the ask@AAR: Does Historical Romance have a quality problem?

This is IMO.
It all boils down to the same thing. Accuracy. Do your research, and you’ll find that LGBTQ people always existed, through every age. There were no slaves on British soil, for instance – do you know how they got around that? They used people like slaves until they died, and then they employed someone else – cheaper than owning slaves, which is the main reason why. There were people of colour everywhere – not as many as you’ll find today in the average city in Britain, but certainly enough to feature in stories. Until the 20th century, homosexuality was punishable by death – until the Victorians arrived, it was less the moral aspect, though that was trumpeted in church on Sundays, it was because there were two baby-makers wasted (despicable, but that’s what you read in contemporary accounts). It didn’t mean that none existed.
Disabled people were often locked away or kept quietly at home. Some were loved, some were not. But they existed – go to any good medical museum, and you’ll see a collection of Bath chairs (chairs with wheels that had to be pushed rather than the person sitting in it doing it themselves – that tells you something right there), crutches, walking sticks. They existed, so write about what they went through in the context of the time. Show people today how conditions have improved, and how they haven’t.
And some authors don’t know this because they haven’t done their research. Informed research, so that the reader knows the “codes” used back then for people who were not white cisgendered. If you knew a gay man (lesbianism was not outlawed), then you didn’t discuss it openly with others. You called him a “confirmed bachelor,” (which also covered men who didn’t want to marry for other reasons), or refer to his “preferences.” Because you didn’t want your friend taken up and hanged for his “preference.”
I did try to write a romance once which had the slave trade as its theme (the heroine was a protester). But I gave up, because the terms they used back then, even when they were advocates for the abolition cause were so offensive to people today. If I’d been writing a non-romance, it might have been accepted, but even then writing it would have been hard. Perhaps I’ll try again one day.
I have not yet written a person of colour as a protagonist, but that’s because I tend to do the aristocracy-type heroes and heroines, and in the top echelons of British society, there just weren’t any. Historical accuracy. But I’ve written plenty as secondary characters, walk-ons and so on. They were there, so I put them in.
Another point – I wrote my first m/m romance as part of The Shaws series – immensely pleased that Kensington allowed it as part of an otherwise mf series. It didn’t sell as well as the other books in the series, sadly, but there you go. I’ll keep doing it, when it seems appropriate.

You got a few authors eyeballing this blog and calling for censorship/heavier moderation of the comments. You’re not allowed to share your thoughts and feelings about the current state of romance novels unless it aligns with their views.

Anyways, I haven’t read a newly published historical romance since 2017. Either I grew up and matured or the books are just way too wallpapery now for me. Seems like all the historical romance characters being written today could easily fit in the 21st century. Also, I am sick and tired of dukes. And if the hero is working class you can bet he’ll be made a member of the aristocracy by the end of the book. I am also tired of the regency era. So many eras to choose from and it’s regency over and over and OVER.

I think for me it comes down to “it’s me, not you”. I’m just over romance. I don’t know if the authors are doing something wrong or not which leads me to believe it’s something on my end that it turning me away.

I used to read more historical, got tired of them to an extent but the ones being trashed for being “political” here are the ones I still bother to read when they come out, because of the quality of the writing and because the plots are interesting and go beyond the usual “The Duke and the feisty Wallflower.”

If acknowledging the existence of people who aren’t straight, white, neurotypical, etc is against your “politics” then obviously don’t read the books, just like I don’t read Nazi romances (which are a thing that exists

And “If toy don’t like my books, don’t read them” is a perfectly reasonable response from a writer. ‍♀️

Can’t reply to a comment, but have to do a new one.
In reply to the Amazon comments;
At least half of the authors on the Amazon historical romance best-selling lists don’t exist. They’re being produced in bulk, the main place being Taiwan by click-farmers and synonimisers. They take tropes and get a ghostwriter to make something out of them. Or they will take a lot of books, slice them up and put them back together – a bit here, a bit there, and then get somebody to smooth them out a bit.
The books are either put out under fake names, very often, though not always, alliterative, and put out at 99 cents on Amazon. They then buy reviews to get the book into the top 100 and use click farms to page through the books and game KU. Some books are sold to people who again, buy the reviews and game the system.
As long as it sells, Amazon will turn a blind eye. The case of Christine Serruya, who is now back and selling books again, highlighted this.
The fact that I can describe this so accurately shows you how much Amazon cares about reforming their system. To them a book is a computer mouse, or a set of makeup brushes, just a unit they can sell. (Their publishing arm excepted, that is a different thing altogether).
Two issues emerge here – that Amazon doesn’t care enough to reform their broken system, and that Gresham’s Law is alive and well.

