Desperately Seeking Medievals
Have you noticed that medievals, once a staple of the historical category, have become thin on the ground?
Yesterday, I re-read Dark Champion by Jo Beverley off my keeper shelf. I expected it to have some age issues, since the book was originally published in 2003, but I really enjoyed it. I appreciate that Beverley incorporates religion into her setting (a fanatical priest advising the heroine against lust; issues around being asked to swear an oath on the cross), and also that the heroine chafes at the legal restrictions on women without the author sweeping those restrictions away.
Now I’m reading By Possession by Madeline Hunter, from 2000. It’s the last book I haven’t read from her Medievals series, and I’ve loved the other books. In addition to knights, Hunter explores the lives of non-nobles, such as a wealthy merchant and a hardworking freemason. And for another under-explored corner of the medieval world (medieval Europe had non-white people in it!), after that I plan to read Agnes Moor’s Wild Knight by Alyssa Cole.
But even the Cole book is from 2014. Is there anything more recent?
I checked our database:
2016: No Medieval Europe reviews. Jeannie Lin’s novella The Liar’s Dice is set in medieval/Tang Dynasty China; it earned a C.
2017: 10, but 7 of these are from an effort to get Top 100 books into the database. Only 3 new releases, none above B+)
2018: 1 review (The Princess by Elizabeth Elliott, A-; The Golden Hairpin by Qinghan CeCe is set in medieval/Tang Dynasty China but is not a romance)
2019: 1 review (The Dark Knight by Elizabeth Elliott; book was a 2012 release)
2020: 2 reviews (Uncovering the Merchant’s Secret by Elisabeth Hobbes, A-; Forbidden Warrior by Kris Kennedy, D)
Now, obviously, AAR isn’t reviewing every single release. But it’s still an indicator that these are dark times in the kingdom for what was once a powerhouse subgenre.
So can you help me? Have you read any recent-ish medievals (published since, say, 2015 or so) that are good? If so, what were they?
And finally, if you are looking to get caught up on medievals, here are some tags that may help:
Arthurian (technically the Dark Ages but it has knights and princess and all the good stuff)
The Anarchy Matilda of vs. Stephen
1400s, 1500s, Tudor, Elizabethan, (We’re getting into the Renaissance here but it may still be what you are looking for)
~ Caroline Russomanno
I’m in agreement with everyone who speaks about the difficulty of accurately portraying the times – creating an authentic world – but then running into archaic attitudes that today’s readers would find horrifying, offensive, and not-at-all-romantic. It seems there is a spectrum with a very thin middle ground, and you have to choose between accuracy, with all of its misogyny, racism, poor hygiene, violence, cruelty and the like, or something more palatable with 21st sensibilities but then, obviously, far from realistic to the times.
That said, when I used to read medievals back in the “old days” (think Julie Garwood, Judith McNaught), much of their appeal, for me, was the ability to indulge in taboo fantasies that were only possible because they were framed by the un-enlightened attitudes of that time period. In real life (in any time period), I could never imagine a circumstance in which a young woman might fall in love with the enemy she was forced to marry to create some alliance, but if set in a medieval time period, I could accept such a premise and enjoy the story as a purely fictional fantasy. I’m sure that the actual details of the characters’ lives were far from accurate, but that never bothered me much. It’s been a long time since I’ve read a medieval, and I’m sure that some of those old skool originals will not have stood the test of time. I may have to give one or two a re-read to see what my more grown-up self thinks about them now.
Another challenge for authors writing Medieval romance is deciding which vocabulary to use. Shakespeare was a real game-changer for the English language, adding and/or recording over 1,700 words and phrases for the first time. But if you get back into the Chaucer era, and before, the language isn’t really English as we understand it. Heck, Elizabethan English isn’t even English as we understand it.
So the question becomes, how accurately can the writer reflect the language without making the book unreadable? Which anachronisms does the author use versus reject? Obviously, there has always been a convention combined with suspension of disbelief in regard to English language books that take place in countries that do not use English. But with proto-English, it can get tricky. Because to make a story set in 1200 England is going to require a heavy amount of fudging to make it readable without sounding too modern.
Lately I’ve been rereading the Valdemar fantasy series by Mercedes Lackey, set in a vaguely Medieval society that might correspond to later Medieval England where technology and culture are concerned. She completely avoids the religious problem by having her society accept any and all religions because of the philosophy of “no one true way.”
The thing that struck me during this reread was her use of language. Her characters speak completely modern English and include many of our modern colloquialisms and sayings. There is no attempt whatsoever to use archaic language. Not romance, but that’s how one writer has chosen to create her pre-modern society.
She includes many Medieval and Early Modern realities. For instance, when one of her Herald heroes is posing as a servant of a titled “lady” and her “father“ during a supposed pleasure trip, the “servants“ share the bed of the other “commoners” staying in the same inn. She also loves to provide the detailed underpinnings of her world, describing sewage systems, laundry workers, and the constant work of maintaining daily life before modern conveniences.
“There is no attempt whatsoever to use archaic language.” It sounds like the decision works for a fantasy series. Although I wonder how effective it would be in a Medieval historical fiction or romance. I know reviewers and commenters here who grit their teeth when an HR character in a Regency, let alone Medieval, uses words like “Okay.”
No one has mentioned the fact that “medieval” covers a whole lot of time. There’s a big difference between 1066 and 1492, and there’s a big difference between a castle on the Welsh border and Constantinople. It kind of annoys me when people say “medieval” as if it’s all the same thing when different periods and different places can be as different as 1920 and 2020.
You’re right, Lil! And actually Medieval can be said to begin around the 4th century according to some scholars. (Ancient and Medieval history major here.) The difference between the years 500 and 1500 is considerable, especially when you consider the lack of documentation for the period known as the Dark Ages of the early Medieval period. This was caused at least in part by the collapse of the Roman Empire.
