish.” Guess what? He self-published.
Obviously, my examples go both ways. Some authors are told to be more inclusive while others are told to be more exclusive.”
“If publishers urge authors to do ANYTHING, it’s in pursuit of selling more books” Absolutely. And their strong-armed suggestions can be totally contrary to an author’s creative vision. From a sales standpoint, I totally get it. Writing to market is a real thing. Writers have to eat too! But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re telling the stories they want to tell in the way they want to tell them.
“Publishers have convinced themselves those will sell well, and so they will tell authors ‘make him a duke.'” Yep. Totally true. AAR’s Marian Perera got her HR with an architect hero rejected because he wasn’t titled or heir to a large fortune.
As for diversity, look at pretty much every publishing house’s submission guidelines (the ones that accept unsolicited submissions). Except for religious presses, they pretty much all now say something like “We support #ownvoices, LGBT, marginalized stories…” etc. Whether they are just paying lip service to their mission statement versus actually doing it is another matter. But it has become a statement de jour. So the question is, do these companies really believe the statement or do they just not want to offend a certain segment of readers by not leaving the statement off? Interesting to think about…
I follow lots of authors of color and feminist romance authors on social media where they are very active, and their beliefs infiltrate their art, just as authors invested in whiteness and a nostalgia for conventional gender relationships allow their beliefs to permeate their stories. More than anything else, what’s happening on the ground today is driving the stories being told. I never read authors of color or feminist authors bemoaning that they are forced to write about feminist or diverse issues. They are invested in their belief systems and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to diminish them.
“I never read authors of color or feminist authors bemoaning that they are forced to write about feminist or diverse issues.” I wasn’t referring to authors who are writing stories they want to write. I was talking about authors who are pressured into changing their stories in order to be published. And it works both ways. For example, I have heard black authors similarly bemoan mainstream publishing’s attitudes toward their stories for being “too black” or “not black enough” or taking place in a time period other than the Civil War or Civil Rights Era. Some have been pressured to change the race of characters or to throw in a token white character to allegedly appeal to a mainstream audience. Refusing to put black characters on book covers for marketing reasons is a well known problem. And I agree wholeheartedly with authors who have brought attention to these issues. Many of them self-published as well so their stories weren’t altered either. Unfortunately, the big problems with self-publishing are editing, cover design, and visibility.
It certainly happens in Hollywood. Kevin Kwan, author of “Crazy Rich Asians,” was told by one studio to change his protagonist to a white woman if he wanted to have his movie made! He told them that defeated the entire purpose of the story. Luckily, he found another studio to pick up the story without having to pander to some distorted view of what audiences supposedly wanted. But if Mr. Kwan was a struggling author instead of a bestseller, he might have had to take any offer to mangle his work, just to make some money for dinner- or do without.
“They are invested in their belief systems and to suggest otherwise is an attempt to diminish them.” Who’s diminishing them? I never said someone with different beliefs can’t or shouldn’t write stories. I say, the more stories the better! What I object to, as a writer, is when fellow writers’ visions are tampered with to the point where the author must make concessions they don’t want to make in order to pay their utility bills- and/or avoid getting pilloried on social media for going against the grain.
P.S. “Alternatively, feminist and anti-racist ideas overtly, subtly, or even subconsciously challenge existing power structures.” Art can absolutely change people’s hearts and minds, no argument here! But if the intent is to present an issue, I think the best way to win over someone in literature is by treating characters as well-rounded *individuals.* On the other hand, a story can be just a story with the caveat that author has no control over how someone may interpret that story in a manner other than intended.
@Blackjack – ”And reverse racism isn’t a real thing – but it is a great example of white ideology.”
I actually wrote “reverse sexism.” We obviously approach reading romances very differently, and I clearly stated my position being, well, my position. As yours is yours. The important thing is we both enjoy romance books.
@Nan de Plume – Glad you’re punny! And thanks for letting me know that the word ”checklist” is internet (?) code. Oh, la. I rarely comment online, for this reason exactly. It’s amazing how many people delight in dishing out spankings.
Aw, thanks Madge for your comments. The whole thing about “checklists” was referring to some hot water I was in not too long ago here at AAR. Some famous romance authors took offense to a comment I made about diversity in historical romance and it blew up on Twitter for a couple of days. I don’t want to rehash that argument, but I will say there was a big hang-up about my having used the word “checklist” to describe improbable historical romances (among other things).
