So Connie Brockway is migrating from historical romances to contemporaries. Am I the only reader who has enjoyed her work in the past (I have three of her books on my keeper shelf) who’s not at all upset about this?
Here’s the thing: while I have enjoyed many of Brockway’s books, and she was an author on my autobuy list for about 5 years, I have always thought her voice was very, very modern. It didn’t bug me at all until the Bridal series was released. I read them both, and the characters and tone struck me as so modern and not-British (the characters seemed like Americans in period drag) that I gave up on Brockway entirely. This is by no means her fault, because I don’t think she has changed; I have. I have her McClairen’s Isle books still TBR, and every time I keep passing them over for something else when the time comes for me to pick something new to read.
Now that she’s writing contemporaries, though, I think I’ll have to check out her new releases again.
I’ve read a little of the interview with her. I’ve never read any of her books (at least none that I remember), so I don’t care on that point. Her reason for ditching historicals is what I find really enlightening and kinda depressing. She seems to be saying that the only place where variety is allowed is in contemporaries, and strongly implies a shift toward chick-lit.
Which is, like, really a bummer. Seriously. (And sorry, that’s as articulate as I seem to be tonight.)
Perhaps I don’t read enough historicals or whatever, but frankly, I don’t notice matters being all that much worse in historical romances than they ever were. People talk about the good old days, some kind of fabled Golden Age when variety in the romance genre was burgeoning and stories were fresh, etc. etc. I think it’s basically nostalgia and readers getting older, thinking back on the old books with rose-colored glasses and thinking the new work is crap, just as people who were weaned on Elvis and good old rock-n-roll thinking heavy metal is painfully pointless screeching, or someone like me, who came of age with Pearl Jam and Nirvana and Tool and think the new crop of nu-metal music is complete and utter shit and fervently wishes every day that Slipknot, Mudvayne, Breaking Benjamin and all the rest of ‘em would just get swallowed by a large hole in the ground so they’ll stop inflicting the airwaves with their music.
Wait, where was I? Did I have a point? Oh yes. Anyway, I don’t think historicals are in trouble, really. Yes, there’s an obsession with virginity and heroines who martyr themselves (this has been one of the earmarks of historicals since they started becoming popular), but we’re slowly moving away from that, even if progress is somewhat slow. Ten or fifteen years ago, I doubt a book like Shadowheart or Emma Holly’s erotic historicals would’ve been published. There are plenty of authors who aren’t afraid to write stories that are different; Karen Ranney, Loretta Chase, Laura Kinsale, Judith Ivory and I’m sure many others I’ve never even heard of are still taking chances and writing solid stories with refreshing characters. Authors are free to feel exasperated or tired or burned-out of a specific genre, and some authors like Lisa Kleypas seem to go on good/crap cycles, but that’s the nature of things.
Historicals may be somewhat constraining, in that it’s hard to portray a woman living in nineteenth-century anywhere with the freedoms and options of a woman living today. But I think there’s plenty of material for interesting conflict, instead of recycling the “girl is caught with reluctant lord in a compromising position, lord is forced to marry girl, hilarity ensues” chestnut we all know and love so well, but even that plot device has been used to good effect (ref. Lord of Scoundrels, for example).
I think I lost my point. Again. SHIT. I probably should’ve written this as an actual post. But uh, yeah. Anyway, I’m still enjoying historicals, and as I grow older I do grow more and more tired of certain devices that I wasn’t fond of to begin with (virgin widows, marriages of convenience), but personally I’m not all that disillusioned with historicals as a genre, though I have grown disillusioned with certain authors.
I’m not unhappy with historicals, either. At least not anymore than I’m disappointed with the whole genre. But I would be disappointed if – as Brockway seems to be saying – publishers now prefer chick-lit over Romance, because that What’s Hot right now is the story of a girl who finds a guy (chick-lit) instead of the story of a a guy and a gal hooking up (Romance). It sems like dressing up Romance as chick-lit, or chick-lit as Romance. Or something.
Ahhh, yeah, I see your point. Bastard publishers.
I doubt publishers are all that different now vs. what they were 20 years ago. Granted, there have a lot of changes—the consolidation of several smaller presses into giant uber-printing houses, the ever-shrinking attention span, dropping literacy rates, fewer and fewer people choosing to read instead of hanging out on-line, watching movies, watching TV, etc. But publishers have always wanted to print what’s profitable. This has been true even in the good old good old days—think of Nathaniel Hawthorne’s words about the widespread popularity of the trashy fiction pumped out by that “damned mob of scribbling women.” Think ole Nate was feeling a mite bitter about a buncha biddies outselling him in the market while creating romantic stories substantially similar to what he was writing? Heh.
European historicals are out of vogue now for whatever reason, and chick lit and vampire/vampire knock-off/werewolf stories are on the rise, but this popularity probably won’t have any significant staying power; as it is, one can already hearing murmurs of discontent about the sameness in tone and plot of many chick-lit and vampire stories on the market. It’s really a shame that many publishers seem intent on buying what’s faddish instead of what’s GOOD.
You know, I’ve been sort of hoping Brockway would write a follow-up to My Dearest Enemy. It is rare that I want a follow-up, so this is a big deal to me. It should come as no surprise that nobody in the publishing industry listens to me.
I haven’t read historical stuff in a long time. Hmm, not true. I read the last Amanda Quick. It was okay, but I miss the leap-off-the-page humor. I think historicals grew dull when readers became such sticklers for historical accuracy. Man, you put a Highlander in the wrong plaid, and you have a federal case. Provided that Highlanders wear plaid; if not, substitute the correct plaid-wearing man at will.
I’ll probably try Brockway’s contemporaries, if I remember. I don’t worry about writers mixing it up; I do worry about readers who are locked into a single sub-genre to the exclusion of all others. Life’s too short for an all Regency diet.
I think historicals grew dull when readers became such sticklers for historical accuracy.
Hmmm. I’m not sure I agree with that. That’s like saying being too plausible with the science makes SF dull, or being too convincing about the language and culture makes Fantasy novels dull. I imagine fans of Isaac Asimov and JRR Tolkien would disagree. Georgette Heyer got most of the historical details right, and she isn’t dull. There are many authors who write straight-up historical fiction, with or without romantic elements, who manage to make the books exciting while being historically accurate for the most part. I’m pretty nitpicky, more in terms of anachronisms than actual historical detail since I’m only the merest dilletante when it comes to history, but I’m generally forgiving if the story manages to sweep me away enough. I do agree that the uber-nitpickiness is counter-productive, like obsessing over the correct plaid for whatever clan. I’ve sometimes done the same thing. All I can say is: it’s a disease, and we can’t necessarily help ourselves, wah!
I’ve never met a person who’s into nothing but Regencies. The thought makes me shudder.