Historical accuracy

[RegLit]

I love the Regency era. In my quest for knowledge of this time, I've learned a lot about history that I pretty much ignored in school. I think they need to change school curricula to make it more interesting somehow. Maybe if I had read some of Heyer's works in high school, I might have delved into that part of history with a little more enthusiasm. I know Heyer studied the Regency era to maintain accuracy in her stories, but I wonder if many other authors of Regency romances did likewise. Or, did they just mimic Heyer? I find that I am now scrutinising the romances for historical accuracy. Sometimes, it's very distracting, but I feel justified. I fear many of these Regencies are based on whatever the author likes, rather than what was true and accepted in society, as well as historical events surrounding them. I read somewhere that many publishers are phasing out Regencies and reclassifying them as "Historical". This would be disappointing because I feel the Regencies are a class of their own. Not only that, some authors may start to combine historical eras.

[Kathryn Kane]

I was an avid reader of Georgette Heyer in my teens and her work was an important influence in my decision to major in history and material culture when I went to college and later to graduate school. I find history endlessly fascinating, but I think that is partly due to the influence of both Heyer and Austen in my early teens. I wanted to know more, so I was always interested in my studies. It is very hard to motivate someone to study history if it is of no interest to them. I suffer from that myself. I have a friend who is fascinated by Hitler and the Third Reich, yet that whole era leaves me completely cold. But when it comes to the English Regency era, I can never get enough.

Georgette Heyer was an avid researcher, as later, was Barbara Cartland. But I find, as you do, that many of the modern "Regency" authors do not do their homework and their work is peppered with inaccuracies which I find very distracting. I sometimes have the feeling that these authors and their publishers think that those of us who enjoy Regencies have no discrimination and will read anything they choose to put into print. With the advent of the internet, research is now relatively easy, yet I find many authors simply don't bother. Their editors apparently don't have the knowledge to catch their errors, or they don't have enough respect for us as readers to correct them. Too many so-called Regencies which I have read in recent years are more like modern romances with the characters in fancy dress. They simply do not capture the flavor and culture of the time.

I read the same thing you did, that many of the publishers were phasing out their Regency lines and lumping any stories written about that era in with their other historicals. I was very disappointed to learn that, since I seldom read anything but Regencies, and it is going to be much harder to find them now. Something which you might find helpful is a newsletter called the Regency Reader. It is a monthly email newsletter which provides information on upcoming Regency novels as well as tidbits of Regency history. It helps me to keep track of what has been published, or is about to be, so I can find the new Regencies.

[RegLit]

I haven't had much time to read a regency romance recently, but I have read about regency history and its characters. It helps to understand what is going on in the stories and differentiate the good and bad authors. Your website is helpful as well, Kat.

[love2win]

(05-12-2009 01:41 PM)RegLit Wrote:  I love the Regency era. In my quest for knowledge of this time, I've learned a lot about history that I pretty much ignored in school. I think they need to change school curricula to make it more interesting somehow. Maybe if I had read some of Heyer's works in high school, I might have delved into that part of history with a little more enthusiasm. I know Heyer studied the Regency era to maintain accuracy in her stories, but I wonder if many other authors of Regency romances did likewise. Or, did they just mimic Heyer? I find that I am now scrutinising the romances for historical accuracy. Sometimes, it's very distracting, but I feel justified. I fear many of these Regencies are based on whatever the author likes, rather than what was true and accepted in society, as well as historical events surrounding them. I read somewhere that many publishers are phasing out Regencies and reclassifying them as "Historical". This would be disappointing because I feel the Regencies are a class of their own. Not only that, some authors may start to combine historical eras.

At the risk of sounding stuffy, I believe a writer has a responsibility to her audience to ensure that the writing is as accurate as to the period the book is set, whether it's a Regency, a medieval, or something in between. If it's necessary to stretch real events for the sake of the plot, it's only fair to provide an "Afterword" to the readers, letting them know how you've rewritten history (e.g., a significant historical event is pushed forward or backward a year to meet the plot requirements).

A writer has an obligation to her readers to write about her setting, the characters, and anything else in the book with attention to truth. Anything less is literary laziness. And anyone with an Internet connection cannot claim there's no resource material available. Of course, it's the writer's equal responsibility to check her facts. Not everything on the Internet represented as truth stands up to scrutiny.

[romantical]

(11-21-2009 10:56 PM)love2win Wrote:  At the risk of sounding stuffy, I believe a writer has a responsibility to her audience to ensure that the writing is as accurate as to the period the book is set, whether it's a Regency, a medieval, or something in between. If it's necessary to stretch real events for the sake of the plot, it's only fair to provide an "Afterword" to the readers, letting them know how you've rewritten history (e.g., a significant historical event is pushed forward or backward a year to meet the plot requirements).

A writer has an obligation to her readers to write about her setting, the characters, and anything else in the book with attention to truth. Anything less is literary laziness. And anyone with an Internet connection cannot claim there's no resource material available. Of course, it's the writer's equal responsibility to check her facts. Not everything on the Internet represented as truth stands up to scrutiny.

Agreed. It's too bad that's not always the case and the publishers don't seem to put too much emphasis on that.