Historical romances. Putting these 2 words together seems almost an oxymoron in the world of “happily ever after”. For the contemporary romance author, writing a romance without an HEA is like committing hari kari in terms of potential sales, because romance readers demand that their heroes end up 
together. When they don’t, it’s a death knell for the book once the word gets out.
Historical romances almost never have an HEA. The best the reader can hope for is the ever elusive HFN. Do historical romance readers have different expectations than contemporary romance readers? Maybe they have had their hearts broken so many times they no longer expect their guys to end up together. Is part of the allure the thought of overcoming all odds - not to be together forever, but to show just what the human spirit can endure? Do we long for days long gone by when men were men and no feat was impossible? Do these books have some sort of a cachet which appeals to the “intellectual” in those readers who love the genre?
I have been trying for some time to figure out the reasons for the popularity of historical romances and so far have not been able to crack the code. Not that there has to be a reason for the popularity of this sub genre which has been around for as long as romances have been published. But recently I was really depressed while reading a historical romance and I wondered why a writer would choose a plot that was such a downer. It’s bad enough to know that one of the protagonists will probably end up with a woman he’s forced to marry, or be killed - leaving his lover alone forever, but to write stories that have a thread of doom and gloom throughout is really pouring it on.
I do love historical romances but I admit that the books set around WW2 or later are more to my taste because the men don’t get sick from diseases long extinct such as scurvy – I won’t upset you by detailing the horrible symptoms and effects of diseases like this, let’s just say they are not pretty. I don’t think that reading romances is supposed to make you depressed! I can’t imagine love flourishing in such an environment and I wonder if the authors are at all upbeat when they are writing these stories. Do
they take happy pills so that they don’t slit their wrists? 
I realize that this post will not make me the most popular person today, but I’m really curious about the allure of historical romances, given the built-in downsides of no HEA in a genre (romance) where this is almost sacrilegious. I will confess that a few Age of Sail romances like Captain’s Surrender and Ransom are some of my most loved books, and Transgressions is up there, still ….. IDK
Do you read historical romances because the thought of the protagonists being jailed or ending up on the gallows, if they are caught having sex, makes the story more appealing and exciting? Or is the attraction the wonderful uniforms in Age of Sail romances and the pomp and ceremony in the books? Maybe the thought of ripping off those nice fancy uniforms and tight breeches gets the adrenalin pumping.
Readers, do you feel uplifted when you read about the horrible conditions that the men have to endure for love and country (since in most of these books they are fighting one war or another)? Do you love these romances because they are about a past that didn’t have all the modern problems we endure today? (At least there are no identity thefts in historical romances) Is it because these stories are set in an era where men had to rely on each other, brute strength, and maybe, just maybe, a bit of intelligence to survive?
Writers, why do you love historical romances? What’s the alllure of this sub genre? It can’t be easy – the research and amount of detail in the world building are incredible so I know you must love the different eras, but what are the other reasons why you write historical romances?
(I should point out, if it wasn’t clear, that I’m only discussing M/M historical romances which are quite different in terms of HEA than het historicals).
The floor is open for your brickbats.
Loading ...
Well, to be fair, only gay historical romances are HFN. Most of the straight historicals are HEA.
.
I read straight historicals and even if there are large divides between the hero and the heroine–such as one is incredibly poor and the other is upper class, or one of them’s a whore (ha ha ha), or the heroine is a widow–the lovers almost always end up together (HEA variety).
.
But with gay historicals, I guess there is always a thread of gloom and doom in them because homosexuals were persecuted in those times. I like a little bit of that, but that’s not why I read historicals. I just like rich, well-researched settings. It’s the same reason I like sci-fi and fantasy.
.
I don’t generally go for contemporaries or paranormals, unless I love the author. I really like reading about places that I haven’t lived in. This is why I loved Thom Lane’s White Flag (took place in France) even though it’s a contemporary.
Hi Caitlin
I did have a sentence in the post that I was only talking about gay historicals but somehow it didn’t make it so I’ve put it back in.
**
Gay historicals seem to have so many built-in problems I wonder how the authors have the courage to even write these stories.
**
I must check out Thom Lane’s White Flag – someone else mentioned it as well.
I love historical romances. For some reason, however, they don’t seem to have any sales (or most don’t) these days. My publisher has claimed for years that, although customers say they want historicals, every new HR release sells far fewer copies than any contemporary book, regardless of the author. I’ve heard it’s this way at several other publishing houses, which is why Historical Romances are getting harder to find these days…it makes sense, since if you’re an author who enjoys seeing some royalties for your labors, it becomes difficult to slave over historical research when you know most customers will ignore the book when it’s finally released, no matter how well-written it is. A crying shame.
KE
My original reply was lost.
**
What I said was that on this site we review a lot of historical romances and there always seem to be keen interest on the part of the readers in these books, so I don’t understand why they are not selling. I guess your publisher knows what s/he is talking about.
“not selling” isn’t something I’ve encountered! OK – i’m not making a fortune, or a living, but they do seem to sell ok. Standish is still selling at the same rate it was when it was released, and False Colors and Transgressions made their mid-list advances back in one payment cycle.
I’m drawn to the clever language use in historical romances (both m/m and m/f). In order to get the HEA or HFN that I prefer, I’m willing to suspend a bit more belief in m/m historicals. If I’ve connected with the characters, I want them to be happy.
Why did I write one? It was fun to slip into a historical voice. (Whether I managed any clever language use I’ll leave up to readers’ opinions). I loved the different challenges of writing a historical, the escape to a completely different world.
Hi K.A.
I can deal with the suspension of disbelief in M/M historicals. After all, I do so for S/F so why not historicals?
**
I actually received a copy of An Improper Holiday yesterday and will be reviewing it in a few weeks — I think the release is somewhere around the beginning of December. You’ll see what I think when the review is posted.
oo – you’ve written one! Looking forward to that!
For me as a writer there are many reasons.
-
1. There’s built in CONFLICT. You don’t have to throw caltrops under the feet of your protagonists. In most times and places in history (and sadly still, but that’s another story) just being gay is enough of a conflict to get started. Consider the Regency. Unless you were rich enough to be considered a huge celebrity like Lord Hervey (and even that scandal broke him) then you had to learn how to “pass” – every. Single. Day. Mix with your friends, go to parties, dance with ladies, avoid getting married – (if you were lucky). It was impossible to ignore the fact that you weren’t “normal.” – And worse, it was not only a homophobic time, but one where it was almost de rigeur to take the piss out of the effeminate. I always resented Lord Percy Blakney (The Scarlet Pimpernel) for affecting the mannerisms of A Macaroni so people wouldn’t take him seriously. No REAL man (she says ironically) who was capable of saving people’s lives could possibly be such an effeminate fop.
-
2. The clothes. Yes, this seems shallow, and I’m the last one to encourage Ken Doll Historical Romances, but one can’t help but love the clothes. They took ages to put on (hours in some cases, literally) and the richer you were, the less likely you were able to dress yourself, and they took ages to take off. There’s still not enough of clothes porn in gay historical romance for my liking. Hayden Thorne, in her fanfiction days could write about buttons and cravats in a way to make me swoon.
-
3. Finding that HEA. It’s not easy. And I’m not going to start commenting on the HEA here other than to say that even in het fiction/films it’s a myth. How do we KNOW that Cinderella was happy? unlikely. The best gay historicals are those which take the future into consideration, where the men understand the risk their lives will run, but are willing to take that risk, simply to be with the one they love. I suppose it’s that hugely romantic aspect that appeals.