Scholars/academics tend to separate the medieval period between dark, early, middle, high, and late, and then early modern. I don’t think in the romance genre though that the genre itself spends much time differentiating, but perhaps it would if this time in history became more popular for audiences. It’s really up to individual authors to research and provide specificity. Some authors do and some don’t.
As someone who loves medieval romance and has gone through AAR’s archives searching out good ones, I can’t second this post enough!
Although I can see why an author might be intimidated by the research levels that this setting requires, I always assumed that the recent scarcity of these books reflected a change in publishing trends. Before I found my favorite medievals, I avoided the genre because of it’s association with old school style romances. I thought the time period (like pirate romances) indicated that a novel would be full of the overcooked tropes, purple prose and historical anomalies that are more common in the previous generation of romance writing.
I’ve also enjoyed following along with the conversation in the comments about historical “realities”. I’m definitely more drawn to the version of history that Meredith Duran/Cecilia Grant/Judith Ivory conjure up than the historical “flourishes” that you’d find in a typical Lisa Kleypas/Julia Quinn story.
And, this blog post reminded me so much of a personal essay I read on Lit Hub at the beginning of the year. It’s from a literary writer who finds reading medieval history books especially comforting and I deeply related:
https://lithub.com/escaping-into-books-about-the-middle-ages-is-my-self-therapy/
That link was fun to read! I haven’t gone specifically to medieval texts but I did get interested recently in reviewing literature from historical pandemics and found fascinating similarities around what we call “social distancing” today as well as community attempts in the 16th cent. to locate hot spots in periods without social media outlets for help. I find the word resilience reassuring from this link nd like the author’s connection to climate change! I’ve also noticed on social media recently lots of Lord of the Ring references, especially conversations between Frodo and Gandalf or Frodo and Sam about living through such trying times and how we rise to the occasion.
Blackjack, I’m glad you liked it! :) The parallels are fascinating.
Kathleen Givens On A Highland Shore (1254)
Marsha Canham My Forever Love (1194)
Marsha Chanham Through A Dark Mist, In the Shadow of Midnight, and The Last Arrow (~1200 – Robin Hood series)
Julie Garwood has quite a few medievals from her early career e.g. The Bride (1100), The Wedding, The Secret, Ransom, Gentle Warrior
Elizabeth Chadwick – Almost everything she has ever written is set in the 1100s, superbly written and researched.
Sharon Kay Penman Here Be Dragons (1200s) (mostly Penman writes historical fiction, much of it set around Eleanor of Aquitane and Henry II and their brood, but this title is one of my favorite romances of all time. Superbly written and based on King John’s real daughter Joanna who he married to Llewelyn the Great of Wales. The book is about her love for both men, and being caught between these two political enemies.)
Later time periods:
Marsha Canham Across a Moonlit Sea, The Iron Rose, The Following Sea (late 1500s/early 1600s – Sir Frances Drake voyage, “Elizabethan” age, Pirate Wolf series)
Kathleen Givens Kilgannon (1712)
Outlander series of course covers most of the 1700s, beginning in the mid 1700s) as does Sara Donati’s Into the Wilderness series.
Marsha Canham The Pride of Lions, The Blood of Roses (mid 1700s, Culloden)
Sorry – meant to start this post with the observation that all the medievals I know about were published quite a while ago – even Madeleine Hunter’s – except for Elizabeth Kingston’s. And when I was poking around on the tags, the reviews for a couple of titles that I know/really liked/have really great writing (e.g. Elizabeth Chadwick’s the Winter Mantle) the reviewer cautions readers that because the book is historically accurate, it isn’t/may not be a comfortable read. Sort of right in line with the discussion here: “historically accurate” love stories set during other time periods probably have a relatively small audience. Life before the 1800s (some might argue until the invention of general anesthetics?) was generally short and brutishly hard, especially for women. So as a reader, either you “tolerate” bad stuff happening to your characters, or you live with criticism about 21st century characters in another place and time. No wonder authors pick more current time periods/other settings/fantasy worlds.
Not even the 1800s were safe. My two great-grandmothers from rural Tennessee both died within days of giving birth in 1887 and 1893. Germ theory hadn’t made it there yet and puerperal fever was probably the cause. Possibly a hemorrhage, but I think they lived a few days so probably not. One baby (my grandfather) survived; the other one died five months later.
When I was taking the History of Medieval Europe in the 1990s my professor recommended The World is Not Enough by Zoe Oldenbourg as an “authentic” Medieval novel. I’m not recommending it to romance readers because it doesn’t follow many romance “rules” and I didn’t care for it much. It begins with the marriage of two teenagers and the first thing that struck me about it was the lack of privacy. Since the teenaged hero and heroine were newlyweds, they got to use the Lord’s bed. Everyone else in the castle or manor (I don’t remember the details) slept on the floor in the same room.
When I visited the historic house built by one of my ancestors in the 1600s the museum curator brought another historic detail to my attention: nobody slept alone. Letters home from schoolboys In the 1700s and 1800s spoke of how lonely it was to sleep one to a bed.
Medieval medicine and its reliance on “humors” as the answer to everything is also pretty grim.
Sharon Penman and Elizabeth Chadwick are two of my favourite authors of Historical Fiction; their books do sometimes include romances, but those aren’t usually the central focus.
Yes! You are correct. They are not romances in the classical sense. Neither is Outlander nor Donati’s Into the Wilderness series. You’ll find all four of these authors’ work shelved in fiction sections of bookstores or libraries.
The Donati series has been on my radar for a while. Maybe it’s time to read that, too.
I’m so happy to see a whole list of recommendations here! I’ve just glommed Madeline Hunter’s medievals over the past week and I’m so sad to be finished. I always tell myself to slow down…and then don’t.
