Were they Pants or Pantaloons?
Just yesterday, I was reading a discussion over at DearAuthor regarding (among other things) the importance of historical accuracy in a historical romance novel. I’m not here to talk about specific authors or whether or not they write real historicals or wallpaper ones…I don’t really care and Plotmonkeys is the LAST blog on earth that will ever criticize another author.
But…the whole issue sounds somewhat unnecessary…at first glance. If an author chooses to write historical romances, she should do her very best to be historically accurate.
Easy, right?
Apparently not.
Because sometimes, authors make mistakes.
::gasp::
(That’s sarcasm)
To me, I just say ::yawn::
Whatever.
I cut my teeth on historical romances. The first romance I ever read was Johanna Lindsay’s CAPTIVE BRIDE and I could have cared less if that book was the least bit accurate. All I knew was that it had a fiesty heroine and a hot, hunky hero who was a shiek and set in some far away land that was exotic and sexy and foreign. What more did a thirteen year old girl need?
Then I grew up, but I kept reading historicals. The keepers on my shelves include Jude Devereaux’s VELVET series, Linda Lael Miller’s CORBIN series, Virginia Henley’s THE HAWK AND THE DOVE and A YEAR AND A DAY, Marsha Canham’s IRON ROSE and the most recent addition, Betina Krahn’s BOOK OF TRUE DESIRES. That’s only a few of them. I love historicals, but I don’t read them as often anymore simply because I read so many other things as well.
But I don’t remember ever being picky about my history. Maybe because I don’t know much about history other than what I learned in my literature classes and from other historical romances. And because I don’t like Regencies, which tend to have the fans who are the most concerned with accuracy–or at least, perceived accuracy. It’s my understanding (and I could be wrong, so correct me if I am!) that Georgette Heyer is considered the “standard” by which all other Regencies are judged…and I remember vividly reading an article years ago that said Heyer made up quite a bit about this time period, though I’m sure she based it on fact.
Playing fun and loose with historical facts just doesn’t bother me. I mean…don’t move the American Revolution to the 1800s or let Napolean be the ruler of Britain and I’m pretty much okay. I don’t much care if you have your character use a champagne flute in a book set in 1663 instead of a champagne coupe, though I might take issue with you calling an Italian sparkling wine “champagne” when the only champagne is from France…but that’s because I’m a foodie and not because I’m nuts about historical accuracy.
My question is–did you tell me a great story? Did you capture the essence of the time period? Did you get the politics right? The culture? The social mores and attitudes? Did you get the basic clothing right? I mean…don’t try and sell me on hoop skirts during the Victorian period and we’ll all be okay. Honest.
Many of you who have visited Plotmonkeys for a while know that I actually started my writing career as a historical writer. I wrote, but never published, two books set during the Victorian period. One was set in Florida in 1893 and the other in London and Chicago, circa 1897 (and it had this awesome action scene at the end on the top of a rotating Ferris Wheel…the first ever built! Great stuff 
). I spent months (this was pre-Google) in the Special Collections section of my university library researching Florida and even went to Chicago to do research on the World’s Columbian Exposition. I know from research…and YET…I was dinged by a contest judge for being inaccurate and berated thoroughly for it. (BTW, I was right and she was wrong…but that didn’t change my score.)
After that, I decided to give authors a break.
And as an author, to try my hardest–for my readers–to be accurate.
Now I find myself doing a lot of historical research again because the hero of the upcoming PHANTOM PLEASURES is from 1747. Every scene I wrote from his point of view took twice as long as the ones I wrote from my heroine’s point of view because I considered every word out of his mouth. Did they know what a psyche was in 1747? What about coffee? Could he drink coffee? And then there was the wine. What kind of wine did they make in 1747? Just red? Claret? Certainly not Zinfandel or Shiraz. But do you see where I’m going?
A few months ago, I sent out about twenty emails asking various experts, which included a historian from the Anglican Church in London and an American Anglican priest with a book out on the history of the Church, how my hero might react if one of his brothers had made the sign of the cross. Was this just a Catholic thing? Back then? Would he see his brother as a papist traitor? Or was it a hold over, hardly noticeable to a member of the Church of England? The debate on this topic raged for a week before I finally decided just to take it out. It wasn’t worth it! But since I’m not writing a historical, I had that luxury.