-
4. The Scope.
-
There’s a fascination for me, because, in all actuality, we KNOW so little. Families burned journals and letters of scandalous homosexuals in case they were tainted with that same scandal. We have so few actual written records of these loves, and yet–despite all the danger, scandal, expulsion from society–men DID still love. Not only that, but many “traditions” that we take from granted, such as cottaging, things we might think are recent were established a lot earlier than you’d think. There has been almost nothing of this (other than in text books) written – and that’s what makes it SUCH a huge, untapped resource. Think of any era in hetero romance, and there’s thousands of books. But think of something in gay fiction, and we’ve barely scratched the surface.
-
I could go on…. but thankfully for you, I won’t!
Hi Erastes
I guess I shouldn’t have given you a head start on your reply so now you can bust my arse.
***
I do like historicals but do they always have to be doom and gloom? Sometimes when I’m reading these books for review I have to take a break and read something funny before I want to slit my wrists. Is there a rule that says a historical can’t be funny?
**
The built in conflict is always there in gay historicals which makes it easy for the writer, but what about the poor reader?
**
I see that Lord Percy is not one of your faves.
So clothes are one of the reasons why you like historicals! Well blow me down. I thought it was all an affectation – all that emphasis on clothing. I much prefer man who could undress quickly and didn’t need a manservant to help him get out of his breeches. How would he manage if he wanted a quickie?
**
The HEA is my biggest problem and I’m not one of these readers who is a stickler for an HEA – I’m flexible and can always live with a realistic HFN, but at times when I finish a historical M/M romance I’m WTF???
**
I agree with you that there are not many records around about gay men because everything was in the closet in those days (and I’m so glad that you decided not to burden me with additional information – that was very good of you.)
oh quickies are easy – the breeches unbutton and the flap falls away and there you go, ready for action!
-
I know mine are all gloom and doom, and they aren’t getting any better *glares balefully at wips* – but are everyone’s? Charlie’s are very warm and fluffy–despite dealing with murder, and both Alex and Lee do better HEAs than I can manage. I can do H.f.p.t.n.f.m.o.t.e.o.t.s.w.c.f. (“happy for possibly the next five minutes, or the end of the screw, whichever comes first.”)
-
I believe that the new one from Harper Collins – The Lunatic The Lover and the Poet (http://www.myrlinahermes.com/) is a comedy – and The Players by Stephanie Cowell is a comedy too. So they do exist. There are several on The List with comedic overtones, I’m sure without looking, but less along the m/m lines, and more mainstream historical fiction with gay protags.
Erastes
I want to read historicals that are not doom and gloom. Damn! Is it a rule that every historical should be dark? How did they live in those times if everywhere a gay man went it was not happy times? You need to send me a list of happy historicals in addition to the few you just mentioned.
I prefer HR, I don’t know why. Most don’t have the fairytale ending. But some never leave you. Point in case – Out of the Blue by Josh Lanyon… you know that they have little chance but just maybe……. I know Lee Rowan is a must read and Standish is a staple (even though the ending annoyed the crap out of me and still does every time I re-read it – sorry Erastes.) Maybe I love them because of all the Barbara Cartlands lying around the house when I was younger. If I want a HEA in m/m HR I go for my M J Pearsons
It could be because being attracted to the same sex was such a ‘sin’, the angst and secrecy attracts me. I remember one of Amanda Quicks romances the heros ex love interest was a lesbian and that is why they never married.
I have noticed a trend in the war theme… is that because men get to be together without the constrainst of making a good marriage and moving around in polite society…. no women so it is easier to write?
I like my HEA, life was hard then and still can be now but at least someone found happiness…. right
I don’t mind, Tish. I know the ending annoyed a lot of people, but it was necessary. The reader has to do some work occasionally!!!
-
I’m a staple!
-
*skips*
Erastes, Did you write a HEA for Standish as a short story? I think I have it somewhere. Or was that wishful thinking? I can’t remember if you wrote it or it was fan fic sent to me by a friend.
tish
I wrote a vignette called “20 years later” for a livejournal friend who couldn’t bear to think that their imagined end wasn’t the REAL one. Yes it was a HEA, definitely. I never had any other idea in mind for those two. But “happy” is relative. Rafe broke Ambrose’s heart once or twice more, but they stayed together, and they were as happy as any couple are. But they had to work at it. That’s why I won’t write a sequel to Standish about Rafe and Ambrose, because I think Ambrose has been through enough, and if I started to tear him apart again, readers wouldn’t be happy. Fleury however will be seen again, eventually. He doesn’t care about HEAs . And that won’t be depressing, it will be a ROMP.
Tish
Out of the Blue was one of my favourite historicals and if you read my review you’ll see it’s all about the characters. But that is the exception that proves the rule.
**
Don’t let’s talk about Standish. Erastes knows how I feel about that book even though it got the highest rating on this site.
I hated the ending and still do.
**
I want to start a movement for happy M/M historicals. I’ll bet that would get more fans interested in the sub genre.
YEAH for HEA HR!
Me, I don’t read or write historicals of any stripe. As an author, it’s WAY more research than I’m willing to do. As a reader, straight historicals have simply never interested me in general. With gay historicals, there’s the added complication that I have a really hard time believing in even a HFN ending.
*
To be clear, I’m only talking about romances here. I don’t insist on anything in my romances except a happy ending (HEA or HFN, doesn’t matter which), but I do insist on that. The fact of the severe, to-the-death persecution that gay people faced in most past societies makes me doubt the happy ending to the point that it throws me totally out of the story.
*
That said, anyone know of any gay historical romances set in ancient Greece? Maybe that would work better.
Or maybe not, since those relationships weren’t exactly equal, hm…
I don’t exactly INSIST on equality in the relationship, but it does irritate me if one partner is too dominant over the other. Maybe that’s why I don’t like BDSM O_O
**ponders**
Any Greece stories? Ally, I’m shocked!
-
http://www.speakitsname.wordpress.com/the-list
ANCIENT WORLD
An Arrow’s Flight by Mark Merlis – Trojan War
Abominations by Paul R Brenner – 1st Century Roman Empire
An Asian Minor, the true story of Ganymede by Felice Picaro
Athens Rising by William Mott – 5thC BC Athens
The Bull From The Sea by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
Conquistador by Jeff Hunter – Inca Civilisation
Danube Divide by Jardon Smith – Roman
An East Wind Blowing by Mel Keegan – Post Roman Britain
Erotic Tales of the Knights Templar by Jay Starre – Knights Templar
The Eunuch Neferu by Daniel Tegan Marsche – Roman Empire
Fire From Heaven by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The First Man in Rome by Colleen McCullough – Ancient Rome
The Flowers of Adonis by Rosemary Sutcliff – Ancient Greece
Funeral Games by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The Gay Disciple-Jesus’ friend tells it his way by John Henson – Biblical
Goat Song by Frank Yerby – Peloponnesian Wars
The Grass Crown by Colleen McCullough – Ancient Rome
The Greek Way by Edward Ellis – Sparta 5th cent. BC
Heroes by L.R. Brown – Alexander the Great
In the Shadow of Alexander by G.A. Hauser – Alexander the Great
The King Must Die by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The Last of the Wine by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
Legion of Lust by Scott Lukas – Roman Britain
The Lusty Adventures of the Knossos Prince by Jay Starre – Ancient Crete
The Mask of Apollo by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar – Ancient Rome
The Nature of Alexander by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The Persian Boy by Mary Renault Ancient Greece
The Praise Singer by Mary Renault – Ancient Greece
The Rise and Fall of the Sacred Band of Thebes by G A Hauser – 338BC
The Slave King by Ben Elliot – Ancient Rome
Slaves of the Empire by Aaron Travis, – Imperial Rome
Slaves to Love by J P Bowie – Ancient Rome
The Spartan by Don Harrison – Ancient Sparta
The Tortured Secutor by Jardonn Smith – Ancient Rome
This Breathing World by Jose Luis de Juan – First Century Rome
Warrior Prince by J P Bowie – Roman
Wow, look at all those books about the ancient world. That’s more my cup of tea I think, still ticked I never finished that Classics degree. I’ll have to check some of those out Erastes. Thanks.