“Glad you’re punny!” Heh heh. As a self-published erotica writer, it’s part of the package deal. I think it’s also part of the reason why I can’t believe that all art is somehow political or reflects the author’s views. For a shamelessly self-promoting example, my most recent erotica short story stars a burglar who stumbles upon the male homeowner and they have a fling (I don’t want to get any dirtier on this forum unless someone’s *really* curious). Now, I am *not* in any way endorsing burglary or unsafe sexual practices just because I wrote a story about those things. It is just a funny, kinky story designed to entertain readers and get them off. I wouldn’t say there’s anything political about that. It’s just good, dirty fun!
“It’s amazing how many people delight in dishing out spankings.” They ought to write erotica. Then they could get paid for their sadistic inclinations!
So, reverse sexism also isn’t a real thing since women do not as a *group* have access to anywhere near the same systemic and institutional levels of economic, social, or political power of men. And yes, I do agree that it sounds as if we approach reading differently.
I can see most (although not all – I stand by the tobacco thing) of these things working for any character. What stretches belief is characters that believe ALL of them. What leaves belief at ever-increasing distance in the rear view mirror is characters who believe all of them at very young ages with no contextual motivation (neither has traveled like the men in your example, or belongs to an activist group like Quakers, or has unconventional parents, etc) AND with no supporting characters or scenes indicating that any of this except “lady scientist” is unusual or controversial. It’s all very “oh, yes, those marbles, such a shame” and then next topic.
.
“I can see most (although not all – I stand by the tobacco thing) of these things working for any character. What stretches belief is characters that believe ALL of them.” I think that sums it up perfectly. While it’s certainly okay for a HR hero or heroine to have a period appropriate political cause, someone who was that *radical* (for that time period) in every area probably wouldn’t have made much headway in any of their beliefs. If anything, they might find themselves put in an asylum. (This is not a facetious comment. There is a long, unfortunate history of people- particularly women- who got committed just for holding radical viewpoints.)
Even in a contemporary novel, at what point does the character have so many causes, political opinions, and beliefs that it crowds out the narrative? In other words, at what point does the character cease to feel like a character and becomes little more than a political bullhorn? I assure you, that no matter how enlightened a character is, if she’s realistic, she’s going to have mornings where she oversleeps, petty worries regarding her day to day life, bad hair days, and so forth.
Yeah, the tobacco thing would pull me out of the story too. But thank you, Caroline (not AAR) for giving some concrete historical examples of real life rebels of their time.
I guess I see how some of the issues mentioned in the review could be connected–if a character has great affinity for animals and hates to see their natural habitats destroyed, it is consistent, IMHO, that she would also dislike taxidermy (which AFAIK in the 1700s was about preserving specimens for study, meaning they were killed for that purpose). If you believe in conservation and not destroying things, what Lord Elgin did the to Parthenon is virtually criminal. And I don’t think that opinion was “radical,” though in the end Parliament decided for Elgin.
As for the smoking…. I don’t know. I will say that all the really smart people (intellectuals, I guess) I’ve known have held a number of sometimes eccentric opinions, especially in regards to their areas of interest, which they study more intensely than anyone else. If this character were just an ordinary rake and gentleman, I’d roll my eyes at the smoking statement, too. From a nerdy quasi-anthropologist, though… yeah, maybe. If he read it in some tract by an explorer that influenced him deeply, he might say that.
Again, if it feels like too much, or too strange to a reader, then that’s that. A few unlikely things and facts will season a story, and too many can overwhelm it. But that is a fault of story-telling, not of writing “modernisms.”
“I will say that all the really smart people (intellectuals, I guess) I’ve known have held a number of sometimes eccentric opinions” Oh, definitely! But like you said, it depends upon the context. I like your example of an explorer who was deeply influenced by his travels (Mark Twain actually comes to mind in this case!) And what constitutes “too modern” in a romance hero/heroine is highly subjective.
I think a lot of times, HR authors try to make their heroes and heroines more relatable and likeable for the modern reader by giving them solidly 21st century viewpoints without enough complexity or nuance. It’s certainly a delicate balance. On the one hand, a lot of romance readers would be offended by a hero who is the wealthy son of a sugar plantation owner- unless he was somehow a staunch abolitionist who gave up everything for his principles. On the other hand, do all HR heroes and heroines have to embody modern sensibilities? It’s an interesting, often-controversial question without clear answers.
