Sunday 17 May 2015

How accurate does a Regency have to be?

I write at least three new Regency romantic adventures every year – sometimes four – as well as two mainstream historical novels set in World War II. Obviously with any books set in living memory it essential to get all historical details absolutely right so I tend to spend far longer on background reading and detailed research with these books than I do for my Regency romances.
One author, a friend who also writes Regency, said to me when I mentioned that she had made a couple of minor historical mistakes that as her books sold for less than £1 it didn't really matter. A reader would hardly expect a writer to spend as much time on these details if the book was going to be sold for so little.
What do you think? Is she right? Do readers get what they pay for and don't expect the same standard of historical accuracy in a less expensive book?
I think that every book, sold for whatever price, should be as well written and as accurate as the writer can make it. Of course, no reader was alive in the Regency and therefore less likely to be as knowledgeable about the period. However, many readers are fans of Jane Austen and will have gleaned a lot of accurate history from reading these books and watching TV and film versions.
I don't do as much research when writing a Regency story because my background knowledge is so extensive after having written more than thirty books in this genre.
What I do is check when I'm not sure – for instance I wanted to know what songs might have been sung around the piano at Christmas time. Hark the Herald Angel was written in the 1700s, so I used that, but I had to check online first.
I know that my books are more historically accurate nowadays than they were when I first started writing and I'm proud of that. I'm not talking about major anachronisms such as talking about turning on the tap or catching a bus which I've never done, but small details like using the word fiance, which wasn't around until much later.
What about covers? Not whether the picture on the front has the correct hair colouring as the heroine or hero, but whether the setting and costume are correct. In the cover on the right the girl looks exactly like my heroine – however, she wouldn't have worn a white dress with such a low back. I had to settle for a slight inaccuracy as it's almost impossible to get perfection if you use photographs rather than artwork for your covers.
 The cover on the left was for one of my early Regency novellas for My Weekly Pocket Novel. Need I say anymore?
A Runaway Bride is a recent book with a lovely cover from Jane Dixon-Smith and I thought it historically correct until a friend pointed out there was a zip running up the back which neither Jane nor I had noticed. Would you have noticed if I hadn't pointed it out to you? The MW PN cover is horrendous and totally misleading, however despite the minor inaccuracies, I think both the other covers give the feel of a Regency romance.
I've been told by some readers that too much "history" in a Regency spoils the romance and that as long as the setting and dialogue are reasonably correct, they don't even notice the details. The plot and character is what is important.
Do you agree? How much historical detail is too much and drowns the reader in unnecessary information? I'm not talking about a huge info dump – that's never a good idea. I like to put in details that bring the period to life and use the correct words when possible. If I call a bag a reticule then I make sure it's obvious from the context what it is.
I would be interested to hear your views.
Fenella J Miller

12 comments:

  1. Really interesting post, Fenella, and great points - I think you've got the balance spot on.

    I agree with you about the price point - readers don't have elephantine memories of how much they paid for a book, and I'm sure very few would think "Oh well, it only cost 99p/was a free download so it's fine that it features a caveman wearing glasses". What does irk me though is cover pictures on historical novels that show people who look far too modern, wearing 21st century style make-up and hairstyles, even if their clothes are accurate for the era.
    Your My Weekly cover is hysterical, and is a clear reminder of the joy of being self-published, when we have all these things under our control, and can only blame ourselves if we get it wrong. (No, I didn't notice the zip either!)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love the idea of caveman in glasses. Hadn't mentioned make up on models -had better check my covers.

      Delete
  2. A great post, really interesting, and worth the discussion. My historicals are WW1 era, and with all the current interest, and all the information newly available, suddenly everyone's an expert, which means I have to be spot-on with everything. The price point is completely irrelevant; apart from the fact that you never really know HOW much a book will sell for, it should make absolutely no difference to the amount of work that goes into it. Surely self-respect plays a big part, in any case? Two of my books were on promotion recently, for the utterly stupid prices of 71p and 99p. They're over 120 thousand words each, and the amount of work that went into them... it feels like a slap in the face, but I know that each and every word of those books had as much care taken over them as when they sell at 3.79. I did my part, in other words.

    I spend an incredible amount of time researching things that don't matter, because then I know myself that I've done everything I can, and then I have to put my trust in the publishers not to screw up the cover. When they first sent me the cover for A Rose in Flanders Fields, the girl they put on the front was so clearly WW2 I could have cried. But I was able to get them to tone it down and make it less awful.
    I actually did a blog post some time ago, called Invisible Research, about everything I check, whether it's necessary or not.
    Anyway, I've rambled enough, thanks for a good talking point!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Terri, thanks for your comment. One of the advantages of being an author-publisher is that I have control over my covers. Will download your books now.

      Delete
  3. Thank you! And I agree; I self-publish too and -- for that series in particular, which is closest to my heart-- I would hate to surrender control the way I've had to for the historicals.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Terri - have just borrowed three of your books and am looking forward to reading them.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Very interesting points raised here, Fenella. I can't see what the price point has to do with it. Personally, I wouldn't want to put out a book that I hadn't done my best with, whether with the story or the historical accuracy. We've all made mistakes, I'm sure, but glaring errors are just sloppy. It's so easy to find things out now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're right, Liz, the cover price doesn't matter, all books should be equally good.

      Delete
  6. I think inaccuracies, historical or otherwise, tend to grate with the reader and it's a shame if the only thing they remember is the one, tiny thing you got wrong. I'll never forget the book I read with a four year old in a pushchair who appeared to have the vocabulary of a two year old. It irritated me so much I stopped reading the book - which was a shame as it was an okay read. Having said that, I expect I have got things wrong (especially in historical sections of my work) but, like Fenella, I know I tried my best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jenni, doing the best one can is all any of us can do. I'm always cross with myself when someone points out a typo I've missed - but haven't had anyone tell me I've made any historical mistakes so far.

      Delete
  7. I agree with everyone here. It is important the date be accurate. As a reader I have always counted on historical fiction to teach me a bit while I enjoy the story.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Eve, exactly how I feel. Bernard Cornwall and Christian Cameron are my favourite writers for that reason. Thumping good story plus historical accuracy.

    ReplyDelete