And that’s just the print books – the ebooks are listed seperately and there’s lots more there, too.
Tam
She’s showing off. She probably hasn’t had this much fun in an area where she’s the only expert in ages.
Erastes
I have actually read a couple of the books on your list and have enjoyed them. I’m going to re-read the Warrior Prince by J.P. Bowie who is being interviewed on the site next Wednesday. Thanks for the list.
**
You are having way too much fun with this post.
I know. I can’t help it. I literally only read historicals when it comes to gay fiction, so it’s a bit of an obsession.
So this is such a pleasure to have a discussion on it.
Ally
HEA, HFN, some kind of happy ending and a story that had a few laughs would work for me.
I want happy historicals about gay men. I insist.
**
Let’s cut Erastes’ arms off so that she can’t write any more of the stories she loves – we’ll give her back the arms when she promises happy M/M historicals.
You can’t chop Erastes’ arms off – I know Speak Its Name is technically a rival site, but we need her fully armed and reviewing!
Lee
Next it will be her legs. She knew this post was coming because she saw an advance copy so that’s why she’s all prepared, the vixen. 
Speak Its Name is not a rival site. We now have an agreement to share, except she doesn’t know what that word means.
OMG nooooooo! No cutting arms off! I LIKE her, aside from anything else
*
Erastes, see, this *ahem* extensive list just proves to all and sundry that I don’t ever read historicals and know nothing about it. Clearly LOL. Thanks for the answer!
I like love stories because that implies that the ending does not have to be HEA. Not everything always works out in life and if I have a good cry at the end of a book, that’s okay. I prefer realistic over contrived and sometimes to force an HEA out, it has to be contrived.
-
I enjoy historical fiction because I like the descriptions and learning about a different time and the way people lived. I like going to places I’ve never been (and will never be, since it is in the past) and imagining what it was like. I’ve read historical fiction since forever — m/m is newer, since it is a newish genre, but I was reading about kings and queens and samurais and concubines way back when in my forbidden reading days. I have always loved history and historical fiction is way more interesting than reading primary source documents.
-
L
Leslie
Despite this post I do like “hystericals.” The het historicals that I read decades ago all had happy endings, but M/M is a whole different story in more ways than one.
**
Mostly when I read I want something stimulating, not something that brings me down, which a lot of M/M historicals do. A writer said earlier in this post her publisher told her that M/M historicals didn’t sell and perhaps part of the reason is the lack of resolution at the end of the stories. I don’t mind a few of them but when it’s all of them it becomes too depressing.
**
Yesterday I reviewed a very short historical that had a happy ending and that made me very happy and upbeat.
Great post, Wave! I’ve asked myself some of those same questions about historicals. At their worst, they can be overwritten and depressing. At their best, they can be windows into time — but I don’t find too many that are THAT good. I guess you could say it’s not my favorite sub-genre of m/m.
*
I’m intrigued by what you said about WW2 historicals and even more recently than that. I’d love to see someone write an m/m story set in the Vietnam War — I would totally buy that. And the first Gulf War? At what point on the time-line does an historical get so “recent” that it turns into a contemporary?
There’s one coming out soon about the Vietnam war, Victor Banis I think? I can’t remember, fairly sure it’s Victor. There’s also:
-
The Boy Who Picked the Bullets Up by Charles Nelson
and
Surviving an American Gulag by Edward C Patterson
-
At Speak Its Name we push the “rules” of historical fiction a little further on than is defined by the Historical Novel Society (50 years ago) and use the cut off as Stonewall/Wolfenden. I believe GLBT bookshelf was discussing other categories such as recent past, and things like that, but I think that Stonewall is a good cut off – although that will, like the HNS definition become a moveable line.
Victor’s Viet Nam book is Coming Home. Wave reviewed it last week: 4.5 stars.
-
L
It’s out? God. I’m always a week behind! *goes to find it*
ok – i’m a moron. Speak Its Name has already reviewed it. Talk about not having one’s finger on the pulse!
Hi Val
Re how “recent?” Loosely I have been using the Stonewall Riots in 1969 as a cut off date for historical books on the list of classic vs contemporary books and I think that Erastes uses a similar timeline for SiN.
**
>>I’d love to see someone write an m/m story set in the Vietnam War — I would totally buy that. And the first Gulf War? At what point on the time-line does an historical get so “recent” that it turns into a contemporary?<<
*
The Viet Nam War was 1959 -1975 so I guess some elements could be considered historical but the Gulf War was in 1990/91 which is pretty recent.
**
I think we need to get rid of the idea that because a romance is historical this automatically means dreary and dark. If that’s what every historical author thinks it might be difficult to build readership for the sub genre
I have a story that (one of these days) will see the light of day and it is set in 1976. How will I ever market that? LOL. It’s not historical but is it too old to be contemporary? I guess I’ll just call it a bicentennial book (and it does have a big bicentennial scene and a HEA).
-
L
>> I’d love to see someone write an m/m story set in the Vietnam War — I would totally buy that.
Oh, I’ve read loads of those… well, A-Team slash fanfics that is.
I’m not really into historical romances, I prefer contemporary stories. One of the reasons I read romances in the first place is fantasy and reading them should not, at least in my opinion, be depressing. I really don’t want to read about the questionable personal hygiene or louses or, as you mentioned, horrible diseases.
~
That said, I really like when a writer is capable to pull out a believable HFN or HEA in m/m romance (Charlie Cochrane comes to mind). I don’t mind a dark story, really, but I want the end to, sort of, redeem all the terrible things that happen during the course of the story. Before I read a historical novel, I very carefully read the blurbs and reviews and then I decide whether to pick it up or not.
Lady M
I love Charlie’s books which is why her upcoming book which will be released next month is in the post.
**
No lice and questionable hygiene for me. That’s another thing – why can’t we just skate over all of that stuff.
Hi Wave
Just flitting through and trying to catch up (half time in the rugby). May I a) thank you for including the next book (*mwah*) and b) stick up for nits. I once wrote an extremely romantic piece of fanfic involving two sailors and a nit comb!
Charlie
I used to read historical romances back in the day. I discovered romances when my neighbor let me and my friend borrow her bodice rippers in highschool. I loved being taken to a different time and age and heck, alpha males with spunky women who refused to bow to society’s rules worked for me then.