“A few unlikely things and facts will season a story, and too many can overwhelm it. But that is a fault of story-telling, not of writing ‘modernisms.'” Absolutely! People have always been people, and there have always been oddballs and outliers within any given time and place. I say, the more stories out there, the better.
“I think a lot of times, HR authors try to make their heroes and heroines more relatable and likeable for the modern reader by giving them solidly 21st century viewpoints.”
Of course they do. No one writing or reading today was raised in the 18th or 19th centuries. I just read a (delightful) Carla Kelly book where the hero and heroine discover their neighbor is Jewish, and no one has ever visited them. Instead of being as anti-Semitic as the rest of the neighborhood, the hero and heroine become friends with the family. Anachronistic? Quite possibly. Do I prefer it that way? Absolutely. It is entirely POSSIBLE that the hero and heroine could do this, and their characters as written made it PLAUSIBLE to me.
“what constitutes “too modern” in a romance hero/heroine is highly subjective.”
Well…. sometimes. Being upset about the Elgin marbles is not Too Modern. Being interested in conservation is not Too Modern. Knowing about the clitoris and women’s sexual pleasure is not Too Modern. It just doesn’t fit with some readers’ sensibilities about “what the Olden Tymes and Its Peoples were like” which is often based largely on previous romances or novels they’ve read. THAT is what bothers me.
Again, if the author’s handling of the material doesn’t work for a reader: that’s one thing, and I would never tell any reader she should like a book just because it contains X. But don’t throw that off onto complaints about the author writing fake historicals.
“I’m what is now known as a herpetologist.”
Rotherby started. “You study… herpes? The disease?”
“Not herpes! Herpetology.”
– Yup. Naming a disease of prostitutes is a totally expected conversation between a young, unmarried woman and a duke in the 1810s.
“Ah. Excellent.” He beamed. “She’s highly regarded within scientific circles, and I eagerly await learning more about her.”
– Yup. Totally normal enthusiastic scientific community reaction to a 20-something unpublished female with no academic credentials..
“Naturally, he couldn’t show or speak of [his affection for Rotherby]. Men simply understood each other. Ah, the hell with it. When had adhering to codes of masculine conduct benefited anyone? He wrapped an arm around a startled Rotherby’s shoulders and pulled him close in an embrace.”
– Yup. Totally historically plausible critique of toxic masculinity preventing male physical affection, in a time when Nelson’s dying request was for an embrace and a kiss from his… male friend.
“More than half of their upcoming expedition to South America would include female natural philosophers.”
– Yup. Totally normal majority-female 19th century scientific expedition.
“It was Lady Farris’s intention that her foundation would serve as a kind of watchdog, to report on damage done by England’s fervor for empire and expansion.”
– Yup, Totally typical anti-imperial sentiment from the wife of a duke predating mainstream anti-imperialism by 70 years, and also before the vast majority of the British imperial period actually took place (the book is set in 1817;
There are even things as small as Sebastian’s references to having played football – rules were not laid down for football until 1815, a good decade after Sebastian left Eton, so while it’s not IMPOSSIBLE for him to have played it – just as these other things are not IMPOSSIBLE, it is WEIRD, And what’s worse, things are not internally consistent. A society in which a majority-female expedition is being funded and a young woman is highly regarded by scientific peers is not one wherein the heroine should be a social pariah for her scientific interests.
For me, the barrage of exceptional-as-normal and “well if you squint at the dates a little you could make it work,” and “this COULD have happened!” made me feel less that the author was presenting an under-told and under-represented historical perspective and more that she was either indifferent to or ignorant of history. If “modern” is a trigger word for you, maybe it would be better to say “ahistorical,” or even “alternate reality history.”
Thanks for citing all these examples. I’ve been following this discussion, and have to say that what you’ve said makes perfect sense to me. I’m someone for whom historical accuracy is important, but I do know that there are readers out there who take the label way too far and won’t accept PoC or queer characters in HR, for instance. I’m not one of them – I’m well aware that there were black Londoners in Tudor times, that there were women running businesses and that sex was as much of a business “back then” as it ever has been, and I don’t think I’ve ever called “impossible” rather than “implausible.”
But this list of implausibilities is a lot to swallow for one book,
Yes, “historically accurate” can be a dogwhistle for “no PoCs, no LGBTQ+,” and I absolutely don’t agree with that (it’s not just bigoted, it’s NOT historically accurate!).