I can’t imagine that most authors aren’t trying very, very hard to be accurate. Every once in a while, maybe one author was sloppy or made a human error, but that doesn’t mean that some readers aren’t also being a little too particular. I’m not bashing readers. Personally, if someone wants to send me a nice little note telling me that I made a mistake, that’s okay by me. But please, don’t assume that I a) made the mistake out of laziness, b) made the mistake out of stupidity or c) was trying to trick my readers or play fast and loose with historical fact for my own evil purposes.
And I, as a reader, am giving all historical authors a break. It’s official. You read it here first.
Unless it’s blatant and an entire plotline hinges on this error in historical accuracy, I’m willing to fuggetaboutit. Just sweep me away to another time and place and weave a fabulous story with a strong hero and a courageous heroine and you’ll have me, even if your pants should be called pantaloons!
What about you?
Morning Julie and fellow
’s!! As I am trying to read this, I am listening to the doxie and one cat have a morning “discussion” about who rules around here. It ain’t any of the two leggers.
As for historical (or any other kind) of accuracy, I find it more bothersome when current stories are not accurate than I do historicals. I mean, really, would we want to read a romance story of the past if they were really, really accurate? No baths, bathrooms, kitchen cleanliness, etc, etc? icky.
But if we are going to deal with today’s stuff, well that becomes a whole nother kettle of fish.
I have only ever sent one author a quick email (and we still correspond on her blog) about an inaccurracy, which she did fix (it was a series). And that had to do with military rank. And that makes a difference. It’s not something that could be brushed over. It is also something that was easy to make a mistake on.
But do I usually get upset over boo-boos? Not really. I, for one, realize even authors are human.
Maybe it is why I like paranormals so much. Since no one has proved any existance of supernaturals or others, at this point, authors can do what they want. And no one can say that they are wrong.
Works for me!!
Comment by ev — November 28, 2007 @ 7:57 am
I write historical paranormals for Berkley set in Germany… so much to research, so little time!
Three levels of research; time, place and paranormal! (Yes you can research paranormal… I spent a long time researching the hierarchy of angels and the history of the ‘fall from grace’ of Lucifer for Awaiting the Fire. My penance for avoiding Paradise Lost in university.)
But it really is important to me to get things right, and I spend a lot of time on research, and have woken up in a cold sweat as a book is going to print… did I make a mistake? Did I remember to change such-and-such?
But still… I know I get things wrong occasionally. Sometimes purposely. In Awaiting the Night, I needed a lunar eclipse in the spring. Unfortunately, thanks to the internet, I knew one didn’t happen until late July of that year (1795). So I moved it! Yeah, I can move the firmament, what power!
Just joking. I suppose if anyone looked it up - like I did - they’d think I just didn’t do the research, but in that case… I needed a ‘Blood Moon’ in April, so I just made one!
And felt bad about it. I’m a stickler for sticking to the discoverable or known facts. However… I really think there is a fuzzy line between getting some detail wrong and getting the important stuff wrong, something you’re hanging your whole plot on. I think you spend time on research in relative amount according to the importance of the fact… if your whole plot hangs on inheritance law in 1795, then you’d better do the work.
Comment by Donna Lea Simpson — November 28, 2007 @ 9:45 am
I don’t read historicals (typically, I read contemporaries), however, I dislike it when there are spelling errors/grammatical errors/fluency errors. I cut authors a little slack, depending on the book. Yes, I am pretty anal.
Comment by katie — November 28, 2007 @ 9:48 am
ev, great point about historical accuracy and realism. I don’t want to think about those type of things, either. Even when I wrote historicals. Chamber pots, for one!
Donna Lea, thanks so much for stopping by! I read your blog on the topic yesterday and was inspired to throw in my opinion. I wouldn’t sweat the lunar eclipse…I mean, a little suspension of disbelief is a good thing. We are, after all, writing fiction!
Katie, we’re all anal about that sort of thing…or at least, I know I am. But mistakes still happen. It’s good to know that readers can cut us a little slack!
Comment by Julie Leto — November 28, 2007 @ 10:14 am
You know, I read romance to escape - I’m really not looking for a history lesson, though that can be an added bonus. So really, I’m not going to be googling everything to make sure it was accurate. I just don’t feel that strongly about those details.