)
*
Now I don’t care overly much for historicals. I wouldn’t say I NEVER read them and I have read some that I love, but I don’t seek them out. One of the reasons is the exact reason that Erastes loves them. “being gay is enough of a conflict ” I find there is so much emphasis on the fear of discovery, the hiding and cover-ups and freaking out if anyone guesses that it takes the focus off two people trying to see if they mesh as a couple. Are their personalities, beliefs and goals similar enough (beyond amazing sex drives) to make it as a couple. If they spend all their time sneaking around and covering up I find it takes me out of the “do they work as a couple” into “how long can they keep hiding this and OMG what will happen when it’s revealed”. I guess I don’t find the ever-present fear that hangs over the relationships interesting to me. It’s a personal thing definitely.
*
As for HFN or HEA, like Ally, I need one or the other usually. Does HEA exist for anyone? (Noooo, I’m not cynical. LOL) But I want the the book to end on a positive note but not necessarily undying confessions of twu wuv. Whether the whole relationship implodes down the road, I don’t know or think about but I’d like to think they were at least happy together for a couple of years, or months (okay, weeks or days works sometimes. Hours?
Okay, here’s a question for you HEA people. Does the HEA have to be with the “big love of my life, my soulmate” or can it be with someone else?
-
In the story I’ll be writing forever, my character has two previous lovers before he gets to “the soulmate” lover. For a variety of reasons they can’t and don’t end up together. The main character, later in life, does go back and seek out his first two lovers and it is through them that he comes to some resolution and understanding of what has gone on in his love — acceptance of himself is a big part of it — and has a satisfying and happy late-in-life relationship with lover #2. It doesn’t have all the passion and fire and heat of lover #3 (soulmate) but the protag is happy at the end and it ends on a positive note. Does that count for HEA/HFN?
-
L
That works for me Leslie. I’m not big on the whole soul mates concept I guess because I don’t believe in it in real ife. As long as he doesn’t end up forever pining for the one that got away and he is truly happy with his final choice I think that counts.
ANY HFN or HEA works fine for me, Leslie, whoever it’s with
Of course if they break up before the story’s over, then it’s not a HFN story, to me. If it’s in a whole other story, then that doesn’t count against story #1′s HFN, IMO.
*
Now just to be clear, in my opinion, and mine alone (I can’t speak for anyone else, obviously), I only require HFN/HEA in a ROMANCE. If a book doesn’t happen to have that, then all that happens for me is it gets refiled in my mind into the “not a romance” pile. For me, in a non-romance, absolutely anything goes as far as how it ends. Different genres have their different things that define them; like sci-fi includes scientific elements. For me, the happy ending in the relationship defines romance. If it doesn’t have that, it’s not romance TO ME. Doesn’t mean it’s not a fabulous book.
That works for me Leslie. As long as they end up with a partner that’s all most romance readers want. I’m not fussy – I can do HFN. I just find unhappy endings depressing.
One of the problems of writing with historical truth about the Greeks and Romans is that their most widely accepted form of gay love is today recognised as pederasty. Most publishers establish a character age limit of eighteen.
But the biggest problem with all of the Gay Romance books is that they are based upon that utterly maukish and false premise of HEA. It seems to me that most gay sex prior to the last half of the twentieth century has, for honesty’s sake, to aim no higher than HFN. (I really do hate initial talk.) Maybe I should have written “HEA, And Always Have Been?” Nah.
I don’t call the hope for a lasting relationship mawkish… I’ve seen that it does happen. When I lived in Columbus, O, there was a little shop in German Village (an older neighborhood that benefited greatly from ‘gay urban renewal’). The shop was run by Fred and Howard, who had been running the place for decades and had been together for as long as anyone could remember. They were active in the community, they worked for equal rights for gays and lesbians, and when Howard died some years ago, they had been together for over 50 years.
.
I know lasting love doesn’t happen often, but I think that’s equally true of het marriages, especially in the last few decades. Even so–I think that I know more same-sex couples who’ve been together 20 years or more than I can het pairs. My gay beta, for instance, just celebrated 24 years with his partner. It does happen… and when you’re talking about the genre of *romance,* it’s all about the happy ending.
I like historicals because I enjoy a strong element of adventure in the novels I read. In fact I probably like them for all the reasons you don’t like them. I like the built in conflict, and the peril and the challenge of falling in love despite that and getting to a point where you at least know that the couple will be facing the perils of the world together in future. Really that’s as much of a HEA as is possible for anyone, gay or straight. Just because a couple is married doesn’t mean that life is suddenly going to become blissful for them from that moment on.
So yes, I like danger, and high risks and heroes who are willing to take that on and beat it, whether it’s in their personal or their public lives.
I also genuinely love the setting. It’s fun to go to a different world and try on different ways of thinking and being. I think the 18th Century is an amazing time in history, and I find the lack of sanitation, the crudeness, the disease, the social inequalities and the general rumbunctiousness of the time lots of fun. Also, like Erastes, the clothes make me swoon. Almost any man looks hot in a frock coat and a tricorn.
I don’t think of historicals as depressing at all, though. A lot of the time in contemporaries I’m wondering where the story is. What problems and threats are they overcoming? How are they showing that they’re heroes? The lack of threat tends to make the stories a little insipid, IMO. I enjoy the cannon fire and the blood and guts
As a reader, I like historicals because while I appreciate much of modern medicine, mod cons, and the Internet, there’s a lot about the 21st century that I could do without–for instance, animated billboards on buildings, ideally placed for distracting drivers. I don’t really care for a lot of contemporary m/m, either. I already live here and now; when I read, I like to get away from this era. And it’s the same for ‘futuristic.’ If it’s real science fiction (Bujold’s Ethan of Athos, for instance) that’s another matter.
I also like historicals because if the writer has done her homework, I have the chance to learn something painlessly. (This is also true of books written contemporaneously in earlier times, of course… Conan Doyle provides wonderful snapshots of the Victorian era with the Holmes stories.) Call me a geek, but I enjoy getting new knowledge along with my fiction. And, of course, I am not stuck living in that era. I can sit in my hot bath and read about some poor sod washing the mud off under an outdoor pump. Makes me appreciate indoor plumbing.
As a writer … it’s much the same. I enjoy playing with words, and the English of earlier times was more interesting–richer, more expressive. And I enjoy research for its own sake; I found a book at a library sale written by a man who came over from England as a teenager and was one of the earliest settlers in Saskatchewan. When he was injured in a farm accident, it took 3 hours (even in the 1950′s!) to get him to a hospital. I don’t know if that’ll ever make it into a book, but that connection with the past is like catnip for me. Maybe I’m just astonished that people survived the ‘good old days.’
I do try to write happy endings. What I aim for is telling stories of the couples who may have lived but flew successfully under the radar–the lifelong bachelors or strange old fellows who somehow never found the right girl. I find no joy in writing a story where one of the characters I care about becomes a statistic in the sodomy trials. I can appreciate the harsher stories, when they’re well done, but writing is hard enough work without making myself miserable in the process. I want hope and joy for myself… and I want it for my characters.
Lee
One of the reasons I love your books is that the stories and the protagonists continue from one book to the next. Even though there are dead bodies they are not those of your principal characters. I hate it when I get invested in a character and then at the end he dies from some disease that has been extinct for centuries.
**
History is something we all need to be mindful of because if we don’t we tend to make the same mistakes over and over again.
**
I do appreciate indoor plumbing.
Alex
I was wondering where you were.
**
I’ll give you everything but this
>>I find the lack of sanitation, the crudeness, the disease,< <
This I draw the line at. Even if we know it exists, I don’t wan’t to read about it. The same way I don’t want to know when a guy takes a poop in a contemporary romance.