I’m currently reading The Lion and the Crow by Eli Easton, and contemplating what’s next. I love Elizabeth Kingston & welcome any/all medieval romance recs!!
Well that was a disaster.
Don’t go from Hunter to Easton. Don’t. You’ll be sad. Very, very, very sad.
You started with the very best: Hunter and Kingston. I haven’t read Easton, so I can’t tell you how it will compare to Garwood or Givens. Garwood is pretty light reading compared to Hunter/Kingston – the books are much shorter. And it’s been too long since I read the Givens. Canham’s medievals are “Robin Hood” stories – which I liked but may not be everyone else’s cup of tea. And as Caz has pointed out, Penman and Chadwick are superb authors but not “romance” writers.
I think I purchased 5 books today. I HAVE A ZILLION OTHER BOOKS TO READ.
Should have included Canham’s Far Horizon published in 2017. It belongs to the Pirate Wolf series above, set about 40 years after the first book. So about mid-1600s.
This isn’t a romance, but I loved the Elizabethan era historical fiction epic Shogun by James Clavell. All the characters are complex, unique individuals who hold period-appropriate attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors for their respective cultures. I’m sure there are scholars of Asian and/or Japanese history who would probably find inaccuracies, but it’s a fantastic book that captures the gestalt of the time period.
Clavell’s skills as a writer include characterization. The protagonist, John Blackthorne, is shaped and guided by his Anglicanism, which for the time period means hostility toward Catholics- although as a ship’s pilot, he often encounters them and at various times has to play nice for reasons of business or personal gain. He is horrified by certain cultural customs of the Japanese, particularly in regard to their beliefs about sex and gender roles. Likewise, the Japanese characters he encounters are horrified by his version of morality.
Because Clavell never slips into a 21st century lens, he is able to develop the characters as they probably would have existed in the late 16th/early 17th century. Add to that his plot, pacing, and style, and it’s what I’d call a perfect book. I wonder if he lived today though if he would get pilloried on Twitter…
I adored admired and totally totally went for Shogun.
His Tai Pan was great too, the other books had a lot of good stuff, but Shogun…. Ah, I still remember some bits and pieces of it, and the summer I read it – wonderful stuff!
Great to find another Shogun fan! For some reason, the book is hardly mentioned these days. I regard it as a classic.
I loved Tai-Pan too. Someone online said the difference in quality between Shogun and Tai-Pan is like the first and second place runners of the Olympics; Shogun wins by less than a nose.
I liked Shogun so much for the effort put into putting the hero into the totally alien Japanese culture all by himself. What he learned, how he misunderstood, what happened, it was all there, and it was a way of learning about Japan of those times (Elizabethan) that felt utterly real. He had no way to escape and he had to become someone in this society to survive, and yet he had greatest difficulties, also moral, with adapting – everything, language, behavior, wow, I still love the concept. The utter harshness of it, and yet, somehow, it still showed so much humanity.
Tai Pan was about Englishmen in Hong Kong when there were more of them. Very good, but much less special to me than Shogun, whose premise just completely caught me.
Yes to all of this! Plus the writing itself is just phenomenal. The ninja attack on the castle was just like watching a movie. Never before or since have I been pulled into a scene that I could clearly visualize in a cinematic sense.
Perhaps just as extraordinary was John Blackthorne’s basis in real life early 1600s pilot, William Adams. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Adams_(pilot)
Whether reading Shogun or Tai-Pan, James Clavell is the sort of author who makes me shake my head in shame and say, “Why do I even *pretend* to be a writer?”
I should read Shogun some day. Years ago, I found a copy of Noble House and tried it because I didn’t have anything else to read at the time, but starting that late in the series wasn’t the best idea. A ninja attack on a castle sounds awesome, though!
“I should read Shogun some day.” Go for it! You won’t be disappointed.
I know you’ve been busy with COVID issues at work, but how’s your writing coming along?
Thanks for asking! I’ve finished another historical romance. Can’t go anywhere except for work and groceries, so I’ve spent my spare time working on this manuscript. How’s your writing going?
I’m glad to hear you’ve finished another historical romance. Good luck finding a publisher (or self-publishing, as the case may be)! The stories you’ve described to me always sound so interesting, and I hope you find an editor who is sensible enough to realize that.
Speaking of historical romance, Timeworn Literary Magazine is open to submissions 2,000-5,000 words from July 1-Jul 31st if you want to try your hand at a short story. They accept various subgenres of historical fiction including romance that take place before 1996 and encourage speculative elements. They are a paying market and could be a good way to spread your name around. Perhaps a Medieval story is in order… Just a fun head’s up since you have lots of writing time. :)
Thanks for asking about my writing. As a freelancer, I hardly ever see the light of day anyway, but COVID’s been a good excuse to write like hell’s behind me. My fiftieth erotic piece, which is based on Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter,” (woo hoo for public domain!) is currently under review at KDP, but there appears to be a cover glitch. Ugh! I’ll have to fix it when it clears.
Probably most exciting for me right now, but least profitable, is that my flash fiction piece starring my ongoing erotic characters from Joey & Johnny Forever got longlisted at “Erato,” an upcoming erotica flash fiction anthology. Although I’m disappointed I wasn’t accepted because of space (they could only choose 50 stories, even though they liked mine), the editors were kind enough to write a blurb for me to include when I self-published “Panic and Passion” with two other stories (https://www.amazon.com/Panic-Passion-Johnny-Forever-Stories-ebook/dp/B08BJYJR9V).
Sorry for the shameless plug. It’s just that “Erato” is such a cool project, and I was stoked to almost make the final cut.
Any progress on your story about the architect who is not titled or heir to a large fortune? :)
Sorry I took so long to reply to this, Nan!
