Because everyone has a say

[erastes]

And it seems to be Correct for everyone else to have an opinion apart from the person who made the review—and that's a little unreasonable. 

I rarely bother to comment on disgruntled authors who are unhappy that I didn't find their book particularly appealing, primarily because in the four years of Speak Its Name's existence I've only had two authors that I can remember who exploded in public, and one other who emailed me privately. I'm happy to say that 99.99 of the authors I encounter in Gay Historical Land are quiet and professional—and if they meltdown over something as silly as a subjective opinion then they do it in private.

One of the points that people seem to make when I point out that the historical aspect of a book isn't entirely historical is that they make the excuse that it's fantasy. And as such, it doesn't matter whether or not facts are true.  So—that's a point—is fiction automatically fantasy?

In a way, yes.

Because the minute you change the world just the tiniest bit by introducing someone into it that didn't exist then you've changed the universe and it is an alternative universe created by you. Even if you are writing a fictional account of a real-life person, then you can't possibly know what happened for every second of that person's day and from time to time you'll invent—thereby creating a fantasy version of What Really Happened.

BUT. That doesn't give an author a bye, an excuse, a loophole to then say—when a reviewer has noticed that perhaps his research is not all it should be—that "it's fantasy anyway, so it DOESN'T COUNT."

No. The second your invented characters start to interact with the world outside his head, then he has to encounter the correct era, the correct clothes, the correct manners, the correct mindset.  How much of this appears in your book is entirely up to you. I know that some people don't want to do "all that research" – but a modicum is needed.  If you are going to use that excuse then get your publisher to use an A.U. label,or fantasy. Do what Langley did with "My Fair Captain" and have your Regency or whatever in space! Even Dreamspinner, who have a "historical-lite" "Dreams" line only really give their disclaimer along the lines of what gay men might have got away with, or how others may have treated them. In all the books I've read from that line, generally the historical facts are pretty sound.

What annoyed me about this particular book is not that the author didn't do any research, but that it looked from the outside that he'd just bunged in a lot of stuff he thought he knew about the Victorian era, but didn't do the simple checks required. I don't see why he got annoyed with me pointing this out, because it was true. What annoyed me as much as that the publisher could have easily have checked too—something I think an editor should do—they always always have with my books. You don't have to be an expert in historical editing to just check a few facts. That's all it would have taken—and the book would have been much better!

Similarly, sticking M/M on a book doesn't give the author free rein to discount any research.  M/M as far as I can grok it is now used for a shorthand for gay romance. It's not a separate entity where "anything goes." The authors of detective M/M will be expected to have a viable plot, weapon, motive, opportunity, sleuth(s) and some kind of denouement. I'm quite sure that if a M/M author used the wrong ammunition with a particular gun, or had the wrong symptoms for a poison, someone would point it out. Sticking M/M on your detective fiction does not excuse you from getting the genre wrong (and the detective crowd as just as rabid as any fans). If you were to write (and why isn't someone) an M/M set in a hospital, the author would not get away with wrong procedures, wrong treatments, blah blah -  so why shouldn't it be the same for historical fiction? Why are historical authors considered "nitpicky" when medical authors are just "knowledgeable"?

I KNOW that I take research in historical books seriously. A lot more seriously than many readers, and that's fine

If you (as a reader) don't care one iota whether the Penny Black was launched in June 1840 not February, that married women couldn't start their own business before the laws changed, or that Dracula wasn't published in when Ambrose Standish was in prison (you see, I don't let myself off any lighter than I do others) – then that's entirely your affair.  I understand that. You just want a good read and a good story. And THAT'S FINE.

BUT. I also think, that as a reader you deserve that the facts you are reading, even if you don't notice or care if they are correct or not, ARE as correct as they can be.  Not only does the writer give you that respect, but you aren't likely to make a tit of yourself at dinner parties when you trundle out the facts you learned in an historical book.

Comments are open, but you know my rules. Disagree and dispute all you like but the minute it gets wanky and personal, out you go.

Comments

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

The author you're talking about s quite (in)famous on Goodreads for constantly picking fights with reviewers. I know for a fact that a lot of the more knowledgeable hardcore readers of M/M have blocked him and stopped reading/buying his books.