Late to the party but very much in agreement. Lately I’ve noticed that I turn to HR to immerse myself in a world with clearly defined social rules or expectations. It doesn’t mean I don’t want these rules turned on their heads sometimes, but I do want them acknowledged and issues resolved despite or because of these societal expectations. Too many of my former go-to-authors are writing such modern characters that I don’t get that same sense of history like I do from Austen or Heyer. I’m not sure if I’m expressing well exactly what’s missing but I rarely can achieve that submersion into the past that I crave. (I did really enjoy Mia Vincy’s debut.)
I decided to branch out into other historical sub genres and found Ellen O’Connell and I’m so glad I did.
I’m not giving up on HR but it’s been a discouraging few years.

I don’t do much in the way of social media, I don’t even have a Facebook page. But I think people jumping all over ideas they have barely thought about is rarely a good idea. I know they have impact, but taking the opinions of the masses with such seriousness should be carefully considered. I understand why artists and public persons want to create and behave in ways that don’t make waves. No one wants to be attacked.

But some of our greatest works of literature have depicted awful things; Heathcliff and Cathy savaging one another emotionally, Mr Rochester’s highly inappropriate attempt to marry Jane Eyre when he was already married, the societal upheavals and violence depicted in les Miserables, nearly everything Poe ever wrote, just to name a few. Would those things be published today? It’s doubtful, imo. And if they were, I can certainly see the Bronte sisters taking a public drubbing for their dark, depressing, yet brilliant gothic novels.

So I think that writers need to be brave, they need to write what their gut tells them to write, and self-publish If they must. I want to hear authentic voices, I want to read about original ideas, and I want this in all genres and in non-fiction too, which I also read.

As readers, we have an important way to vote – our wallets! And when you do sometimes find yourself slogging through uninspired crap, write to the publisher. Complain. Tell them what you do want to read, and exactly what you don’t.

The twitterverse can go hang as far as I’m concerned!

Thank you for your comments. I write historicals and after many, many years of rejections due to my time period, not my writing, I’ve decided to self publish. I also quit reading most of the afore mentioned authors because I am bored with Dukes, and the tropes that are popular now. I reread my old books, and the only new author I’ve read is Kerrigan Byrne, because she writes dark historicals like Anne Stuart used to. Otherwise, most of my new reads are from British Authors. Francine Howarth is amazing, Helen Hollick, Annie Whitehead, to name a few. Check them out. And I have a few good friends who write historicals and the pressure to sell is immense. It’s no different than in the movies, remake, rehash something old because it sold in the past. Money and profit trumps everything and kills the creative art that’s truly out there. It sad. So I will choose to self publish, if only to please myself and say I did it.

agree with many of the thoughts expressed here. recently got back into HR after a three year long gap and have been craving character driven stories. i read judith ivory’s black silk this past week and was surprised-it never would have been published today. authors today are much less likely to write ‘grey’ characters or explore complex issues well. there’s a childish simplicity to how many HR authors write serious issues and too often a boring mystery is used to compensate for a lack of character development. would very much be grateful for recommendations re: interesting, character focused HR

I think another big issue contributing to this is that publishers have pigeon holed HR so much that there’s very little room for growth and creativity. It must be Regency. It must have a Duke/Earl (I think a marquess or viscount can pass but they’re not preferred). The same story can only be told so many ways.
I know someone writing american historicals that was told “move this to England and make the hero a duke and we’ll buy it” from a big publisher.

I can forgive anything, no matter the trope, if you tell your story right. To me awful story telling is just awful – so I guess it all depends on the author’s writing skills.

What I can’t stand is a story with a ‘message’ – which is the reason why I stopped reading Courtney Milan. I get the reason behind it, but sometimes one just wants to read a simple romance story, you know?

Effective storytelling should be the most important part of historical romance, but it seems to be in short supply in the last year or so. Perhaps 10 or 20 years ago, editors tightened up books they oversaw. Nevertheless, I think of Woodiwiss’s book “A Rose in Winter,” which was long and implausible, but effectively sucked many readers into its plot and became a bestseller.