I couldn’t get any agents to show interest in my non-titled, working-class historical hero (though I couldn’t get anyone to beta read it either), so I shelved the manuscript for now. It’s the first in a series, so I can always try writing the other two and then self-publishing it. I’m glad you like the stories’ description! Gives me hope that there really is a readership out there.
I checked out Timeworn Literary’s website, but I don’t think any romances I’ve written would suit their word count. I’ve written a few short stories, but not straight historical or even historical with spec-fic elements. But thanks for the suggestion! It’s something to keep in mind if I write in their genre ballpark in the future.
That was a lovely blurb for “Panic and Passion”, and congrats on your fiftieth erotica! I hope the glitch is cleared and that your story is available now? What’s its title?
Hey, Marian. Thanks for writing back. I know you’ve been busy. :)
I’m sorry to hear that your manuscript is shelved at the moment. But maybe having a trilogy might be the trick, especially if you decide to publish through KDP. Recently, they added a feature that if you have at least three books in a series, they lump them together so customers can buy the whole series at once or separately. As long as you use the same series title, Amazon does the grouping automatically- no fuss required.
As for Timeworn Literary Journal, they are only open to submissions in July and October IIRC, so that’s plenty of time to consider their next submission period if you decide to go that route.
Aw, thanks for reading the blurb for “Panic and Passion.” After I posted that on here, I thought, “Ugh, really Nan? You’re shamelessly advertising and boasting on someone else’s website?” But I just couldn’t keep the news to myself. It really was a validating moment for me and my work. Plus, T.C. Mill let me put some of her and her fellow editor’s additional comments in my forward, which I couldn’t put in the product description because of Amazon’s unwritten propriety rules regarding titles, blurbs, and cover art. (For more shameless news, I recently updated that book with a free preview of the sex scene in question because I figured that would be far more interesting for potential readers than a preview of my newsy forward.)
Thank you for sharing in my joy in publishing my fiftieth erotica piece (now number 52 as of this post)! I realize self-publishing isn’t much of a barrier, but it’s still something to think about sheer numbers.
To answer your question, my erotic short story based on The Scarlet Letter is entitled “Hester Earns Her Scarlet A: An Adulterous Introduction to The Scarlet Letter.” The cover- which is thankfully fixed now!- comes from one of the public domain illustrations included in the 1877 second edition of The Scarlet Letter. I thought the image of Hester holding Dimmesdale in her arms was just so fitting: https://www.amazon.com/Hester-Earns-Her-Scarlet-Introduction-ebook/dp/B08C56CN4M/.
I also published it in paperback since it was long enough to be bound as an 8 x 5 book. My research notes are in the back of both the paperback and e-book editions. Both editions are available- Kindle Unlimited as well- no more glitches. :)
Thanks again for writing back. Good luck to you in all your endeavors! :)
Oof! I don’t know if I was clear about this or not, but I wrote the actual blurb for “Panic and Passion.” The part T.C. Mill offered to write for my use is in the bold section entitled “Praise for Panic and Passion.” So thanks again! I’m glad I was able to write a blurb that sounded good. :)
Harlequin has a category for Medieval Romances on their website. There are currently 201 entries, with one book coming out in July: https://www.harlequin.com/shop/brand/harlequin-historical.html?ct=Medieval%20Romance&rg=previousRelease&expnd=categoryname&pg=1&pz=12&ord=publicationdate%20DESC%2Ctitle_copy%20asc&vm=grid.
I have the July one for review. Spoiler: it does not solve the problem of a dearth of good medievals.
Roberta Gellis’ son just published a (final) volume of her Margarete crime books.A confusion of sins. I liked it, though it was less wide in scope than the former books.
Minette Walters has a medieval duology that got rave reviews. Not romance though. The Last Hours.
i do nor much like to read recent medieval because they seem to get religion and society mostly wrong. It is not acceptable to write characters who are medieval, truly, in their thinking and behavior, anymore. But I do not like faux Regency, faux medieval would be worse. I guess fantasy covers the ground, of a certain type of society but not the harsh ugly true way it was.
I am very curious what other Will write!
Just a detail : I wanted to edit above text within 5 minutes of writing, Just for textual clarit, and it did open it for me, but said “ not open anymore” when I tried to save. Just info how site behaves.
I agree with you, Lieselotte, about “faux” history in romantic fiction. I truly fail to understand the reluctance for: (1) doing a bit of research which is so easy in the internet age; (2) the insistence on overlaying 21st century morals, behaviours and “isms” on, say, a work set in the 14th century; and (3) the willingness of the publishers to put out stories that are so blatantly faux – why do they do it? Is it anything to do with the teaching of history in the last 50 years? In the UK it seems that it may be part of the misunderstanding many younger people have about what has happened in the past. You can’t say it’s deliberate misinterpretation because often they have been taught to see many things in the past through the ever increasingly available 20:20 hindsight 21st century-made glasses. I accept that fiction requires amending and some interpretation from the writer but I do appreciate those end of story addendums that writers like, for example, Bernard Cornwell include where the writer explains how he/she has modified facts in order to make their fiction work.
Elaine S, your arguments are all valid for a certain part of the current crop of historicals, medievals included.
Imo, it goes much deeper, though – and I can understand it, though it still puts me off:
Being obedient to a master, or to a religious rule, is near impossible to imagine in the same way as it was then, for everyone: right down from the King/Queen, who obeyed God or had to some extent to obey the Church, to the lowest kitchen maid, everyone believed that it was ok to obey.
Being more or less stuck in place, in your place of birth, in your class and even in your parents’ trade, again, we cannot imagine it.
Casual racism, sexism, and amazing cruelty of all kinds: same thing.
Quite apart from the details of dirt, and poverty, etc.
This is why I admire and applaud authors who are able to pull it off, but would guess they get rarer and rarer, because by now, writing a medieval might end up being high risk / low reward:
If my hero is a male of his time, I might as an author get into a horrible storm over my views. If my hero is not a male of his time, many people will not read / buy the book (like me).
