Page 2 of 3

Posted: Wed December 2nd, 2009, 1:25 pm
by Leo62
Don't mind the sex. Do mind the purple prose. Have fond teenage memories of bodice-ripping covers but some things are better left in the past (as it were)... :D

Medieval scholar studies Harlequin medievals

Posted: Thu November 18th, 2010, 8:40 pm
by Miss Moppet
A scholar of Middle English romances has turned her attention to Harlequin's medieval offerings.
“One of the most exciting things about studying modern mass-market romance is that the student of Middle English romance can enjoy a rare moment of pleasure,” said McDonald, editor of Pulp Fictions of Medieval England (Manchester University Press, 2004).

Aspects of modern medieval romances uncovered by her inquiry include:

• self-conscious historicizing with a flagrant disregard for historical facts;

• descriptions of time that serve to wrench the reader back into the present; and

• depictions of violent sexual encounters, which are seldom found in non-medieval Harlequin romances.

Of course, medieval scholars aren’t the target demographic for modern medieval romances. Still, McDonald admitted that she enjoyed spotting historical blunders in the books’ pages and in the artwork on their covers.

She pointed out references to a two-pronged dinner fork, when that table utensil was invented after the medieval period; Caxton’s printed books classified as “new,” when Caxton had been dead for over a decade; and a cone-shaped hennin, a headpiece that was fashionable in the 15th century, on the cover of a romance set in the 11th century.

“What is especially pleasing to the snobbish scholar about these references is their very purposefulness, the way in which they are so intimately bound up in the self-evidently lowbrow work of historicizing for readers who, it seems, don’t know any better,” McDonald said.

She also noted how the Medieval Lords and Ladies novels portray time as pre-modern—something that is marked by hours of prayer or notches on a candle, despite the fact that clock was invented in the Middle Ages—while medieval sex acts are distinctly outside of time.
I'm not convinced by what she says about time. Even in the 17th century cookbooks advise people to let something simmer "the length of a paternoster."

She might have a point about the sex acts, though.

Posted: Thu November 18th, 2010, 9:13 pm
by Michy
I think Harlequins probably appeal to the least-scholarly of romance readers. That is, they don't care (and may not even know!) too much about accuracy; as long as there's a castle and a moat and a knight on a stallion then it's medieval regardless of how the characters behave! And, oh, yes, the ladies in henins; after all, nothing says "medieval" like a henin! ;)

Posted: Thu November 18th, 2010, 9:27 pm
by EC2
She pointed out references to a two-pronged dinner fork, when that table utensil was invented after the medieval period; Caxton’s printed books classified as “new,” when Caxton had been dead for over a decade; and a cone-shaped hennin, a headpiece that was fashionable in the 15th century, on the cover of a romance set in the 11th century.

Well she obviously doesn't know her history because the two pronged dinner fork was around pre 1100 - in Byzantine use. See illustrations in Books, Banks, Buttons and Other inventions from The Middle Ages where the introduction of the fork as an eating tool is extensively discussed. http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Banks-But ... 072&sr=8-1 I think there are better examples than the dinner fork - for e.g. a novel involving a convent of ninja nuns founded by Eleanor of Aquitaine where one of the pupils recognises Eleanor from the portrait hanging in the Abbbess's lodging.

Authors don't have much of a say in their covers, and the henin says 'medieval' to a vast number of readers even if it was around for only a short time - it's a form of shorthand like pastel colours and cartoon characters on chic-lit.

She also noted how the Medieval Lords and Ladies novels portray time as pre-modern—something that is marked by hours of prayer or notches on a candle, despite the fact that clock was invented in the Middle Ages