**
As I said earlier in the post, I do love historicals but I just wish they were a bit more upbeat.
**
In contemporary stories there are different challenges – a challenge doesn’t have to be primitive or physical to be considered not a threat. There are countless threats in today’s society that no one even dreamed of in the 1800′s. Abductions, gangs, murders, rape, drugs, anything that’s ripped from the headlines is an excellent plot for a contemporary story, and don’t forget white collar crimes like identity theft where someone’s life can be totally destroyed. So there are many challenges that we face today – they are just different and they are all the subject of contemporary romances.
I do love historicals but I just wish they were a bit more upbeat.
I guess I’m not really seeing the lack of upbeatness. I suppose I find a contemporary which contains gangs, murders and rape much *more* depressing than a historical which contains gangs, murders and rape, because I’m reading about the historical at a nice safe distance from the society it contains. The contemporary might make me worried about my own safety. But at any rate, why are gangs, murders and rape not depressing in a contemporary when they are in a historical?
What is it about the historical in particular that you’re finding depressing? I mean scurvy isn’t very nice, but neither is HIV.
Is it just the fact that the characters have to be so careful not to be found out, because their love would be considered a crime? But that isn’t the case for historicals set in ancient Greece or Rome, or Japan, or various other places.
I guess I’m just not able to see why they’re depressing. I mean, yes, if they always finished with one or both hero dead, or the couple broken up, then that would be a downer. But generally they don’t. We do usually manage to supply a happy ending, even if it’s contingent on the couple continuing to be careful and smart.
Alex
I was responding to your comment that there’s no conflict in contemporaries so you find them boring. All I was trying to show is that there are many plots that could be ripped from the headlines that would make the stories exciting
**
>>A lot of the time in contemporaries I’m wondering where the story is. What problems and threats are they overcoming? How are they showing that they’re heroes? The lack of threat tends to make the stories a little insipid, IMO<<
**
This was the comment I was responding to.
**
There are bomb threats everywhere today and threats from other countries that are used as plots for contemporary stories. Obviously not all contemps have a crime plot but some do and it’s always exciting to race to the finish
**
I read a historical story last evening (I won’t mention which one because that’s not fair) that was so depressing I just wanted to curl up and not finish it, but I had to review it. There are many other historical books that are so dark and dreary that I find it difficult getting into them. I enjoyed Out of the Blue recently, and I just read a historical short story (Smoke Screen by Stevie Woods) that I recommended to a number of readers. So it’s not the genre, it’s the type of stories and the fact that many of them don’t even have a HFN ending. Most of the time one of the protags ends up dead which is a real downer.
That’s what you’ll find a lot with gay fiction, as opposed to gay romance, because GF isn’t constrained to the HEA/HFN. It was the only way gay books could be published (similarly for gay characters in films) – they could be published by the gay character had to die, and the writers took that on the chin because at least they could publish their books.
-
Books like Maurice and The Charioteer are very VERY much the exception to that rule.
Erastes
A book I love because of the writing and the story is The Front Runner but the end just about killed me. I don’t think I picked up the book more than once since the first time I read it.
Brokeback Mountain is another one that I’ve been meaning to review but I just don’t have the heart to re-read it.
>>There are bomb threats everywhere today and threats from other countries that are used as plots for contemporary stories. Obviously not all contemps have a crime plot but some do and it’s always exciting to race to the finish<>it’s the type of stories and the fact that many of them don’t even have a HFN ending. Most of the time one of the protags ends up dead which is a real downer.<<
Oh, I agree, that is a real downer! I think, as Erastes says, that that's probably because they are more "gay historical literature" than "gay historical romance." In my experience (which is obviously not as extensive as yours) the historical *romance* tends to be HEA. I don't like the ones where everything ends sadly either.
You’re quite right that exciting things can happen in Contemporaries – I shouldn’t have implied that they couldn’t! But I think that bad and therefore exciting things happening in historicals and bad and therefore exciting things happening in Contemps are essentially the same. Many bad things make a story.
However, I do agree that it’s awful to get to the end of the book and have an unhappy ending. I dont like that either. But I think, as Erastes says, that that’s a function of gay historical FICTION rather than of gay historical ROMANCE. A lot of the older ‘classics’ of the genre will be unhappy, but the newer romances should, in general be happier, I expect.
Why do people call them HEA when in reality they are HFN? Just because they are together at the end of the book does not mean they will stay together “forever”. I read Historicals because I want to know what it was like in those times,how we have improved,stayed the same (in attitude,primarily)and where we can make changes that matter for the future. I want truth and factual writing not romanticism.
I believe that love is love, but that lovers don’t always get to stay together (even now) and I want to know the reasons why. I think the past is important in the respect of the impact it’s had to the now and the eras were spectacular in many regards as to some of the people in them, the styles of clothing, ideas spawned,etc…. I’ve always found the past interesting, but it’s only recently that we’ve been allowed to read of the gay population in that past even though we’ve known it’s always been there.
Ruth
The terminology HEA is not mine, it’s the one commonly used by the romance industry. I don’t care if it’s HEA or HFN, as I said in the post, either one will do for me.
**
I do enjoy historical M/M romances but what I hate is that most of the stories I have read recently are depressing. I’m trying to find some upbeat historical romances, that’s all. Sometimes when I come home I want to sit down with a glass of wine and a story that uplifts me – it doesn’t have to be funny although that would be good.
**
I read more than my share of historicals and generally I enjoy them but I don’t want to read story after story where the lovers part in the end.
I’m a lover of historical romance – gay and het – and I think one of the things that appeals is that the rules and challenges the characters face are different to those we face now. Sometimes much harder challenges, with much harsher consequences for breaking them. But of course the people are essentially the same as now, they have the same drives and motivations. They want the same basic things we want. How do they reconcile all that with their society’s rules?
~
I like a happy ending as much as anyone, but I don’t think a story has to have one for it to be “romantic”. And I’m also someone who likes to speculate about what happens to the characters after the story ends. In most het romance and even in some contemporary m/m the HEA really is the end of the story. They’re going to be together forever, have great looking kids and one day will be that cute old couple who still always hold hands. But in a m/m historical the end of that story is really the start of a new story. They’ve got together, but what now? How are they going to make a life together? Can they do that without giving up pretty much everything else in their lives? Can their relationship survive that kind of pressure?That’s very interesting to me.
That’s very interesting to me, too, jfm and if Erastes is listening, I’d love to read the sequel to Hard and Fast for that very reason. Erastes? Hint, hint?
-
L
Listening intently. Gay historical discussions are rare as hen’s teeth, so I’m here!
-
But, no. That would involve having Geoffrey having sex with Emily, and I can’t do that. Blech.
-
Unless she dies in childbirth.
-
Hmmm.
This is what I imagined: Emily is very fertile and they have sex once per year which is sufficient to produce the next generation of Chaloners. It’s a big event (think The Big Chill) but you don’t need to write it. It can happen off-scene. All the rest of the year, Adam and Geoffrey can gad about and do whatever they want. And Emily, is she lonely? Not at all. She has her good friend Isobel to keep her warm.
-
L
Leslie
No babies either.
No sex with females. Repeat after me. No sex with women.
Erastes
You are so pumped for this discussion. I’m looking for a happier and less gloomy book from you next time. You have been warned.
Oh for pity sake, hadn’t they figured out artificial insemination by the 19th Century? All Geoffrey needed to do was jack off into a cup (Adam could even help him with the task) and then nonchalantly present the cup to Emily, “Here you go, my dear. You know what to do with it.”