Here's an author that's a compulsive ass in public.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Nod. I had heard that. As much as I was saddened at the "when fans (and authors) attack" mode, it was more the "but why does it matter that you can't get cranberries in 1840 in February" that baffled me! If you got your Russian facts wrong (and Iknow you are praised for getting them right) in your contemps - people would soon complain, but historical authors get stick for it. I find that I'm just as researchy with my contemps as I am with historicals, too.

[vashtan.livejournal.com]

I run everything past a Russian native - and I have a stable of military betas. I research compulsively (that's the only reason why my WWII novel isn't out yet - I just can't rush reading/digesting thousands of pages of research).

But yeah, the ad hominem attacks weren't nice, and I'll blog extensively about that.

[angrboda]

That's.... genre-jacking! O.o

As a fantasy reader primarily, I would say that if it hasn't got some sort of supernatural element, magic or odd critters or something, it's NOT fantasy. It just isn't. Anachronisms alone doesn't qualify.

I'm not feeling best pleased with my genre becoming the excuse for those who couldn't be arsed to look things up. If they want to write fantasy, they should do it properly with swords and damsels in distress (or gents in distress maybe, in this case) and magic and what have you. Oh wait, that might require them to look stuff up.

Could we invent a new genre for them or something?

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I'm completely in agreement with you here. Fantasy is not a synonym for "full of inaccuracies." Fantasy requires as much world-building as historical, except that instead of being able to look it up, you've got to make it up. You've still got to make sure it's believable and internally consistent. And for a historical to be believable and internally consistent it needs to fit with real-world history.

[angrboda]

Exactly. And if they get their way and everybody everywhere could just claim 'fantasy' as an excuse, an entire genre would end up being a wastebasket with the actual real fantasy stories few and far between. It'd be like fanfiction.net with real books.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Also - as I said to Vashtan, the (very few) contemps I have done, have required every bit as much research as any historical. Hells bells, I remember just how much research I used to put into FANFIC!!!

[semioticwarrior.livejournal.com]

Doing fantasy right takes as much work, or more, as doing historicals right. At least historical information is pretty much at one's fingertips!

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Not to mention that you don't get a free pass in fantasy for getting stuff wrong, either. Geeks ARGUE about things. Incessantly. I've seen arguments on fantasy forums about:

* whether or not a sword could have been crafted in medieval Europe the way it was in medieval Japan;

* how difficult it is to swing a claymore, and whether you'd still be able to lift it after a fantasy version of a battle that, historically, lasted four hours during the heat of summer;

* how physics and magic manage to work together;

* the fact that horses do not operate like sports cars (Hello, Poul Anderson!);

* how a talking dragon manages to breathe fire without burning its tongue and lips away;

* magic as a genetic predisposition vs. a skill acquired by training;

* whether the word used in a spell is as important as the intent of the caster.

Geeks debate EVERYTHING. And they enjoy debating everything.

So, genre-jackers (and that is a GREAT word!). No. What you are talking about is not fantasy, save in the wish-fulfillment sense of the word. It is fiction, yes--but it is not fantasy fiction. It is ill-researched fiction. There is a difference.

[angrboda]

Geeks argue. YES they do! I recommend looking up kippurbird's lengthy comments on the Eragon series.

And when building an artificial world it seems to me that it involves a lot more research on some pretty diffuse things. Like geology, geography, meterology, botany and zoology. If you have a mountain chain there, then what would be the natural course of rivers in the area? How would it affect weather patterns? (And for god's sake draw a map!)

You really, really have to love a story to bits in order to be able to suspend disbelief at an impossible geography. And even then it will still be a small annoyance that the story could have been SO much better if only the world it was set in had made sense...

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I hadn't seen this before, but this is entirely the kind of thing that has put me off reviewing. If you can't give your honest opinion without being accused of having a personal vendetta against the author, and you don't wish to be accused of having personal vendettas, then you can't say anything. Because you can't carry on reviewing if you can't be honest.

Honesty demands that you sometimes have to say you disliked a book, and good reviewing demands that you have to say why. Feuds with authors and their fans can't change that, but they can mean that it's harder and harder to find anyone willing to review a book at all.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

Or else it means that everything gets subsumed by the Cult of Nice. Which, it seems, is less about people being nice and more about people not wanting to be harassed on the Internet.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

It won't change my aspect one jot, either. I am still going to review,despite the attacks and accusations, and it's always the same accusation, nothing original, that I'm trying to make my books more popular by dissing the others.Which, blimey, I wish I HAD that superpower. If Llewellyn writes another historical, I won't--as many others have done--refuse to review him, I will do the next review as objectively (in that respect) as if I had never heard of him. Unlike some people, who are affected by author's antics and therefore decide whether they'll read a book by that person judged on their views etc, i'm capable of just judging the work.