Research and editing is lacking, many have said, and I agree. A particularly discouraging example was “A Conquest Impossible to Resist,” by Stephanie Laurens this summer. The plot revolves around the unusual architecture of a stable. The problem is, mares and stallions are both housed in the stable together — unbred. Stallions would never put up with being stabled next to mares coming into heat regularly. This isn’t a difficult fact to find out, but I think an increasing number of writers of Regency and other romances set in the 1800s have little or no farm knowledge. Neither do their editors. Many readers seem to lack that knowledge, too, which was fortunate for the author. I wish I could fact-check or edit Regencies, but I guess that’s a pipe dream.

There are too many dukes. I am happy to read about earls, who were still plenty rich and powerful in some places and poor and countrified in other locations. There’s also way too much contemporary oral it yet and convenience burdening some plots. If Georgette Heyer can get through a book without describing bathing, why can’t other authors?

There is a lot of pressure to reduce costs in publishing, but I wish I could buy romance hard copies with a code that would allow me to also download the volume as an ebook edition, particularly when I am buying a hardcover. At the same time, I would like to see better avenues for feedback on sloppy books and larger royalties to authors for ebooks. I am discouraged by all the authors who are self-publishing books on Amazon, since I use a Nook reader and therefore can’t buy their books. If authors and publishers could earn more, perhaps quality might triumph over quantity.

I think the lack of variety in current HR is a case of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” As an author myself, I can safely say that writers get dumped on from all ends- editors, publishing houses, critics, etc. And this can make the job of uninhibited storytelling extremely difficult, if not impossible. Anything that pushes the envelope, or is even mildly controversial, is bound to get squelched in editing- if it even gets that far in a publishing house. Although I am not a HR writer (with the exception of one erotica short story I did), and I self-publish, I know more horror stories about how authors are pressured into shaping or completely altering their work in order to meet industry standards. For example, “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime,” was supposed to star an adult protagonist, but the publisher told the author, “Hey, make the protagonist 15 so we can tap into the YA market.” That’s one of the milder examples. This article by Ellen Finnegan gives some more insight into publishing woes in case anyone else is interested: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2011/10/ellen-finnigan/why-i-decided-to-publish-directly-through-amazon/. The anecdote that got me is how a friend of hers was forced to include a drag race, accidental decapitation, and steamboat fire to his manuscript in order to get published. Talk about contrived plot points! And Ms. Finnigan was told to add more church scenes to her memoir- her MEMOIR- if she wanted mainstream publication. I’m not saying writers don’t bear any responsibility for their work, but when an author needs an advance to pay the light bill or for a dinner more substantial than instant noodles, making nasty alterations to the work (i.e. “selling out to the man”) can be pretty darn tempting. So, how does this relate to HR novels? It often comes down to the publishing houses, who are usually too afraid to take chances for financial reasons- which is understandable from a business perspective. I give Carina Press credit for seeking out stories that mix and mash genres and take greater chances than other romance publishing imprints I’ve encountered. As for historical accuracy versus escapism, I think both authors and publishers are in a bind. Nowadays, internet complaints can get books pulled from production for being “offensive.” If the media has that kind of power, it makes sense that few mainstream publisher or authors would be willing to take chances that could damage their images. Hence, you get all the borderline anachronistic 18th century heroines with 21st century attitudes and causes. And, ironically, these fears of public shunning limit the diversity of characters and situations. So now you get your generic abolitionist dukes and orphanage-running heroines because in the political climate today, creating a nuanced son of a plantation owner (*gasp*) who benefits from his family’s privilege but has qualms about the institution of slavery is completely out of the question for any author or publishing house that doesn’t want to get pilloried on Twitter. On a related note, movies are just as preachy today as the novels- which is also annoying. Lately, I have been enjoying a number of films from the 1970s that are often quite shocking in their content. More than once, I have said, “Wow. That film *definitely* could not have been made today!” But some of them are great films, largely because there was more freedom to tell a story without worrying about every social justice warrior landmine writers have to tiptoe through today. I’m not saying people should go out of their way to offend others, and it’s *okay* to be offended and say so. But I believe the answer to the current problems in HR as well as other genres is to encourage more writing, not less. If someone writes an offensive book- and everyone is bound to be offended by something, perhaps even this comment- I think the most productive response is to say, “Wow. I didn’t like that. I guess I’ll read something else.” And then move on. Are there irredeemably racist dumpster fires of books out there? You bet. But I choose not to dwell on them because making a big stink about such books on the internet can actually give the authors more publicity and credence than they deserve. Let’s praise the awesome books instead! Case in point, I just finished reading Cat Sebastian’s “A Duke in Disguise” and loved it. Ms. Sebastian is excellent at subverting tropes while still paying attention to historical accuracy. She… Read more »