Categories: Ranty McRant
Tags: This entry has not been tagged yet.
Yesterday was a Day of Much Busy-ness (among other accomplishments, I mopped the whole house! Twice! And the mop water in the second round was still a delightful shade of gray, but fuck that noise, I’m not going to mop the goddamn place a third time—hey, at least the floors are two shades less gray than they were before) and oh god what was the point of my sentence? Oh yes. BUSY AS A BUG all day yesterday, so I didn’t get to participate in Smart Bitches day, and I know, it’s silly, we ARE the Smart Bitches so every day is Smart Bitches day in these here parts, but y’know. I’m nothing if not a participator.
So anyway, I picked up Mary Jo Putney’s The Bartered Bride the other day in my ongoing “read one romance novel, read 10 pages of Fabric of the Cosmos, have those 10 pages totally blow my mind then read another romance novel to put my mind back together” endeavor. When I got to page 2, though, I had to put the book down. Why? Because this sentence came out of Kyle Renbourne’s mouth: “The investigator has a couple of leads that might prove who tried to make you look guilty.”
OK, first of all: LEADS? What kind of talk is that for a British lord in 18-motherfucking-35?
And second of all: Couple? I know this word has been used to mean “a pair of things” for a long time, but its presence, together with “leads,” makes this sentence sound like a line out of a Dash Hammett caper, not a historical romance.
And that quickly, the world was ruined. I was thoroughly pulled out of the book, and I won’t try to read it again until I’m feeling less cranky about it.
I see that - and I raise you the “hero who knows too much about the history and global context of whatever business he is currently involved in, thereby showing off the depth of the research the author has done.” Not only does it yank me out of the story, but it is unlikely that the hero, especially in a historical when information traveled so slowly, would have such a grasp on the larger, global consequences of his own business ventures.
Yes, I love that Kinsale’s heroes do not analyze themselves. Take Samuel in The Shadow and the Star—it would have ruined the book if he’d analyzed how his abusive childhood had affected how he felt about sex, or why he wanted to marry his foster sister.
(Sorry, cannot seem to resist any chance whatsoever to talk about TSATS!)
And stds and rakes, you’ve gotta wonder. In fact, I couldn’t help thinking about poor Samuel and stds. But I’d only want to deal with that with a time travel or sff setting where it could be cured.
You’ve listed the main reason why I couldn’t get into MJP’s historical romances. I agree with what you were saying until you mentioned personal hygiene. That’s where you lost me.
Why is it that, when comes to discussing historical accuracy, people have to mention personal hygiene and such?
I mean, consider this fact: “[...] most Americans did not brush their teeth until Army soldiers brought their enforced habits of tooth brushing back home after World War II”. Although toilet paper was first produced in China in the 14th century, toilet rolls [first introduced in approx. 1920s] weren’t that common until 1940s in most Western countries, including the UK and the US. Yet no one said a thing about personal hygiene in pre-WWII-setting novels.
Do we really want to know about the basic needs and basic medical issues in contemporary romances, e.g. the heroine’s need to go to the loo and such? I think it’s easy to assume that we don’t.
So, why the need to associate the status of personal hygiene with historical accuracy? This is a thing I don’t really understand.
To me, historical accuracy is a good take on the zeitgeist of a time period used in a story. This includes mentality, personal beliefs and prejudices, outlooks, speech and such.
P.S. I agree with you on the current trend of having the h/h psychoanalysing their issues and relationships. Too weird for my taste! :D
I brought up personal hygiene because I’m a spoiled little bitch who loves her running water and toilet paper, and who would get THOROUGHLY squicked out at the thought of the generous multitude of flora surrounding the average protagonist’s Happy Bits if a historical novel were thoroughly realistic. I mean, have you noticed how often characters in historical romances take a bath? Much, much, MUCH more often than the average person did back in Ye Olden Days. I don’t mind those bathing scenes because I’m all “Whoo-hoo, clean Happy Bits!” This is very much a modern sensibility and an illustration of how inconsistent I am in terms of how realistic I want my books to be.
And thanks for the info on how recent regular teeth-brushing and toilet paper usage are--now I can be squicked out about hygiene in all but the most recent contemporary novels ;-) . For what it’s worth, I haven’t read ANY romance novels set in WWII, or even WWI--there seems great big blank between 1880 and 1980 in terms of an acceptable period setting for a typical romance novel.
I’ve been reading and enjoying your blog for weeks, but this is my first comment. I’m an aspiring writer working on a Regency historical. Except it’s really more of a Peninsular War historical--much more battlefield than ballroom. And I’m here to talk about toothbrushes, of all things. According to one of my research tomes, the 60 lbs. of gear carried by your average infantry soldier included a toothbrush and soap. How often they used either, who knows, but I think that’s justification enough to allow a reader to imagine reasonably hygienic Regency heroes.
I agree that it’s OK for romance novels to romanticize the past—after all, they’re “romance” novels, not “reality” novels. So let the heroine spend too much time in her bathtub, that’s fine with me.
But the problem for me is that historical romances aren’t romanticizing the past—they’re really about the present. Take a modern hero, a modern heroine, a modern plot, modern dialogue, modern psychoanalysis, then slap the label “Regency England” on it all and call it a historical romance. That’s where the books go wrong.
I wish I could tell writers: Old-fashioned dialogue is romantic… use it. I hear people use modern slang all the time. In a historical romance, I want romantic historical dialogue. The past provides so much fodder for romance—so why just give us the 21st century in Regency garb?
03.29.05 at 01:10 PM |