Plot Monkeys

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?