Mark
I definitely like that idea!! Both of them helping with the new “creation”
*snorting with laughter *
-
Oh dear, Lord. If I could find ONE instance of someone attempting that at the time, I swear I’d use it. Sadly (I can’t believe I just googled “history of artificial insemination” when I’m not even writing) they didn’t start experiments with it in cattle until 1899.
Mark and Erastes
I think this is where a turkey baster would come in handy.
I read a historical the other day. The protag was also forced to marry and therefore chasing his lover away. When she became pregnant, I thought “ha just in time to let her die in childbed!” But no she lived and there was no happy ending.
If it had been a paper book I would have thrown it through the room!
Ingrid
I hate it when one of the protags is forced to marry a woman because of society’s rules. I deleted a few books from my hard drive for that very reason. Let’s look for other solutions in historical books rather than inserting a woman into the mix. I like Lee’s book in Speak Its Name, Gentleman’s Gentleman, which came up with another solution, and she has been promising for a year and a half to do a follow up story but so far, nada.
Yes, Lee did come up with a good solution in Gent’s Gent. And Charlie Cochrane did too. Age of Sail stories, war stories work because you have a logical reason for a bunch of men to be alone together, without any women anywhere around. But what other groups naturally lend themselves to that? Prisoners, I suppose (Standish). Monks or priests, but that is opening up a different can of worms in terms of what they are supposed to be up to (or not).
-
I don’t mind if a man gets married, especially if the woman involved understands it is a marriage of convenience. That could be a very interesting story, one of what the family does privately and how they organize their lives, vs. the facade that that is presented to “normal” society. Mark actually alludes to this in The Filly in a conversation between Ethan and Travis. It is also what I was trying to suggest re: Adam and Geoffrey and Emily and Isobel in my earlier comment to Erastes.
-
What I can’t stand is when a completely gay man gets married and his new bride has the magical power to turn him straight (or I suppose bi). That, to me, is completely unrealistic and insulting to the motivations of the characters and the intelligence of the readers. I read two books in the not-so-distant past that did this. One was a historical and the other contemporary and they both had me practically throwing my Kindle across the room.
-
L
Leslie
One of the reasons I like the later historical periods such as after WW II is because the whole facade of having a woman in the mix is not necessary. While the men probably can’t live openly together because there was still a lot of homophobia, at least they didn’t have to marry and produce children.
**
The magical powers of a woman to turn a gay man straight or bi. I suppose it could happen in an alternate universe.
**
Yesterday I turned down two books for review on the site for the same reason – one was a historical and the other a contemp. Now when I get requests directly from authors I ask them if there is any M/F sex in the books. There are many review sites that review all kinds of romance books so I know that it’s no hardship if I turn them down.
I’m speaking only of England here, but I think expecting men of an earlier era to have no relations with women is unrealistic. Sorry, but … that doesn’t really work for men who are active and visible in the upper levels of Society, in the late 19th/early 20th centuries. If a gentleman had any significant rank or fortune, it was expected that he would pass it on–in fact, he had a responsibility to his immediate family to do so, otherwise his wife/widowed mother and unmarried sisters could be literally turned out in the street. The characters I’ve written have not had such responsibilities.
Couples married and stayed married, then. It literally took an act of Parliament to get a divorce, and it cost thousands. A gentleman was expected to have a wife and produce heirs, just as he was expected to have a home in a respectable neighborhood and never actually earn money by working. (I suspect that fantasy aspect is what makes certain time periods so appealing…)
It wasn’t unheard of, either, for a woman to tell her husband to get a mistress when she’d produced all the children she intended to have. Some women really did see childbearing as the least attractive aspect of marriage, and with not much in the way of birth control and the barbaric acceptance of the biblical edict that women were supposed to suffer in childbirth, it wouldn’t take much for a gal who had trouble with it to tell Hubby to say it with roses and take the wedding tackle to a professional.
For myself–personally–a relationship with one person is about all I can handle. But I can see the possibility of arrangements that protect all parties from suspicion, and, yes, odds are men in that period would have wives. I would hope, if they were honest and compassionate (and found women who were, too) that it would work out.
I have genres I just don’t care for–vampires, for instance–but there are exceptions, individual writers who produce stories that I like despite the hero being a mammalian mosquito. I do hope that when I produce a hero who has a male partner and a wife as well–because that’s realistic, and sooner or later I’ll do it–that you can admit the story as an exception.
With all this talk of gay men who got married, what if they couldn’t get it up? I have some gay friends who really say they simply could not sustain an erection with a female. Did these couples just pretend to be infertile? Were they not so wimpy as modern day gays who don’t ever HAVE to be with a woman if they don’t want to (plenty of opportunity to be with men in a sexual setting)? Did the woman want her position so badly as “wife of rich guy X” that she would be content with never consummating her marriage? Wouldn’t she talk to her friends and they would spread gossip that good old Henry couldn’t get it up? Or did he simply close his eyes and think of England (and pretend it was a guy).
*
I’m just asking because I have no idea what happened back then. But surely it must have.
As all of us in Maine have been reminded recently (marriage equality is on my mind), the idea of love and attraction in marriage is a fairly recent construct. Likewise, understandings of sex and sexuality have mostly emerged in the late 19th and 20th centuries. I think for many men, they had erections on schedule and poked their dicks into available orifices both required (wife, to produce a child) and pleasurable (their mistress, boyfriend, slave, whoever — the list probably gets more unsavory as one runs down it). Duty to God, country, and King or for those of us in the US, God and country, and all that…
-
L
Tam, the question of what did a gay man do if he couldn’t perform with his wife is one of the issues addressed in the historical Korean movie ‘A Frozen Flower’, where the King and Queen enjoy an affectionate relationship but not a physical one. When there’s external pressure for the royal couple to have a child, the King – who’s gay and has been in love with the captain of his bodyguard since they were children,and who cannot bring himself to have sex with the Queen at all – asks his lover to sleep with the Queen instead. This causes all kinds of problems, as you can imagine.
I think this was a fairly common ‘solution’ historically, especially if the couple were of noble standing and required an heir. Either adopt a child and pay off (or kill off, if you wanted to be really ruthless!) the natural parents, or ‘hire’ a willing stud.
Tam
This is one of the things that bother me about HR. It was always my understanding that if a man were gay (not bi, but gay) that he couldn’t get it up for a woman. How then could they have children in ancient times? There was no artificial insemination then. Maybe the lord of the manor paid one of his straight friends to screw her ladyship.
In terms of inheritance, you had lots more spare children hanging about in historical times than you do these days. With lots of men dying in war and lots of women dying in childbirth, and lots of everyone dying of fevers that (these days) can be cured by antibiotics, you had a high probability of having a relative’s children be available for you to adopt. And of course it would be expected that you would do so.
But there would be no reason why a sensible gay man would not turn a blind eye to his wife finding herself a lover, and then raising their children as his own. Even if people suspected the wife was unfaithful, it would be better to have them gossiping about “that poor fool who’s so lenient with his cheating wife” than “that fellow who’s never seen with women but seems far too close to his valet.”