I don't agree with bullying of any description, and the "minions attack" method used by some authors is simply that--bullying.

[alex-beecroft.livejournal.com]

I can certainly understand the desire not to be harassed on the internet. Who wants their life to contain a large dose of perfect strangers telling them they're a horrible person all day long? I don't - my mental equilibrium constantly teeters just above depression as it is. I can't afford to add the hatred of strangers to my own.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

I can understand that desire, too, Alex. I gave up modding an RPG comm a few years back because the stress of dealing with people bitching all the time was making me physically ill.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's the same old excuse I've heard bandied about - that I have an agenda to make my books more popular by rubbishing everyone else. That it's nonsense makes me tired just to say. How on earth can I have personal vendettas against people I know nothing about? I don't recall every speaking to AJL - I may have commented on tweets or LJ but I have no memory of it.

[beckyblack]

This "personal vendetta" thing just seems so silly. It's not like you're putting out a book a week! I'm sure you're happy for people to read other historical romances between your releases. Or do some people think your aim is to get readers to just reread your books over and over until your next new release, ignoring all other writers' books?

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Arguing with a reviewer is tacky. Maybe this author needs to separate himself from his works somewhat so he can accept criticism. There will be negative reviews. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes, and no book is to everyone's taste.

And for God's sake, if you're claiming to write historical fiction, make an attempt to get the history right.

I accept that there's a difference between costume drama romances and serious historical fiction, but there's still no excuse for not getting the basic setting right or having obvious anachronisms that can be checked by 5 minutes on the Internet.

Leaving aside the duty a writer may or may not owe to the reader, it's a simple matter of self-interest, IMO. Readers who love a historical period really know that period inside out and they will spot mistakes immediately and be less willing to buy that author's books again.

[cerisaye.livejournal.com]

Well, I haven't read the book in question and now I certainly won't, but I have to agree 100% with holding writers of historical fiction to account for accuracy and attention to period constraints and social mores. Authors do not get a free pass to avoid the hard work of research because their book is heavier on the Romance than History. It disrespects readers and the historical period in question and makes it impossible to believe in the story/characters, which marks ANY book down, regardless of what an author's minions might opine.

Also, IMHO it is bad form for any writer to engage with a reviewer publically in such a manner and so obviously invite trolling by his/her loyal readers. Reviews are a matter of opinion and necessarily reflect the reviewer's personal tastes and preferences, but your reviews always seem very fair to me, giving credit where due, and otherwise when required, as in this case. For goodness sake, surely a review site for Historical Fiction of ANY stripe has a right to call writers to task for historical accuracy- or has the slapdash approach of contemporary TV & film historical drama (e.g. The Tudors) made those of us who remain sticklers for detail into fuddy-duddies out to spoil the fun? Having seen and enjoyed tremendously Spartacus, I can say it is perfectly possible to strike a balance between sexy entertainment and serious world-building that nods to historical accuracy and tries hard to get it right enough to satisfy more demanding readers/viewers!

[beckyblack]

Having seen and enjoyed tremendously Spartacus, I can say it is perfectly possible to strike a balance between sexy entertainment and serious world-building that nods to historical accuracy and tries hard to get it right enough to satisfy more demanding readers/viewers!

I'd agree, making an effort to get the background detail right is what earns the writers the leeway to bend other things a little to the demands of fiction. And bending things mindfully is a whole different thing than just not bothering to find out if that's the way it was or not.

[josephine-myles.livejournal.com]

As someone who picks up most of her (patchy) historical knowledge from fiction, I rely on it being diligently researched! I'm not the kind of reader who can be absorbed by non-fiction history books, but a novel makes it much easier to digest. I think it's important to get the facts as straight as you can manage, and I'm glad you call writers out on it.

I suggest "Costume Romance" for readers and writers who are just in it for the corsets, half-hose and master/servent dynamic :)

[dargie.livejournal.com]

Apropos of reviews, I have long felt that it's really bad form to argue with a bad review, even if you know you're right because from the outside you're the one who looks like a jerk and that turns readers off. At most, correct any factual errors in the review and just forget the rest. It's just opinion, as you say.

