a further note

[erastes]

Just because I give links to a discussion or think something is an interesting subject that people might be interested in it doesn’t mean that it’s All About Anyone In Particular. It’s not some kind of logic game where I say a. This person is writing about x which I think is interesting, and anyone who disagrees with it is WRONG. M’ok?

As an additional point - Gehayi often points this out - it seems to me to be only ROMANCE that gets away with this level of inaccuracy.  Somehow because its Romance, it doesn't matter.

However were you to do an historical MYSTERY or an historical HORROR you would have a legion of fans picking holes in your accuracy:

“You didn’t get that gun until 2 years later.”

“Rifling wasn’t invented until 18….”

“The Met didn’t incorporate fingerprinting until ….”

See what I mean??? This is why I get baffled.

Dollshouse is getting very good.  Sorry for those who don’t like it, (this doens’t mean I hate you lot, either) but I’m enjoying it hugely. Yes, it’s creepy. That’s the idea.

Comments

[ggymeta.wordpress.com (from livejournal.com)]

You like Dollhouse. Now I know you hate me. Well you know what... #$@!

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

Confirms my suspicions of the romance genre. Means also I will never label my stuff romance, unless the pay me a million Norwegian krona (very likely the only stable currency for a while).

[mallory-blog.livejournal.com]

Romance, as a genre, is lazy...IMHO

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

I'm a history nitpicker, but only because I like history. And I write mysteries, so live in fear of the many, many, many potential readers both smarter and better versed in history than I.

[angelabenedetti.livejournal.com]

You know, I honestly think that has more to do with the bazillion romance readers out there than anything else. Romance is still, what, 53% of the American fiction market? That's a lot of readers. It's like the romantic element gives the historical -- which is usually the domain of the specialist fan(atic)s, an accessibility which gets people reading historicals who normally wouldn't.

I've certainly been involved in any number of sharp, educated, critical discussions about historical romances, where authors who phoned it in were given short shrift and lots of snarking. So the readers who are all over the historical details are there in the romance genre. It's just that there are a lot of other people there too -- people who don't know any better, don't care, don't know the difference, and just want a fun story.

The readership for straight -- that is, non-romantic -- historicals is much smaller. It's reasonable that the people making up that relatively small group would be the devotees, the people who know their stuff and enjoy wandering through another time and place with a writer who's a qualified guide. Same with the other genres you mentioned.

There readership for historical romance is freaking huge, though, so it's logical that there are going to be a lot of folks in there who aren't history buffs, but who just enjoy the the kind of story they like in a particular exotic setting.

The larger the group, the less likely it is to be composed of specialists, so really, historical romance's only sin is popularity.

Angie

[kittymay.livejournal.com]

Absolutely right, there, and well-put.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

We once disagreed so now I feel you hate me and I am going to go and smother myself with Crispin's wank-sock! Or Jude's wanking-robe (I cannot imagine him having anything less)

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

I like variations on 'The Game'. You know, where fans of Conan Doyle try to logically explain away his mistakes and inconsistencies. I guess that reflects the type of fan.

Don't take it to heart - people are too quick to take things personally. Like that day you compared me to the Great Pyramid of Giza...

No, I don't know what I'm talking about, either. Been a long day in a long week.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

I think that because "Romance" has such a large audience, you get a range of readers who are a real bell-curve -- with the ones who expect perfect accuracy at one end (damned near impossible, IMO) and the ones who just want something that hits their buttons at the other. I just don't see why a writer can't hit the buttons after hitting the books.

Personally, I think faux history is a really bad idea, because there are way too many people who get their history mostly from historical fiction--movies in particular, but mostly films.

"Those who cannot learn from the past are doomed to repeat it." Very true, but what if your major source of history is, for instance, Mel Gibson films? Don't laugh; that's often the case for folks who had lousy history teachers and forgot all the dates, generals, and battles the day after the final exam.

"It's only a story" is a cop-out. Glory, Amistad, Schindler's List, Band of Brothers... Those are historical films; I'm using films because I don't want to pick on particular writers and films have a much wider audience.

Honestly done, historical fiction can be a painless way of teaching. Badly done, or done with a heavy agenda, it's misinformation at best and hate propaganda or whitewashing at worst.

People forget that the first purpose of storytelling was to pass on needed information. It's one thing to creat gay characters who have understanding family members--many do!--and quite another to do "OK Homo." It is, as I think you said elsewhere, disrespectful to the s/s lovers who have literally been martyred for who they are and who they love.