But I appreciate Caroline Who Isn’t Me :) drawing attention to the word “modern,” which in retrospect I agree is probably not the right term for what I’m critiquing. Some of it is modern, but the majority-female scientific expedition isn’t even typical now. Maybe “aspirational” is the better word.
I think one reason people have such strong feelings about this kind of book is that I suspect it can inspire opposite reactions from people who identify as feminist. To some, it celebrates a history of women doing things we’ve erased them from, like science, and having identities we’ve said they lacked, like a sexual personal, and that makes it feminist. To me, though, it papers over the erasure, and neglects to address the obstacles, and that feels insulting to what historical figures struggled against. I argue that the history is dubious here, but whether that adds to or detracts from your reading experience is up to you.
Who uses historically accurate as a dog whistle? Can you show me what you mean?
@Caz Owens and @CarolineAAR- Thank you for providing so many concrete examples and elaborations.
I’ve mentioned this before, but I think a lot of readers would benefit if HR authors included back matter to support the stories they tell. While it certainly shouldn’t be a requirement to justify the stories they write, giving specific examples from history that provided the foundation for their work can help educate and inspire the reader to learn more through nonfiction sources. Beverly Jenkins is excellent at providing resources for additional research. Cat Sebastian’s back matter for “A Duke in Disguise,” which featured a printmaker heroine in a romance with her engraver apprentice, was especially enlightening.
Also, I think it would behoove HR authors to write many stories rather than trying to cram so many topics into one book. Yes, I realize many HR authors are prolific, but maybe sticking to one or two major issues per book- or weaving in multiple topics more thoughtfully- would help improve narratives. Just a thought.
I personally enjoy when writers include author notes at the end of a book and I almost always make sure to read them. But, I would also put some onus on readers to look things up, and certainly anytime something strikes them as historically inaccurate. It’s literally never been easier to look up anything while reading, and especially if one is using an e-reader with wifi. It’s right there at our fingertips – anything from WIkipedia to Google Scholar. I can’t be the only reader who routinely looks things up when reading a work of fiction.
I definitely support independent research. You’re right that it’s never been easier than ever. And like you, I enjoy and appreciate when authors include notes as a starting point, especially considering how the vastness of the internet can be overwhelming as well as informative.
“I can’t be the only reader who routinely looks things up when reading a work of fiction.” I hope a lot of readers do that. It’s a good habit to get into, whether looking up unfamiliar vocabulary, a historical tidbit, or even about the author herself. For some reason, I tend to do more independent research after watching movies than reading books, but a never-ending quest for knowledge is always a good thing- regardless of entertainment medium.
If you had cited these things in your review, I wouldn’t have commented! I agree most of them are wildly unlikely (if technically possible) in 1817.
Although the football issue is muddied. I always thought soccer/football had been played for…. centuries? Again I do not remember how the book treated it.
Historical romance has always been as much historical fantasia as historical fact, from the 70s bodice rippers onward. I mean things like the hero who is always taller than the average man of *today* (let alone the 1810s), who is immensely rich (from sources usually unmentioned or unseen), yet who never has to do much to maintain that vast empire, because he’s out gambling all night for high stakes (but he never loses everything) or having Olympic-level sex with a variety of women (yet never catches the clap). To say nothing of heroines who are all intrepid bluestockings (even if they never touch a book in the story) who are determined to marry for love and not money (yet somehow manage to snare a rich duke anyway) who don’t give a toss for society’s opinion of them (but still are seen as Originals) and don’t think of themselves as beautiful at all (though everyone else thinks they are gorgeous and sexy to the extreme). There is always a balancing act between historical accuracy and romantic fantasy, where too much “accuracy” can put a damper on the HAPPILY-ever-after, but of course each reader (and author) will have a different balancing point.
“Historical romance has always been as much historical fantasia as historical fact” Nicely said- love this!
“There is always a balancing act between historical accuracy and romantic fantasy, where too much “accuracy” can put a damper on the HAPPILY-ever-after, but of course each reader (and author) will have a different balancing point.” AMEN!