Things like military rank and all that, yes, that should be correct. Grammar and spelling, definitely. When the first bathroom was invented, not so much. I give authors the right to use poetic license as far as those things are concerned because it really shouldn’t get in the way of enjoying a story. I know some authors will have an “authors note” about fudging dates and events, which is nice, but not necessary.
That’s just my take
Comment by Stacy ~ — November 28, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I read for pure enjoyment and to be honest i wouldnt know if there was a historical error… call me dumb..lol…
but like i say i read for relaxation and enjoyment not to find errors.. if i am so focused on finding mistakes it takes the purpose of relaxation and escape out of a good book…
Comment by Jolene — November 28, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Errors in logic and motivation annoy me a lot more than small historical errors.
Comment by Darlene — November 28, 2007 @ 10:40 am
i agree stacey, i’m not looking for a history lesson. i enjoy fun facts, and if its not true, i’d rather it not be there, but i’m not going to cross check facts on the books i read.
modern innaccuracties definitely bother me more.
Comment by Cail — November 28, 2007 @ 10:45 am
[...] Anyway, on to the lovers’ spat brewing in romancelandia between the readers and the writers. I’ve mentioned it before, the great Champagne Flute Debate of 2007, concerning historical accuracy and readers’ expectations. But it has spread, and is referenced here, and here, and here. [...]
Pingback by DWTS finale, and a lovers’ spat. « Donna Lea Simpson — November 28, 2007 @ 11:18 am
Good morning plotmonkeys and everyone,
I don’t read historicals for a history lesson either. I read them to be entertained and to escape into that world. Any mistakes I overlook unless its blatant. If I love the characters I’ll keep reading regardless of mistakes–and I don’t look for them. I do enjoy reading books like Mary Queen of Scotland and the Isles by Margaret George. This book was written as a novel and was historically accurate. It was fun to discover things I didn’t know about Mary or about the period in which she lived. It was also a fabulous book.
Have a great day all. We have snow here in Denver
mastree:
Cher
Comment by Cher — November 28, 2007 @ 11:19 am
I read for entertainment and not for a history lesson. My first historical novel was “Shanna” by Kathleen Woodiweiss and also “Ashes in the Wind” by the same author. I was swept away and escaped to another time I could only imagine about. Were all the facts correct? I have no idea. But for the time being I felt like I was there and part of that time period.
Comment by Carol R — November 28, 2007 @ 11:24 am
I’m good with history changes as long as it isn’t something too blatant. I admit I don’t read lots of historical romance, but there are a few that I not only read, but go back to read over and over again. I don’t know if they are historically correct or not, the stories just take me away. I figure all writers have the right to take some poetic license with their writing and the events that surround their stories.
Comment by Liza — November 28, 2007 @ 1:25 pm
Since I don’t read fiction books to learn but to enjoy, poetic license is okay. What does bother me is when something is glaringly inaccurate. Several years ago a very popular author wrote a book that takes place in the area I live, she made some very obvious mistakes that other people probably would not have noticed. Since we now have the Internet it is easy to check facts. Military rank and many other things of that nature should be correct. I rarely read historicals anymore so don’t notice any discrepancies on historical facts. Most of my favorite authors seem to spend quite a bit of time with their research which leaves me free to just enjoy the story they wrote. :santahat:
Comment by Donna M — November 28, 2007 @ 3:31 pm
I don’t care if the author is accurate about facts or not, as long as the story doesn’t have cars in 1776, or airplanes in 1800.
Comment by Estella — November 28, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Julie, I’m with you. If it is a *huge* historical error, it most definitely bothers me. But the tiny stuff? Nope. Not only might I not notice it, but oftentimes I’ll think, “Well, I thought it was x, but if she says it was y, she’s probably right, and do I really care, anyway? Not if the story’s good, I don’t!”
If, however, the story is NOT good and is not engaging me, I am much more likely to spot and get annoyed by errors!
Comment by Leslie — November 28, 2007 @ 7:40 pm
I read for enjoyment, plain and simple. If I want reality (historical facts and all), I’ll turn on the news or history channel.