So it takes an amazing amount of both knowledge and talent to write those super exceptional people who existed then, and still make them relevant to us, and enjoyable in a romance.
I could not write that type of thought processes and attitudes myself, because concepts like truly believing that others are my “betters” are totally alien, and abhorrent to me. And accepting some religious strictures/ moral rules like exiling/shunning a woman for having a child from rape; parents who did that would be monsters to me.
I loved the very old “‘We Speak no Treason” by Rose Hawley Jarman, or the Rope Dancer by Roberta Gellis. The great art to me was in making me live within persons and situations that I disagree with on some pretty fundamental grounds, and yet become completely absorbed in their lives. A window into a totally alien world, also INNER world.
But to dare to write a book like that today?
I am curious if it can even be done.
Looking forward to more debate, fascinating topic!
Lieselotte, I would “like” your comment fifty times if it would let me.
The fact that we’re talking about the romance genre compounds the issue too, I think, at least for some of us. For instance, if I’m reading historical fiction or (some kinds of) sf/f, and there are issues with gender dynamics, I can often take it in stride, because it’s not being sold to me as Embodiment of Perfect Romance; but in romance, I’m being asked to believe that the couple has a strong and unproblematic relationship by the end of the book, and for me that sets a much higher bar. In all honesty, I frequently struggle with believing this even for contemporary-set romances (tough critic + know too much about dynamics of abuse). So even though I find the mediaeval period fascinating, I’m reluctant to read romances set in it (particularly after Catherine Coulter scarred me for life as a teenager). I would be more interested in reading m/m romance set in the period, but I don’t think I’ve ever heard of any.
(For some reason, though, I will read pretty much any romance set in Renaissance Italy.)
Have you ever read Gellis’ Lucrezia Borgia & the Mother of all Poisons? It is set in Renaissance Italy – mostly a crime story, I found it so interesting that I did not mind the minimal love story
“If my hero is a male of his time, I might as an author get into a horrible storm over my views. If my hero is not a male of his time, many people will not read / buy the book (like me).”
I guess this is the ultimate stalemate, Lieselotte, with historical fiction, particularly HR. It’s perhaps why a lot of readers prefer CR where it might be more comfortable than trying to identify with uber-accurate historical MC behaviours, settings, levels of filth, crushing of women’s rights, etc. Me, I prefer a dose of realism where possible but, as I mentioned previously, I accept twiddling of the dial though an explanation is really valuable. And, goodness, I do remember the Hawley Jarman and I loved Roberta Gellis – they were excellent writers.
Wow! Great discussion, Lieselotte and Elaine S. Totally agree with what you two are saying about the difficult balance between historical accuracy and palatability for the modern reader. I know we’ve had these discussions before, and that I’ve gotten into some hot water for things I’ve said about it. But writing historically accurate attitudes in rougher times is definitely like walking through a landmine for an author.
On the subject of Medieval romance heroes, I’m sure you’ve noticed how ridiculously tall some of them are for the time period. Yeah, there were always guys over 6 feet tall in history, but if you’ve ever seen the armor in museums, people in various places were a bit smaller overall.
Also, has anyone ever seen a romance hero of any era burst into tears? I read this interesting article the other day entitled “The Lost Art of the Manly Weep” which cataloged the changing attitude toward men and crying. There’s a whole thing about Lancelot crying into some woman’s shoulder because he doesn’t get to go to a tournament. From a modern lens, that seems downright whiny, but the Medieval woman is moved to help him. Interesting stuff: https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-lost-art-of-the-manly-weep. I’ve read in other articles also that it used to be considered quite manly to listen to sad poems and ballads to induce melancholy and tears. Somehow, I just don’t see these historical cry-fests making it into historical romances any time soon.
Nan de Plume – some years ago I reviewed a Regency-set book on Amazon and, though I can’t remember it now without spending time trawling through all of my old reviews, I do remember one thing about what was otherwise an eminently forgettable book. The heroine was driven through the medieval streets of York in a coach and EIGHT horses. I could hardly contain my laughter. Anyone who has visited York will know that the wonderful Shambles and surrounding streets within the walls are tiny, crooked, higgledy-piggledy and VERY narrow. A coach and eight. Anyone else here been to York and visited the Shambles? You could hardly drive a Mini or Fiat 500 through those (now traffic-free) streets.
Speaking of teams of horses that couldn’t have possibly fit through narrow streets, have you ever seen Anna Russell’s interpretation of Wagner’s “Ring Cycle?” She was a piano comedian (kind of like Victor Borga) with a background in opera who used to dissect the foolish plot holes of the classics in funny ways. At one point she says of “Ring Cycle,” “Then Brunhilda gets upon her horse… she’s got a horse” (we’ve never heard of a horse until this point but she suddenly has one because… reasons). Anyway, it’s a real scream. See if you can find it on YouTube.
Yes, that is just how I feel. And I would prefer not to, just enjoy it as a fantasy.
But I live in Europe, I get around (not right now) and I know the narrow roads, the dark city streets, the museums with the clothes they wore then, etc. etc. – I just cannot ignore all that and somehow go for a fantasy Middle Age.
As Star said above I would guess such books as the Milla Vane series are a way of getting around the “Medieval problem”: Once it all gets transposed into a fantasy world, it gets to be possible.
For me, because I can give it a pass for accuracy, and just allow the story to happen – I wonder why for others?
Romancelandia’s version of the Regency is not historically accurate. However, there are probably between 1-3 “Regency canons” that each have readers who find them accurate, and as long as an author writes in one of them, they will find their readers. (One is the Quinn/Garwood “light society” regency, for instance, which traces back to Heyer and in some ways Austen and is used today by authors like Eva Leigh and Evie Dunsmore).
