
Sounds weird right? Would you call it an oxymoron?
Either way, in the genre of romance there is a gamut of ways an author can portray a certain era. They can hold tightly to each and every tiny detail or loosely rely on general facts and use a little creative license as well. Which do you prefer?
Lets start with what defines historical fiction from the almighty information source Wikipedia.
Definition
Historical fiction presents readers with a story that takes place during a notable period in history, and usually during a significant event in that period. Historical fiction often presents actual events from the point of view of fictional people living in that time period.
In some historical fiction, famous events appear from points of view not recorded in history, because the government who records and finds data from the past, had not cared enough to brighten the readers of this century with fictional characters either observing or actively participating in these actual events. Historical figures are also often shown dealing with these events while depicting them in a way that has not been previously recorded. Other times, a historical event is used to complement a story's narrative, occurring in the background while characters deal with situations (personal or otherwise) wholly unrelated to that historical event. Sometimes, the names of people and places have been in some way altered.
As this is fiction, artistic license is permitted in regard to presentation and subject matter, so long as it does not deviate in significant ways from established history.
If events should deviate significantly, the story may then fall under the genre of
alternate history, which is known for speculating on what could have happened if a significant historical event had occurred differently. On a similar note, events occurring in historical fiction must adhere to the laws of nature.
Thank you Wikipedia.
At the top I have two books I have read from two fantastic authors. Both books are great, in my opinion, but are very different. They are both historical romance novels but the style of one is very different from the other. The Reluctant Suitor by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss is set in 1815 while Romancing Mr. Bridgerton by Julia Quinn begins in 1824 (with the exception of the prologue). The difference is only nine years but from the way each book is written it may as well be a hundred. JQ novels are styled with a lighter more modern flow in description and dialogue that makes for an easy and fast read. KEW is more formal and the dialogue and description more true to the time. Does either style make the story more enjoyable or less historical? No. Its all a matter of personal preference. I read KEW long before discovering JQ and now prefer the latter. KEW is too heavy now to enjoy. In my hectic stressful moments I want to escape with something light and easy especially if I'm sneaking it in at night with only the light of my nook or the baby monitor to read by.
The moral of this story is to each their own and if you are taking the time to pick apart dialogue that is to modern or a teddy bear mentioned in one chapter then you are missing the point of reading a romance novel to begin with. As a fellow reader my advice is to move on, you are wasting valuable reading minutes bitching. As an author, I read your review and heed your advice if helpful. There is much more to come and I will only get better so stick around.
In regards to my editing; Mine, All Mine was edited my two professionals so I don't know what to tell you. I consider my sister my biggest critic and she thought it was fine. If you think you can do better...Check out
Tinderboox.com. Its free to join and then you can edit my next book and get a piece of the pie. It is a community for authors, editors, proof readers, and cover designers to come together and collaborate and make money, yes that's right, money.
No one edits this blog but me so I apologize if your eyes are bleeding.
Happy Reading!