Comment by Cindy — November 28, 2007 @ 8:04 pm
I do read some Regencies (by author, e.g., Carla Kelly), find those books take more out of me to read, so, don’t read them in succession. If the characters “move me”, that’s all that matters.
However, like a few others, grammatical errors bother me. One that is almost always incorrect is the “if” clause, “If I WERE to do…”, which is usually, “If I was…”, & is frequently wrong & right on different pages within the same book. Seems very strange.
In any genre, if the characters touch me, it’s a good book.
Patricia A.
Comment by Patricia — November 28, 2007 @ 8:09 pm
I have a bachelor’s in history and I still don’t know everything. If I’m enjoying a story that’s all that matters. I don’t read historicals anymore but used to inhale them, starting with Roberta Gellis. She did a lot of research. I was going to write a historical one time, and as a historian found myself so obsessed with getting everything right that I just gave up.
Comment by Bailey Stewart — November 28, 2007 @ 8:41 pm
Comment by ev — November 28, 2007 @ 9:30 pm
I absolutly LOVE
Romantic historical fiction, keyword: FICTION! If an author has fudged a bit on costumes, or locations, street crossings, I’m completely ok with it. Heck I probably will never notice the mistake.
Like everyone else, unless it is a MAJOR mistake that pulls me out of the story, I am happy to go with the flow. Romance is about the character’s emotions and all the hoops they have to jump before earning their HEA. The discovery and then devotion to each other, that is what I am reading.
Of course I’m never concerned about what fork I used at a fancy restaurant either. Life’s too short to worry about it. :feast:
Comment by Corinne — November 28, 2007 @ 9:36 pm
What bothers me more are continuity errors.. Names changing or colors of eyes or hair.
Historical continuity.. should someone be addressed Lady first name or Lady last name. It doesn’t bother me. I’m not a historian and I’m reading for fun.
Do people really think that CSI is real? Or NCIS? How about Law & Order and how the court system works. It is fictional and people have to remember that.
Comment by Ann M. — November 28, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
Hey Jules, sorry I am so late guys, but today has been really busy…
Love the topic you chose Julie…I cut my teeth on historicals too…love Devereaux, Lindsay’s Captive Bride, which is one of my favs, love Patrica Potter’s works as well…I am bit into Gabaldon historicals too…I could go on and on…if you haven’t read Gabaldon, anyone…check her out…they are tomes though, so make sure you don’t have books to write at the time you choose to read her, or that your lives aren’t too stressful…
In response to your question…it really doesn’t bother me if an author messes up something as simple as pants and pantaloons. However, if an author did change the time period of significant events I would never read that author again…otherwise it doesn’t matter…as long as the story is well-written and takes me to a place other than the real life place where I am at it doesn’t bother me much…
I must confess though, that when I finally got to college and learned more about Historical facts, I would tend to read books to see how accurate they were…never called anybody on any errors though…didn’t stop me from reading those books…
I am glad that I was able to comment on this one…I missed too many days already…I hope that everyone has a restful night…ttys
Peace and love,
Paula R.
Comment by Paula R. — November 29, 2007 @ 12:23 am
Great post, Julie, and terrific comments, everyone! I agree–I read mainly for the story, and can shrug off most small errors. If it’s a major plot point, then that’s another issue, and like Leslie said, if the story’s not terribly interesting, then inconsistencies are just going to grate.
Comment by Fedora — November 29, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Julie, speaking of the Columbian Exhibition–did you ever read Devil in the White City? AMAZING book!
Comment by Leslie — November 29, 2007 @ 9:06 pm
I own it, but I’ve never read it. I want to! It’s a fascinating time in history.
Comment by Julie Leto — November 29, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
Okay, I’ve been thinking about this post for a few days. My opinion…
As an author writing an historical, I would expect you to try and do as much research as possible. I do understand that some anachronistic mistakes may be made. There are nuances within every era that may only be known to a few people. There are ones within our own time that may only be known to a few people! I’ve seen mistakes in contemporaries. If it is a minor thing, I let it go. If it has nothing to do with the continuity of the story, cringe, then ignore it. If the author continues to write in that era, I might feel compelled to say something.
Did you know, the man who created the walkie-talkie also created the automatic garage door opener? See, there’s only a handful of people who know inane stuff like that! :-)
Comment by ThatBrunette — November 30, 2007 @ 2:53 pm