I suggest, then, that the problem with medievals is not accuracy, because most of our historical are inaccurate. Rather, it’s that there aren’t agreed-on inaccurate versions of the world which writers can all write in together where readers will know what to expect.
Such an interesting view.
Yes, I can see that. We all agree on the “supposed historical setting”.
What are the others? Where would KJ Charles fit in?
Um… Dunsmore’s books are set in the Victorian era. But whatever, I agree that most of today’s HR is inaccurate in broad terms – too many young, hot dukes, a concern for personal hygiene that didn’t exist and many characters who know about the importance of hand-washing in medical procedures and the new-,fangled idea of using alcohol on wounds etc (I’m not saying those things weren’t known of, it just wasn’t common knowledge and even most medical professionals at the time didn’t believe in them).
Liselotte and Elaine have said exactly the same as I would have done regarding medievals – I think it’s very hard for us today to understand the medieval “mindset” with its misogyny and racism and absolute belief in God and the way that society was pretty much constructed around religion. Those things are true of most other historical periods, too, but I think the medieval way of life is so unrecognisable and alien to us today in a way Regency/Victorian life isn’t that for anyone to jump into a medieval romance without some sort of basic historical knowledge is difficult. And not everyone wants to read a novel that requires that. So do you write a completely faux medieval (like those old Hollywood movies where women wore pointy hats with veils and men wore coloured tights!) with characters who are little more than 21st century men and women dressed in pointy hats and tights, which will turn off potential readers who can spot the guff, or do you try for something more authentic and have people complain that nobody has a bath and the hero acts like a sexist pig? As Elaine says, there is room for tweaking, or we’d be saying the same (no baths, sexist pigs) about every HR out there. I also can’t help but wonder if, because the genre has fallen from favour for the reasons we suspect, it will take a lot more time and effort to write a medieval that will convince today’s audience and have the ring of authenticity. Given most authors who are traditionally published seem to be expected to put out at least two books a year, there is just no time for them to immerse themselves in the era as they’d need to do in order to pull it off. It speaks volumes that Elizabeth Kingston not only self-publishes, but writes slowly. She has the freedom and takes the time to get it right.
The fact that I’ve actually READ Evie Dunsmore and thought she was a Regency is pretty much the perfect argument for placing her into this section of the canon.
I’m not quite sure what you mean – the first Dunmore book is dated as 1879 in the blurb and I think in the first chapter. And reading it, it’s clear it’s not a regency – I’m pretty sure Queen Victoria is named in it.
Dunmore’s book was forgettable to me -as evidenced by the fact that I forgot it. What I mostly remembered was the “vague 19th century” tone, and now something is tweaking my mind that suffrage was involved, which would be the main detail that would tell me we were post-regency.
Dunmore’s book reads like the heroines of Kleypas and Quinn could be the great-grandmothers of her characters. As if they exist in the same timeline. However, I don’t feel like Sherry Thomas’s Delicious, or Judith Ivory’s Beast, are in the same history as Dunmore. They do, however, feel like they could exist in the same world as Cecilia Grant’s protagonists.
Is that clearer? What I’m trying to say is that we have some familiar interpretations of history, especially in the 19th century. This is probably its own blog post.
Yes, the familiar interpretations makes sense. I can’t think of specific examples right now, but I know I’ve come across things that ARE historically accurate but which SEEM not to be simply because they don’t fit that “accepted” interpretation. Nan’s comment about accuracy vs. palatability is a good one, and I think it’s one that authors of HR – the good ones, anyway – deal with all the time. I know that Heyer got things wrong and invented a lot of things that many writers of regencies today take as gospel – the dance card being one of them, as you’ve stated. But I can take that inaccuracy more easily than someone getting a form of address wrong for instance, because that’s something that hasn’t changed in centuries and has always been easy to look up!
I think achieving that accuracy/palatability is much more difficult with medievals than with books set in the 19th century – and that getting into all that research and worldbuilding can be a daunting prospect. If you’re an established writer trying to make a living, you have to think about selling it to a publisher, who will then look at the market and say “nah, nobody wants medievals these days”; if you’re going to self-publish, it’s a lot of work for potentially very little return. Elizabeth Kingston has been mentioned a lot here – I’ve enjoyed her books, don’t get me wrong, but she has been fortunate enough to have had the backing/endorsement of one of the legends of historical romance, Laura Kinsale, and I can’t help wondering if we’d be talking about her (EK) now had that not been the case. Don’t misunderstand me – I’m not saying that endorsement wasn’t deserved; I’m just saying she’s very fortunate to have had that “leg up”.
Then there’s the whole balance between historical accuracy and palatability when it comes to sexy times. Do we really want to read a sex scene between two people we know have probably never bathed? What about rakes with syphilis? Little or no consideration for the woman’s wellbeing and happiness during sex?
In many ways, a historical romance author has it tougher than a historical erotica writer. For one thing, as AAR demonstrates, romance readers generally have much higher standards when it comes to accuracy and believable plot points. This isn’t to say erotica readers and writers have no standards, but erotica presents a different type of fantasy than romance. Without getting too vulgar, a one-handed reader probably isn’t going to fuss about whether or not a knight’s armor is period-appropriate (he’s getting out of it fast enough anyway). But a romance reader with a solid knowledge of history is going to jump on something like that.
The issue over Medieval characters bathing is not as bad as some readers believe. There was a recent cover article in BBC History Magazine (January 2020) on this subject. While it’s true that most Medieval people didn’t have modern sensibilities about the frequency of bathing, many (particularly the upper classes) did in fact bathe regularly, possibly as often as your average Regency gentleman or lady before the availability of indoor plumbing. There is a distressing number of statistics of people drowning when bathing in rivers or ponds (or even troughs). Soap was not unknown. Many people also cleaned their teeth. A Medieval character who insisted upon bathing fairly regularly isn’t completely improbable.