Wave & Tam: While I’m quite sure that there were men who were unable to get an erection, I think the main thing is that there was no concept of “being gay.” You might be considered a Macaroni, or even practice sodomy, but the public conciousness didn’t embrace the fact of homosexual love. I suppose it’s become a bit of a gay historical “fanon” (a fact repeated so often that it becomes an accepted truth, like the high class male brothel you see popping up in book after book but never existed that we know of) where a man “knows he only wants sexual contact with other men.” I wonder if men really did feel like that (and I’m talking about the 16th to early 18th century here). One of the best (and I think accurate) books that deal with this is “As Meat Love Salt” where both men-who are very much having a torrid love affair-have been married before, and in fact discuss with each other getting married again. I don’t think this makes them “bisexual” as we would see it, but it’s just a fact of life. They still want children, and the comforts that living with a woman can bring. (and her fortune, let’s be honest.) marriage was much more a practicality than I think we’ll ever be able to comprehend today.
-
As one culture used to say: A wife for children, a boy for pleasure.
Very well said, Erastes. My editor has several times pointed out to me that there was no homosexual identity in the 19th Century. Certainly no one embraced the concept or had any sense of pride about it. Most were tormented by what today we would call internalized homophobia. They believed that the vice that compelled the “unnatural” attraction within them was truly evil. There were a few exceptions. I believe that gay men such as Oscar Wilde and E. M. Forster recognized that what they were was perfectly natural, but it was society that was screwed up in its thinking. Forster couldn’t have written “Maurice” in 1914 if he had the prevailing mindset of the time.
Ingrid, what was the book? – I don’t think I have that one listed.
Erastes that is Awakening by Terry O’Reilly, Aspen mountain press.
Erastes, I reviewed it (and the sequel) for SiN. Both were quite poor, in my estimation. 1 to 1.5 stars, and not just because of the ending. They just weren’t well-written books, on any level.
-
L
Interesting discussion. I’ll jump in here because I’m making an assumption that “Hidden Conflict” was the impetus for this post. I’m afraid, for some odd reason, perhaps because the circles in which this book is discussed are predominantly m/m historical romance, people are making the assumption that Hidden Conflict is being marketed as a romance. In fact it is not. Even the submission call very clearly steered clear of the word “romance” and only one of the stories that made it into the anthology really qualifies as a romance. For this very reason the book has not even been sent to review sites that are geared to only review romance by traditional romance guidelines.
Also Wave, thanks for the very nice review of “Hidden Conflict” and for not holding it against us that all the stories were not romances.
Mark
Mark
Actually I had written this post a few days ago before I read Hidden Conflict, and as a matter of fact I shared it with Erastes yesterday before I finished the book. I knew ahead of time that Hidden Conflict was not a romance so I had no expectations in that direction. The reason I mentioned “romance” in the review is because the majority of bloggers who visit this site are romance readers.
**
I try to be impartial when I review a book
because readers depend on the site and our reviews and ratings when they are looking to purchase a book.
**
I read quite a few historicals and review them on the site and I noticed a trend that many of the books were quite depressing, and that’s the reason why I wrote the post.
**
You’re welcome.
Research. It’s a challenge to research a story and it’s such a blast. I learn so much more than I ever learned in school, and it’s a thrill to find an obscure bit of information after searching for it everywhere and nearly giving up in despair. It’s also a thrill when your research opens up story avenues you hadn’t considered. Moments like that become addictive when you’re writing historical fiction.
.
My stuff will always have the happily ever after. The pleasure in writing is in bringing the characters through the darkness into a place where the reader can believe these two people really will be there for each other, will make it through the highs and lows, and live happily ever after. I have to have that hope after writing it, and I think readers deserve to have that hope after trudging through the darkness with the characters.
I like the challenge of trying to do it in historical settings, but if I were interested in writing het, I’d still write historicals, because other time periods are endlessly fascinating. I can’t time travel, so this is the next best thing.
Mara
One of the things I admire about historical writers is the amount of research they have to do ensure the authenticity of the historical information of their books. If it’s not correct Erastes is sure to notice.
**
Historical romance readers will be happy to hear that your books include a HEA.
<If it’s not correct Erastes is sure to notice.<
.
Oh yes. And she isn't the only one. I really like the fact that reviewers–at least, most of the ones I've seen online–don't hesitate to point out sloppy or non-existent research. Everything that encourages a writer to get the details right can only be a good thing.
Lol. Your footnote is the first thing I was going to mention in my comment
.
*
I’ve always loved historical romance because i’m a naturally nostalgic person and I’m fascinated with the past. Maybe it comes from the fairy tales, but those times of balls and fabulous dresses, horse carriages and stone houses, attract me irresistibly. It’s romantic. There’s an aura of mystery around times past, you have to imagine what it could have been to live in those times and that fascinates me, even though we all know that the fantasy is much better than the reality had to be. Plus, then you had dashing, impeccably groomed men who were supposed to be gallant and courteous… a man in a waiscoat sounds so much more “exotic” than a man in jeans and T-shirt.
*
The other factor that makes historical settings interesting to me is that the issues are different from the ones we meet today and I enjoy that. The stakes ar higher, and the very strict society rules provide an additional challenge for the characters. Yes, the bigger the obstacles to overcome, the sweeter the victory. Plotwise, it’s no doubt much more difficult for a writer to navigate, but how rewarding for the reader if it’s done right.
*
Regarding M/M romances especially, seriously, if they’re labeled “romance” at all and not historical fiction, IMO that means my characters are together and happy at the moment the book ends and that’s all I ask. I am very good at denial and can perfectly make myself believe that if, for instance, the 2 guys have acknowledged their mutual love, are going to sail on the same ship and there’s no immediate danger of someone finding out the truth about them and creating trouble, they wil remain happy like that until the day they die. I won’t think about the troubles that might arise later until and unless I’m forced to.
*
In truth no HEA can ever be more than a HFN, even in straight romance. Who says the heroine’s nagging tendancies won’t grate on the husband’s nerves after 20 years? Who says the faithful husbands won’t get drunk and have sex with his best friend’s wife at some point? There are never any guarantees. So I don’t have any higher expectations for M/M historicals either, so I am usually satisfied with their ending. Make them happy now and let’s not think about the future. Carpe Diem
Mary
You have explained beautifully why you love historical romances and that’s what I was looking for. It’s also part of the reason why I love these stories.
**
The nostalgia, the tie to fairy tales when you were a child, the dress, carriages, balls etc. are all part of the “package” for you. I love those things. OTOH some of the more gross aspects of the books like the diseases (realistic though they may be) the stench, lack of personal hygiene etc., turn me off. There are some things I prefer not to think about so I usually skim those areas in a HR — although if I’m reviewing a book I have to wade through them.
**
One of the reasons I love J.L. Langley’s futuristic historical books like My Fair Captain is I get the historical detail but not the gross diseases. Two of my favourite eras together – science fiction and history – what a rush.
And before you tell me how unrealistic this is, may I say that historical romances are also just as unrealistic!!
**
>>Plus, then you had dashing, impeccably groomed men who were supposed to be gallant and courteous… a man in a waiscoat sounds so much more “exotic” than a man in jeans and T-shirt.<<
I agree 100% with you on this – another reason I love HR.
<In truth no HEA can ever be more than a HFN, even in straight romance. Who says the heroine’s nagging tendancies won’t grate on the husband’s nerves after 20 years? Who says the faithful husbands won’t get drunk and have sex with his best friend’s wife at some point? There are never any guarantees.<
.
Here is where I respectfully disagree.
.
Or maybe it's just that my definition of "happily ever after" differs from yours. Do most people really look at it similarly to a scene I saw once in a movie, where a bride makes a wish to live happily ever after with her new husband, and the wish-giver kills them on their honeymoon, since there is no such thing as happily ever after?
