Historical Romance - what's your take?

[Snowdog]

Noy usually my cup of tea, but they can be good. I read a book by Georgette Heyer called An Infamous Army, which had the usual romance at the centre. But it also contained the best fictional account of the Battle of Waterloo that I've ever read, and I've read a few.

[murphy]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

Noy usually my cup of tea, but they can be good. I read a book by Georgette Heyer called An Infamous Army, which had the usual romance at the centre. But it also contained the best fictional account of the Battle of Waterloo that I've ever read, and I've read a few.

Georgette Heyer is one of the better romance writers. She's written some pretty funny books as well.

[Snowdog]

I agree, she's a very good writer and captures her period well. She also covers a lot of different periods, though I guess she writes more in the Regency period. Even her pure romances are good reads.

[Talysia]

Just found this thread. I voted for 'somewhere in between', because I think romance plays a part in historical fiction, but for me, I like the history aspect more.

[aarti]

I also voted for somewhere in between- mostly because I don't read much historical romance except those that are written by the afore-mentioned Georgette Heyer. I adore her :-)

[jackokent]

Someone mentioned that they were concerned about the lack of research that goes into these books but I met an author at my local book store the other day (and I am kicking myself becuase I can't remember her name) but I sat and chatted to her for ages as she was doing a book signing and no one was buying ( not even me). But I was astounded by the amout of research she has done. She's spent about 10 years research her series and was so enthusiastic about the research she'd already undertaken.

I think SFF often suffers from a massive lack of research, and there is good and bad in every genre.

[The Ace]

Blechhhh ! If you want to explore history, then fine but slapping an inferior storyline onto historical events is just stupid.
Nigel Tranter's fictionalised biographies of Scottish characters work by turning dry, historical figures into real people, affected by their circumstances.
Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe is a fictional character, who's adventures take place in a real situation and vividly explore a soldier's life of the time.
George McDonald Fraser's Flashman was invented by someone else, but his eyewitness accounts of real historical events (most of which he sees at a dead run, howling his head off in terror) bring these things vividly into focus.
I can see the point of this kind of storytelling, giving the layman a general account of the events and people described, while telling a rattling yarn, but surely, "Boy meets Girl," in this kind of setting makes little sense.

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Blechhhh ! If you want to explore history, then fine but slapping an inferior storyline onto historical events is just stupid.
Nigel Tranter's fictionalised biographies of Scottish characters work by turning dry, historical figures into real people, affected by their circumstances.
Bernard Cornwell's Sharpe is a fictional character, who's adventures take place in a real situation and vividly explore a soldier's life of the time.
George McDonald Fraser's Flashman was invented by someone else, but his eyewitness accounts of real historical events (most of which he sees at a dead run, howling his head off in terror) bring these things vividly into focus.
I can see the point of this kind of storytelling, giving the layman a general account of the events and people described, while telling a rattling yarn, but surely, "Boy meets Girl," in this kind of setting makes little sense.

But a lot of history is about boy meets girl. A lot of poeple's life are informed by a one or more romantic attachment - take some of the great historical romances - should we pretend they didn't happen ie take the romance out. If we are looking for realism in life then leaving out romance is not going to do it.

[The Ace]

Originally Posted by jackokent

But a lot of history is about boy meets girl. A lot of poeple's life are informed by a one or more romantic attachment - take some of the great historical romances - should we pretend they didn't happen ie take the romance out. If we are looking for realism in life then leaving out romance is not going to do it.

Gotcha ! I'm not denying that relationships are part of life, but there were other, bigger things going on.

[jackokent]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Gotcha ! I'm not denying that relationships are part of life, but there were other, bigger things going on.

Not trying to argue with you - but bigger things? Lots of wars etc were potentially started by poorley judged relationships. You can argue they were about power etc too but if you ask people what is the biggest day in thier life they are often going to say wedding, most important person - spouse (and or kids), subject or music - relationships. If you look at history as a whole one persons relationship is not gong to seem big but to each individual thier relationship is often the very biggest thing in thier life. And in a past age when women were ruled by thier husbands in my societies - it was the only big thing. Books normally centre around individuals.

I can't believe I'm arguing romance here I don't even read them. Just ingnore me

[Timewalker]

Originally Posted by The Ace

Gotcha ! I'm not denying that relationships are part of life, but there were other, bigger things going on.

I am immediately reminded of the Trojan War and the oft-repeated saying that Helen of Troy was the "face that launched a thousand ships." Yes, there were economic and political reasons for the Trojan War that had nothing to do with Helen's physical attributes, but the story wouldn't have survived all these millennia if there weren't a compelling love story in there someplace. Romance is a part of most, if not all, the epic historical adventures we remember over the ages.

Marion Zimmer Bradley's Firebrand is an excellent historical romance -- Kassandra of Troy is no sighing damsel who needs a man's protection or has no sense of her own identity outside of a relationship!