One peculiar Medieval ascetic practice of the very pious was an avoidance of bathing as a form of suffering for one’s faith – Queen Isabella felt that frequent bathing was indulging herself. Some nuns and churchmen wouldn’t bathe to encourage lice, which caused them to suffer for their faith. I suspect that our modern view of Medieval hygiene has been colored by those stories.
Looking at 20th century (as a more modern comparison) my father (born 1930) grew up in rural Tennessee without indoor plumbing. Refrigeration was provided by a spring. People bathed weekly, usually on Saturday night so that they would be clean for church. My mother (who grew up in a Chicago suburb) won’t wash her hair more often than once a week to this day. I think we have to adjust our sensibilities when reading any period fiction.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing, Kari S. This is exactly why I don’t write HR. The research is often daunting and contradictory. And historians are learning new things all the time. But I think we can all agree the hygiene situation is probably a lot better now than it was 400+ years ago. :)
I don’t think authors have to “understand the medieval mindset with its misogyny and racism etc” (although I definitely feel like neither misogyny nor racism is something modern people should have trouble understanding!) What I’m trying to say is that all authors, when writing historicals, craft their own version of reality. Some are WILDLY unlike history, and others are just SORT OF unlike history. There are several versions of the Regency that have come to feel “realistic” to people, so if you read Quinn, Kleypas will feel “right” to you, and so will Julie Anne Long (even though, yes, many of these books go before and after the technical “regency” dates. Their “real” regency includes primarily white people, “match-making mamas,” “the season,” “bluestocking heroines,” innocence and ruined reputations, a society that easily and frequently moves beyond cross-class relationships, and good people in power who use that power to make things right. Authors who have read enough of these book “know” what a realistic Regency is, even if they’ve never done any history. They know this world like fanfic authors know Hogwarts.
Likewise, if Meredith Duran feels “real” to you in her Victorian era, Sherry Thomas’s books seem to exist in the same historical timeline. I would place Courtney Milan and Cecilia Grant in their reality. This reality includes a higher overall interest in sex, the existence of non-hetero sexuality, a higher proportion of working-class people (not simply impoverished aristocracy), politics, and bad people in power who use that power to exploit, hurt, and cover up. Authors who have read enough of these authors also “know” what the Victorian era was “really” like.
But I don’t think this exists for medievals. We know there were knights and kings and horses and swords. People don’t even agree on putting religion in at all, let alone on how to use it to motivate their characters. Medieval views on sex often included the belief that women were insatiable and men had to avoid being led astray (https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Italian_Studies/dweb/society/sex/sexual-desire.php) – I’ve never seen a medieval that explored that idea. Consequently people feel less “qualified” to write it, and readers feel less confident in what they’re going to find when they open a book.
But I’d argue than an author DOES need to have some understanding of the era if they’re going to be able to know what to change to make a story set in that era work as a piece of romantic fiction. It’s like… There was a famous comedian here years ago who used to play the piano quite atrociously as part of his act, But he was actually a very fine pianist. He knew how to do it right so he could get it wrong!
I don’t disagree that they need some understanding. They just consider “understanding of existing romances in that setting” to constitute that understanding.
For example: Heyer made a lot of stuff up, but they have become “real” to readers. A good example is the dance card, which did not appear in England until the 1830s but appear in Heyers books and now would not be blinked at as part of our Regency “reality.”
As a quick note, re: medievals that explore the belief of women as the insatiable downfall of pious men, Laura Kinsale’s _For My Lady’s Heart_ does!
And Elizabeth Kingston spends years researching to capture a very specific moment in Welsh history. It might be “too historical” for some readers.
As does Elizabeth Chadwick. (Spend years researching.)
Don’t know about you, Caz, but the first place I head when visiting a National Trust property or English Heritage site is the kitchens followed by the stables and, if open, the cellars, storage areas, barns, sanitation systems, etc. The best places on any property to see how folk really lived. I volunteer at a NT property and it’s lovely to look at, very pretty, very clean and very fake in the main rooms on display. Reality is in the scullery. Best one is at Haddon Hall in Derbyshire. I have seen TV documentaries set at Haddon Hall where an Elizabethan banquet is prepared in the kitchens there and served in the Great Hall. Fascinating. Don’t fancy the roast peacock though!!
I think certain eras were so alien and upsetting–to our modern eyes–that it’s hard to write them even a little bit accurately and still give readers a feel good experience.
Yes, this.
Really??? Dark Champion does it. Laura Kinsale’s For My Lady’s Heart does it. Madeline Hunter’s medievals do it. Elizabeth Elliot’s The Dark Knight does it.
People of the Middle Ages have differences, but to me, reading about people who are different and learning how to empathize with them is part of the point. And we bridge more and greater gaps all the time. People read Amish romances and romances set in faith communities. People read deeply misogynistic alternate realities, like Megan Crane’s Edge series. People read stories about actual aliens.
You misunderstand me. I love it when books do that well. Clearly I made my point poorly. I trying to say that it’s work to make an era different from the one we live in come alive and do it well.
ah, I did misread then. Sorry!
I also think that not only is it more work, as you said, but the nature of the work is different – you have to do independent research and worldbuilding instead of “researching” by reading existing romances.
The need for independent research and worldbuilding is one of the things I was getting at when I said authors needed to find a different “mindset” – they should be doing that with historicals anyway; your point about people “researching” by reading other HR is a valid one – but as an historian yourself, you know that the time period we’re talking about is so very different to now that it needs a lot more of that independent work to be able to be convincing. As I said somewhere else here, they need to have the knowledge of what was right in order to be able to take artistic license and “get it wrong” in a way that is still convincing. We know an author isn’t going to write a romance in Chaucerian English – but using “thee”, “thy” and “mayhap” all the time isn’t going to cut it either. I think the decline of the medieval is due to a number of things, among which I’d cite the lack of understanding of the period by both (some) authors and (some) readers; a fear by authors that they won’t be able to be very authentic AND create heroes and heroines that will appeal to the modern audience; a lack of time for research – especially for traditionally published authors, who now seem to be expected to put out more than one book a year.