If a reader lurves sailing ships and sailor boys together but doesn't like that icky business of being under the threat of death...? Well, there are two options: read sci-fi/fantasy universes such as Bujold's Ethan of Athos, or work to get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in real life. Do something to create the world you want to live in.

But in historicals... I'm sorry. Men were hanged and women were thrown into madhouses for loving each other. They're still hanging teenagers today in Iran; a US Navy kid was beaten to death for being gay just a few years back, his face so pulped his mother had to ID him from his tattoos. A lesbian in Virginia was kept from her partner's deathbed by "Godly" parents, after the anti-gay amendment passed in Virginia. Gay-hate crimes are on the rise in some places. It isn't just history. Far too often, it's still reality.

To me, living in the Isle of the (Frozen) Blessed where my marriage is legal, the wonder that men and women risked what they did to love one another is the beauty and wonder of s/s romance. Their courage deserves to be acknowledged and celebrated, not relegated to the land of 'let's pretend.'

[volterra.livejournal.com]

I haven't given up on Dollhouse yet, but I'm still not free of the squick factor either.

Regency romance -- the ones that only e-pubs put out now, had readers who were sticklers for accuracy. The longer historical romances, well, not so much.

[essayel.livejournal.com]

Don't watch TV, too busy reading and writing, so you enjoy Dollshouse with my blessing.

I've often heard people say things like "I was enjoying the book until the author mentioned the green/cream livery of Great Western Railway rolling stock. That ruined it for me because they didn't start using the cream coachlines until 1938 - three whole YEARS after the time of the novel. Don't you hate sloppy research?" Sorry, history buffs, but if the story is good and the characters interesting and the plot compelling and I desperately want to find out what happens next I couldn't give a rat's arse about the exactitude of minor historical details.

It's nice to see, or suspect, that the author has put in the hours to get it as right as possible and glaring anachronisms are to be avoided, but sometimes the author just can't know. Subsequent archaeological discoveries or historical research may throw their work right off but I'm very inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt as long as the story is good. I don't ever want to be in the position of one friend who walked out of Saving Private Ryan because he noticed that the cleat pattern of the soldiers boots didn't come into use for US military issue footwear until 1972. I think I would miss out on so much good stuff.

[enolabloodygay.livejournal.com]

Not going to get too deeply into discussing this, but one thing my Dad said sticks in my mind.

He said, if you read a good story and it interests you in the period, you may then investigate the history of that period and discover inaccuracies and anachronisms, which may mean you will never again be able to read that story in the same way or with as much pleasure. However, you will have broadened your knowledge, read more books and still enjoyed the story you first read.

He always believed in reading - anything, everything. Despite being a teacher, he encouraged me to read Enid Blyton when the education system was trying to ban her from libraries, because then I tried something more challenging the next time, because reading interested me.

I know you're not a lover of Georgette Heyer, but I would bet more people became interested in the Regency period through her novels than were ever inspired by a history lesson at school. And though there are many inaccuracies in her novels, if she said a battle was fought at X on N date, as far as I know,it was!

It depends what you want out of a book when you read it - for sheer escapism and fun, give me a Heyer. For gritty accuracy, I reach for Bernard Cornwell. For present day real life, it's Deric Longden and you can't tell me that he is representative of England today - but he lives here and now. It's his perception of life in England now. For total fantasy, give me Terry Pratchett.

I agree totally that no-one should project modern day morals into historical novels, whether it be s/s relationships or slavery, nor should someone in 1142 sail to the Crusades and back in a fortnight, but please, when I pick up a novel, let me be entertained first and educated second. And you do achieve that wonderfully, if you don't mind me saying so. ;-)

I think I lied when I said I wasn't going to discuss this too deeply - sorry for having a ramble.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

No, you are right - and the balance has to exist. Cornwell makes mistakes - he admits it, and sometimes he even does it deliberately which horrifies some of the "historical fraternity" - he might change person A and make them present at Battle B - but he knows what he's doing.

What I loathe is the historical bandwaggon jumper - who thinks that historical is just going to make them more money than the crap they've written up to know, and who thinks that Regency means all they need to do is read Heyer. or watch Tv

[gavinatlas.livejournal.com]

I'm liking Dollhouse better, too. That phone message "the middle flower is green" was a plot twist I didn't expect at all.