Apropos of facts in historical (and any other sort) of fiction, writers need to do research. Period. I refuse to accept any other point of view on that issue. That said, there are always going to be gaps in your research and with any luck you'll get an editor who can fill them in. And if you make a mistake, well you better be prepared to take the lumps. However, if there is a compelling reason to change an historical fact, then play it up, make a thing of it, make it clear that this is some sort of alternative history, and go with that. But to try to pass off shoddy scholarship as fantasy is another thing that makes an author look like a jerk.

I tell you, it's a minefield out here. *g*

[copperbeech.livejournal.com]

Well said. I've seen a lot of authors flake out on technicalities of anachronism. It's a weak excuse for not doing thorough research. I'm all for liberties that expand an understanding, move it in a different direction, or fill in a blank that would otherwise neutralize a plot. But when it's just *wrong* and/or poorly done you've neutralized the plot for a lot of readers anyway.

[aishabintjamil.livejournal.com]

I just don't get people who want to write historical and not do the research. Especially if it's a period that's relatively well documented. It's harder with early periods, and you have to interpolate a lot about little things, but anything in the last couple of hundred years has so much information out there that you can find.

I'm working on a 1916 Ireland project that when it's done is going to be alternate history/historical fantasy because a big chunk of the plot revolves around the notion that the Golden Dawn and related magical groups which existed at the time had real effects on events behind the scenes. But I want everything else to be so accurate that the reader will put the book down thinking "Gee, could that have really been going on behind the scenes?"

That means the cultural details and the real events which are well documented have to be right. If Maude Gonne was in Paris during a particular chunk of time, I can't have her doing something in Dublin then, no matter how convenient it would be.

I just don't get people who write historicals and don't want to research. I ran into another author who had done a M/M book set in Dublin, 1913, and thought that she might have suggestions for research into the underground gay life of the area, so I wrote to her. She wrote back, quite nicely, but the gist of her reply was that she hadn't done much - the readers didn't really care. I winced, deleted the message, and never bothered to look at the book.

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

My point of view is that while I know there are wallpaper historical books out there (where the history is as important as the wallpaper, i.e., not very), and I have read a few of them, I much prefer all of my books to be exactly as accurate as the writer can make them. It's part of the process of making the story and the world as inviting to the reader as possible. (Ye old suspension of disbelief works much better if you're not coming up against anachronisms and/or far too modern attitudes.) So I am with you.

I can even accept a wallpaper historical if I'm aware that the author is known for that and his or her storytelling is worth it. Sometimes (very rarely) their skill with words and characterization can overcome the defect in their research.

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

"But the readers don't care! so why should I?"

How about a little cheese with that whine... Jesus. None of us will ever get everything right, but for pity's sake, it should be at least plausible. I know that there's no record of an upper-class mollyhouse in Regency times, but given the power of privilege to cover its own tracks, I thought that my club in Tangled Web was plausible, as fiction. Conan Doyle might have been scandalized at the notion of Oscar Wilde consulting with Sherlock Holmes, but Russell Brown pulled it off in Sherlock Holmes and the Mysterious Friend of Oscar Wilde.

I do think that an author has the right to make a statement if a reviewer criticizes something that is not in the book, or gets the facts wrong, because a reviewer can make mistakes too. But that tantrum was just ridiculous.

I've run across AJ Lewellen on Facebook, but haven't actually read his work, so I don't know about his other stories (I haven't read a lot of m/m lately - or anything else.) If that's his sockpuppet, it's too bad. I hope it's just some fan or other.

[baritonejeff.livejournal.com]

An opinion from the sidelines: yes.

[gaedhal.livejournal.com]

The argument that readers "don't care" about accuracy
because it's "just fiction" or whatever is absurd. And
to think that because it's Victorian it doesn't matter
is assuming your readers are downright stupid.

If you wrote a story that takes place during WW2, would
you expect to show the characters texting each other or
listening to their iPods and not be called out about it?
I mean, if you're writing Doctor Who fanfic, then fine,
say so, but if you purport to be writing historical
fiction -- well, that word "historical" actually has
a meaning.

[stevie-carroll.livejournal.com]

I love a well researched book, no matter what genre it is, and I'm very happy for people to tell me if I'm missing a fact (down to debating a related fact when I make a research-request post).

I think when I finally get home, I'll unlock my last review post. My main panic was unexpectedly getting comments on it when I wasn't going to be around to enter into a debate.

[mylodon.livejournal.com]

You done right, girl.