.
HEA and HFN tend to blend into the same thing for me. I believe if the couple is HFN, they have a good chance of being HEA. So what if the couple have fights, get on each other's nerves, and even separate sometimes? Marriages survive such things. Mine has for twenty-five years, and I consider mine a happily ever after, even more so because everything we've been through as a couple has only strengthened our conviction that we can get through anything and that we were meant to be together.
.
That's what happily ever after is about, in my mind. Having someone to hold onto while you're facing all the nightmares, even the ones of your own creation. I don't want a book to end with two people believing life is going to be fairytale perfect for the next fifty years. I just want them to believe they're so lucky because they've found someone to lean on and love. Sure, there are no guarantees, but happily ever after is possible and has been achieved in many eras.
.
Those novels I've read which develop the relationship between the characters beyond sexual attraction, those are the books that usually convince me of a happily ever after, even in the most wretched historical context of being forced to hide their love for the rest of their lives. Personalities that complement each other, values that are shared, conversations that excite and engage outside the realm of basic flirtation–that works to make me believe in the HEA.
.
And HEA in m/m and f/f, I think that's happened a hell of a lot more often in history than we can begin to know. You can certainly extrapolate the truth of it when you consider how much we know now about same sex relationships compared to what we knew fifty or a hundred years ago.
I go through periods (no pun intended) of reading every HR I can get my hands on and then not reading them at all and devouring contemporaries instead!
*
I tend to write historicals that have other elements to them – IDK, I just find historicals have more to offer me as a writer in terms of scope. Could also be that I read ancient history at uni and when I was a kid, my parents dragged me around loads of historic sites so it’s just something that fascinates me, and so I try to pass some of that fascination and love on to the readers (yeah, even when I’m writing fanfic LOL). I also like writing about ‘unusual’ time periods and different cultures, and those are the kinds of stories I love to read, too – though finding romances set in those times and cultures is a bit of a challenge sometimes!
*
And I agree with Erastes – for me, one of the big draws of HR is the clothing!
Kate
I agree with you that historical romances as a genre have the possibility of offering more in terms of content than contemporaries. My beef is that a lot of these books (maybe it’s just the ones I read) seem to concentrate more on the negatives of those times than the positives. IDK, maybe it was all negative then!
**
>>I also like writing about ‘unusual’ time periods and different cultures, and those are the kinds of stories I love to read, too – though finding romances set in those times and cultures is a bit of a challenge sometimes!< <
I, too love reading books set in unusual time periods. Ancient Greece – to me that is so romantic – warriors running around waving swords with hardly anything on .
**
Thanks for telling us why you like to read/write HR.
As a general comment I want to say how much I have learned by this one post and I’m sure that everyone who checked it out has as well.
**
This is the most interesting discussion on this site so far, and the person having the most fun is, of course, Erastes who tries to bust my arse (see, correct spelling E. *g*) every time.
**
Keep those comments coming authors and readers for people as ignorant of historical romances as yours truly.
Wave, only about 2% of men are actually completely homophile. The others, who may identify as gay today, can perform with a woman as circumstances require.
*
I know this from experience with three ex-boyfriends. All identify as gay now.
*
I would expect historically, that the 2% found ways to avoid women completely: military or monastery. The rest were functionally bisexual, although they may have reserved real affection and desire for men.
*
I have a question: what do we consider “historical” or “contemporary?” Is something set in the 70s historical now? Or does it have to be the 1870s? The mindset of the 1970s gay culture is not the mindset of the 2000s. “I used to give potluck dinners and my guests were dessert.” (actual quote) vs. getting married and settling down.
Hi Angelia
Those are interesting numbers. I must ask some of my gay friends what they think in terms of their experience. Perhaps in the past men who were both bi and gay identified as gay. IDK.
**
In terms of what is now considered “historical,” I think both Erastes and I came up with the same answer (see, we can agree*g*) and that was the Stonewall riots in 1969 . However, I’m sure this will be a moving target in the future.
**
I don’t know where this idea comes from that gay men can’t perform sexually with women. Think of it this way: it is basically masterbation with a vagina rather than a fist.
Mark
>>Think of it this way: it is basically masturbation with a vagina rather than a fist.< <
**
What an analogy. I never would have thought of sex with a woman that way.
**
As to where the idea comes from that gay men can’t perform with a woman, that’s what my gay friends tell me, and since I have had no personal experience with a gay man, I can’t confirm or refute. *g* TMI??
I know many men who are now living as openly gay men with their partner, but who have been married, fathered children, and loved their wives. Eventually their marriages ended. Some had supportive wives who understood what was going on and stepped aside gracefully; others suffered bitter and acrimonious divorces with lots of hurt and anger. And it’s not just men — women are also in the same situation. I have known several women who are out now, as lesbians, who have been married because that is what society “expects.” It is a long and painful process to come out to themselves and then their family and friends.
-
If it is long and painful now, what must it have been like in the 18th and 19th century when, as others have said, there wasn’t even an understanding of homosexual love. To me, that implies a man did what he was supposed to do and as I said in an earlier post, that might include getting an erection and screwing his wife on a prn (as needed) basis to get her pregnant.
-
I also think a distinction needs to be made between sex as an act (which may be procreative or something else — violence in the case of a rapist) and sex as an expression of intimacy. Certainly the latter is what we all enjoy and aspire to but the former is easy enough to accomplish when the situation requires it.
-
L
Leslie
I only just saw your comment.
**
You’re quite right about the number of gay men who held their noses and had sex with wives and girlfriends for different reasons, but mostly for procreation, both in history and in the recent past. I know at least a couple of them. I wonder how “pleasurable” that must have been for them!
**
I’m so glad the extreme pressures that were placed on men in the 18th and 19th centuries are, for the most part, no longer imposed on them in today’s society. Now men can explain that they don’t consider procreation an important enough reason to get married. There’s always adoption or surrogates!
Glad my answer could help
. Are you going to post some sort of summary of all that we said the way you sometimes do? If so…good luck. You’re gonna need it. Lol.
*
And I’m not crazy about the “bad” sides of life in the 19th century or anytime before that…. if I did, or if I read about it, it would probably shake the romantic mood right out of me. I accept the plague, rocks in your bread, people throwing the contents of their chamber pots out of their windows in historical fiction, but in romance, I’d really rather not think of the fact normally the two people we see having sex would not have taking a bath in several weeks, at least. Although straight historical romance seems to have a knack for featuring characters that are surprisingly ahead of their time regarding the importance of taking a daily bath. I never really noticed if historical M/M do the same thing, probably because I’ve read much less of those. I’ll pay attention the next time.
Mary
I’ve given up on doing the summaries because this new site has generated too much work for me, plus I think that anyone interested in historical romances can read the actual answers.
**
I’m with you. Too much realism is a real turn off! I really don’t want the symptoms of the plague or scurvy or other horrible diseases explained in great detail – they are enough to turn me off romances for good!! I know it is important to note that the diseases existed, for the sake of historical accuracy, but since we don’t detail bowel movements or the debilitating effects of AIDS in contemporary romances, except in a genral way, why do we have to go into such great detail about this aspect of historical romances?
**
No baths would be a big issue for me.
Mary, you know why people favoured spring for weddings?
Because that was the only time in the year they took a bath.
Ingrid
I never considered that. WOW. Only a few baths a year – how could they stand to have sex with each other?