AAR: come for the reviews, stay and get called too stupid to get it.
Dabney, sorry you have to put up with this too.
I don’t get it either, Bunny Planet Babe. I sometimes wonder if the smiles/frowns should just simply disappear from AAR as it makes things sometimes seem rather divisive. Discussion or discourse ought to be about give and take and striving to get to the heart of a matter in a friendly and open way. Especially here.
The problem isn’t “accuracy” so much as that most romance readers aren’t reading actual literature from these periods and their versions of reality are coming from contemporary representations of the past. This was the issue I experienced last time historical accuracy appeared as a blog topic. If we’re really debating accurate Medieval romance, which literary texts are readers using as their reference?
I agree! I’m wondering the same question – what books should an author read to produce a medieval romance that will feel “real” to readers, whether romances or nonfiction? I don’t see even ONE consensus fictional reality for the Middle Ages, (whereas we have multiple ones for other eras). I think that makes it harder for writers to write in the Middle Ages.
And I think what this means to authors of color is also a question worth exploring, since mass-market Romancelandia consensus versions of history have largely been developed either omitting or problematically depicting (ie the old Native American hero Westerns) characters of color.
May I recommend Medieval Underpants and Other Blunders: A Writer’s (& Editor’s) Guide to Keeping Historical Fiction Free of Common Anachronisms, Errors, & Myths by Susanne Alleyn? I haven’t actually read it, but the free preview makes it look awesome. As the title implies, it addresses common errors in historical fiction, and not just from the Medieval period.
Thank you for the recommendation, Nan! I’m going to check this book out.
You’re welcome! When library service is back, I intend to get a copy via interlibrary loan.
I just ordered this, Nan. Sounds like a fun read. I also have “Life of Pee: The story of How Urine Got Everywhere” bySally Magnusson in my kindle queue. This was reviewed in the press a few days ago as it’s just been re-released and tells of how humanity has utilised pee throughout history. I thought it would be another esoteric, mind-opening and fun read. No doubt there will be something about medieval times and garter robes!!
Yes, and you raise a great point about the question of people of color in historical fiction. I follow Elizabeth Kingston on social media and get to follow her historical research process because she is generous in sharing her discoveries and conflicts, and she would be an interesting author to interview here on these questions, especially since she is now one of the very few writing in this area. On the topic of race, Kingston hasn’t yet introduced people of color into her books but she is portraying Welsh people as ethnic “others” being colonized, and she uses subaltern theories to explore what it means to be objectified in the early imperialistic British agenda.
Even the late, great Georgette Heyer got Medieval wrong. Actually I wouldn’t recommend any of her pre-Georgian set novels. Her biographer Jane Aiken Hodge suggested that it was because she lacked any understanding of religion, and you can’t write Medieval or Elizabethan fiction without including religion. It permeated every aspect of life.
Yep, GH’s medievals aren’t great. And I completely agree with what you say about needing to understand the importance of religion to people in the medieval/early modern period. That’s part of what I meant when I talked about a different mindset – my eldest daughter has just completed a degree in medieval and early moderh history and we’ve had many conversations about that very thing, and how “alien” that society seems to us now.
Elizabeth Kingston’s Welsh Blades series is set in the 13th century: _The King’s Man_ (2015), _Fair, Bright, and Terrible (2017), and _Desire Lines_ (2019). The series is pretty popular and well-respected, and all of the books in it except for the novella, _Nan_, have been reviewed here. Kingston is writing the fourth book now. I had wondered after reading _The King’s Man_, which is a personal favorite for me, if there might be a resurgence in Medieval romances, but I haven’t seen that happen.
K. C. Bateman’s _The Devil to Pay_ (2018) is set in 1492, Italy. I quite enjoyed that one. Caz reviewed it and gave it a B+.
I am currently reading K.C. Bateman’s The Devil To Pay. I haven’t formed any opinion about the story yet, but it’s a nice change from the Georgian and Regency historical romances I usually read, in both time period and the Italian setting. I have read Elizabeth Kingston’s Welsh Blades series and really enjoyed them. But Caroline’s point about the lack of medieval romance is spot on. I think It’s true about historical romances in general. There don’t seem to be as many of them, and there are fewer good ones among what is available. There may be many reasons for this, but It does seem that some of my favorite authors are taking a sabbatical from historical romance to focus on other things. I can only hope that one day (soon) they return.
The Bateman is fun, although I’d call it Renaissance rather than Medieval. (The medieval historian in the family tells me that while there’s no “set” date for the end of the period, it’s generally accepted to be around 1480-5) The Bateman is set in 1492 ;)
I don’t think Nan was ever commercially available (it was a newsletter exclusive IIRC) or we probably would have reviewed it.
Yeah, I think Nan never got released for sale. I actually think that Desire Lines works okay without having read it.
And yes, I too would put 1492 as a transition between late Medieval and early Renaissance.
I read Desire Lines withour having read Nan and it was fine. I believe the novella was more of an exploration of Nan’s character – she’s pretty enigmatic for much of DL. I actually felt that if readers really needed to know about her background in more detail, then it should have been in the main novel.
I read _Nan_ before _Desire Lines_ and found it to be an interesting separate story about the relationship among the three women in the Welsh Blades series, maybe even more than a character exploration of Nan herself. In that sense, I liked what Kingston was doing by focusing on a woman’s community where men are peripheral, and necessarily so. Her three novels have all been romances rather than women’s fiction, but _Nan_ is deliberately not a romance.