You’ve made some great points here in this thread, Caroline. I’m not a historian though I am a professor of literature and I’ve stumbled upon so many ideas in historical writings, fictional and non-fictional, that pleasantly surprise and remind me constantly that the 21st century does not own the ideas we consider “modern.” As a reader of historical romances, I tend not to be a stickler for “accuracy” and try to give authors plenty of freedom to construct stories they want to tell, I fear that the bemoaning of loss of accuracy has unpleasant political repercussions directed at minority groups, and that makes me even more open minded about “inaccuracies” in historical writing. But again, as a reader primarily of literature from previous centuries, today’s readers would be well served to go back in time and read what people were writing on many of these topics.
The times I read something in a book and thought “What?! That can’t be right, I’ve never heard of that…” I turn out to be wrong, and the author correct, more often than the reverse. Truth is usually stranger than the fiction any author could make up.
“Again, if the author’s handling of the material doesn’t work for a reader: that’s one thing, and I would never tell any reader she should like a book just because it contains X.” Oh, goodness, no! I don’t believe in telling people what they should or shouldn’t like either. I just give my own (often loudmouthed) opinions.
“But don’t throw that off onto complaints about the author writing fake historicals.” Again, I really think that depends. As a concrete example, I enjoyed reading “Once a Scoundrel” by Mary Jo Putney, but there was at least one line I could tell she threw in *specifically* for a 21st century readership, and it pulled me out of the story. The context was this: There was a side character who owned slaves and (I think) had a harem in the early 1800s somewhere in the Middle East. Okay, I was prepared to accept this as part of the time period and cultural context.
But what did Ms. Putney do? Instead of just letting the readers draw their own conclusions, the heroine complains to the hero that the man he has a tenuous alliance with owns slaves. Again, I can buy the abolitionist angle. Her objection is completely understandable and yes, period appropriate. But what does the hero say? He says, and I quote from memory, “He is a person of his time and place.” Okay, that right there is a 21st century phrase. I’m not saying nobody ever said it, but it definitely felt like a 21st century *wink, wink* to me rather than how a sea captain in the early 1800s would more likely respond to the heroine’s completely justified outrage. What might have worked better, at least for me, is if the hero responded more along the lines of, “I understand why you are upset. And I can’t say I believe in the institution myself. But since our survival depends upon this man, I’m afraid we’re going to have to hold our tongues and make some allowances.” Or something like that. But throwing in the clearly modern line “He is a person of his time and place” (no kidding) just felt like pandering.
Also, negging is modern.
I grant you that term is very modern (though the concept hardly is). I don’t remember it from my read of the book so I didn’t comment on that.
So, to each their own about what “feels” modern, but some of these things listed WERE period-appropriate and are not “modernisms” at all. They might not have been the majority feeling at the time, but ‘cmon–there are people who still believe the earth is flat. To say that NO ONE in 1817 would oppose/dislike taxidermy is….really broad.
-Lord Byron and others considered Elgin’s appropriation of the Parthenon marbles an act of vandalism and theft. There was enough contemporary “clucking” that Parliament debated what to do with them multiple times in the 1810s.
-Sex manuals had been around since at least the 1600s, written for ladies and for men (including mention of the clitoris as the “seat of venereal pleasure” for a woman). Some of these same sex manuals straight-out say that a *good* lover brings his partner pleasure equal to his own.
-Some people disliked Humphrey Repton’s work (landscape architecture) because he interfered with the “natural order of the world,” by filling in natural ponds and sculpting hills for the most elegant view from a house.
-Some people did deplore the racially superior attitudes of the time, whether it was arguing for the abolition of slavery or marrying Indian women and adopting their culture (there are some notable cases of EIC men doing this, even converting to Hinduism).
If the author’s incorporation of these things doesn’t WORK for the reader, that’s entirely up each individual reader to judge. But I see a lot moaning about “modernisms” in historical romance that aren’t modern at all, and it bothers me.
Oh shucks…..another one bites the dust! I will return it to the library without reading it.
I am so over these modern historicals
I’ve enjoyed some of Ms. Leigh’s books in the past but I think I’m going to give this one a miss. If you want to read a much more convincing rake-makeover story, I’d suggest Rakes and Radishes by Susanna Ives. it’s not always an easy read – the heroine is not a particularly likeable character for half of the book – but it packs a punch.
Great review, Ms. Russomanno. I love how you bullet pointed the list of modernisms/thought anachronisms.
This sounds like a skip for me. But may I just say, I LOVE that the cover features a library.
More like a D-/F+ for me based on Caroline’s thoughtful review. Seems to have a real “ick” factor so I am glad Caroline read it on my behalf so I don’t have to!