But not available to all and variable depending on the time of year. LIke Miss Moppet I have seen time measured in however long it takes to say a certain prayer.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 12:28 am
by LoveHistory
I've never read a medieval romance (Harlequin or otherwise) that involved hennins in the text or on the cover. Some authors are better at accuracy than others. That's true in all genres. There's just more room for goofs in the Romance Novel genre because it's about entertainment in a historical setting, not about history with some fiction thrown in.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 12:40 am
by Margaret
I'm not the least bit opposed to explicit sex scenes (though I know some people are), but explicit does not always translate to sexy for me. Furthermore, a variety of explicitly described poses and permutations does not always translate as sexy for me. To be sexy, there's got to be heart and feeling and a personal connection between two people in the scene, and that can happen (or not happen) with or without explicit sex. That means all the gratuitous and unlikely, if not preposterous, sex scenes authors are apparently throwing into medieval settings (I wouldn't know - I rarely read historical romance anymore, though I do read and enjoy romantic historical novels) are not necessary to create a super-hot, sexy scene. In fact, they may actually be counter-productive, because they tempt authors to be lazy about creating the personal connections between their characters that make the scenes truly sexy, explicit or otherwise.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 4:26 am
by SarahWoodbury
I didn't get until I'd read all the posts that everyone was talking about a 'romance' novel as a genre, rather than historical fiction with a romantic element. This is particularly interesting to me because I just got a rejection (I posted it elsewhere) that said the editor wasn't sure if there was a market for my type of 'medieval romantic historical'. I suspect now she was making a distinction between what I wrote and a 'medieval historical romance' with 'historical romance' as a genre, which mine does not fit. Don't know if that is partly because there's no explicit sex.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 6:19 am
by Margaret
the editor wasn't sure if there was a market for my type of 'medieval romantic historical'.
This just seems bizarre to me, because I've reviewed any number of romantic historical novels over the past couple of years that publishers are enthusiastic about. Offhand, I'd say most of them were set in periods other than the Middle Ages, but in such a variety of periods that I can't imagine an earlier setting would cancel out a romantic novel's appeal. The romantic historical (as contrasted with the historical romance) does generally have a plot thread running alongside the romantic plot thread that shifts it out of the "historical romance" category and into the "romantic historical novel" category. For example, Lady of the Butterflies (see review), a debut novel published this year, set in 17th century England, which edges very close to the "historical romance" category without quite crossing over it, is about a woman whose passion was for learning everything she could about butterflies from a scientific perspective in an age when butterflies were regarded almost as occult spirits.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 1:26 pm
by Misfit
[quote=""SarahWoodbury""]I didn't get until I'd read all the posts that everyone was talking about a 'romance' novel as a genre, rather than historical fiction with a romantic element. This is particularly interesting to me because I just got a rejection (I posted it elsewhere) that said the editor wasn't sure if there was a market for my type of 'medieval romantic historical'. I suspect now she was making a distinction between what I wrote and a 'medieval historical romance' with 'historical romance' as a genre, which mine does not fit. Don't know if that is partly because there's no explicit sex.[/quote]

I don't know why publishers (and others) always peg romance into one hole, there are as many *variations* to them as there are in say historical fiction. The lighter, the meatier, the "it is fiction after all", the over-sexed and the leave it to the reader's imagination books.

I like reading romance on occasion but I prefer them with a strong historical background and while I don't mind sex on occasion, I don't need the stuff that comes from the medieval romances pumped out by Kensington/Zebra and the like. Honestly, if someone could find an author who pumped out medieval romances similar to EC's earlier medievals I would be a very very happy camper ;)

Author Emery Lee (The Highest Stakes) has started a group at Goodreads focused on historicals with romantic elements and she's building up a bookshelf of them there.

Posted: Fri November 19th, 2010, 3:26 pm
by EC2
From my perspective - and I could be wrong, there are medieval romance novels of the category variety - Harlequin, Zebra etc, where the romance and sometimes the sex is right to the forefront. It's dressing up box stuff really, even if well researched on the detail level.

Then there are the big hitters - biographical fiction about marquee names or people who actually existed. These are popular and sell well in mainstream - in fact flavour of the moment just now.

If you write a medieval novel about imaginary protags with a good mixture of history and romance, you end up falling between 2 stools. It's not full on romantic enough for the category romances and it's not about real people so misses the marquee market and thus becomes very hard to sell.

My earlier novels fell into the above category and I have moved into marquee and seen a big difference in sales. If you're walking the in between path as a writer, then you have to decide what you want to do.
Of course this doesn't take readers into account and they are often very happy with choice number 3. But the majority still seem to go for for choices 1 and 2 at the moment - or else that's what publishers and booksellers take up. You are making things harder for yourself by going with 3 - which is a bum if it's what you want to do and you do it well. But times and markets are always changing.

Right, I'm off for the weekend. Anon :-)