There's been a lot of buzz lately about what the difference is between Historical Fiction and Historical Romance, so I thought I would add my two cents in since I read a great deal of both. In my opinion, Historical Romance is a genre wherein the romance is essential to the book. If you took it out, you'd have no book, whereas historical fiction, while it may have elements of romance to it, has a wider scope. Think of Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe series, or the Hornblower series on A&E (by C.S. Forster who also wrote the African Queen).
I think the confusion is coming because historical fiction is once again on the rise. In the last five or six years there seems to be an explosion of historical fiction, everything from books like Sarah Waters books Tipping the Velvet and Fingerprints which are kind of lesbian historical fiction to huge bestsellers like Crimson Petal, Philippa Gregory's Tudor series, and books by Susan Vreeland, and Dava Sobel.
I remember reading a book by Virginia Henley about Henry III's sister Eleanor and her marriage to Simon de Montfort. Although the book was about real people, it was written as a romance, set against the turbulent backdrop of the period.
Whereas, Sharon Kay Penman who wrote a book set in the same time period with the same characters (Falls the Shadow) was concerned more with the history of the period, the conflict between Henry III and the barson, the relationship between Eleanor and Simon was just a small part of a bigger canvas.
A lot of historical romances use the history strictly as a backdrop. How many regency romances have you read that seemed to exist in a bubble? That don't even tell you what year they are set in? What's going on outside the four walls of the ballroom or the great country estates, doesn't seem to exist. Of course, most women of the time, unless they were married to politicians, probably weren't that aware either (and that goes for some contemporary women also).
In historical fiction, authors can take the reader from cradle to grave, where is historical romance, you're giving them a happy ending, letting the reader know that the hero and heroine will live happily ever after. Time is much more compressed in a historical romance. In historical fiction, the story can continue over several volumes. Think of Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series, which was initially marketed as a romance, but is really more historical fiction (confession, I stopped reading the series after Jaime and Claire reunited in Voyager. As far as I was concerned that was all I cared about). Or Bernard Cornwell's series about King Arthur.
But what about books that seem to be hybrid's like Diana Gabaldon's or even Anya Seton's? When I was growing up Anya Seton's books were shelved in romance at the Coliseum bookstore in New York, not fiction, the way they are today. As were all of Jean Plaidy's books on the Plantagents and Tudors. I certainly thought they were romances at the time, particularly Green Darkness and Dragonwyck.
But looking back on it now, That Winthrop Woman and My Theodosia were definitely not romances, although they both had romantic elements in them.
Now fictional biographies of historical figures are back. I was at Barnes & Noble and there was like a whole table of books from Margaret George's book on Helen of Troy, to Diane Haeger's book on Diane de Poitiers. These books while historical fiction, also tend to feature a lot of the romances these women were famous for.
I think they're coming back in vogue because they can bring the period alive for readers by involving them emotionally in the story, as to opposed to a dry biography full of footnotes (apart from Carolly Erickson who's books always read like fiction even though they weren't).
Personally, I'm awe of anyone writes both historical fiction or romance. Just to do the research alone is amazing.
I know that several members of RWA write historical fiction as well as romance, but where would their books fall in terms of the RITA? Eloisa James Desperate Duchesses competing with a historical fiction book like India Edgehill's books? Why not a historical fiction with romantic elements category?
Not likely to happen since the board wants to do away with the mainstream with romantic elements category.
Thanks for reading!
EKM
No comments:
Post a Comment