Historical Fiction: Narrowing down the genre

[Rita Gerlach]

I'd like to read the sage advice of some of you seasoned authors about narrowing down the historical genre by definition. I run across writers, including myself, that struggle with what to exactly call their novel when querying agents or publishers. One agent asked me after I had queried her and said my book was historical fiction, 'Is your book historical romance, historical suspense, historical romantic suspense, historical adventure, historical intrigue, or just historical'. I meant it when I wrote that it was historical.

I am not against romance by any means. I am an avid Jane Austen fan. In my novels I have strong elements of love along with mystery and adventure. But they are not formula, you know, girl mets boy in chapter 1 and by chapter 3 they are married, and the entire book is from the girl's point of view. My novel that I am submitting is from the hero's point of view mostly. Seems like we need a resurgence of the male hero. Isn't that what gets women's hearts pounding when they watch movies like Pride & Prejudice?

Judy posted a message to me earlier about using the phrase 'romantic historical fiction'. Here is my reply.
____________________________________________________________

I just received this afternoon a rejection letter from a publisher. I thought I had made it clear to the acquisitions editor that my novel is a historical with elements of romance and suspense. She though it was a historical romance, and so with that mindset, even though she said I am a talented writer, she rejected the book. Be sure that you are clear about your genre, what the nuts and bolts of the book are.

I went through my websites and deleted references to romance, and in my query and synopsis I've done the same thing. The two main characters in the book fall in love and marry. They go through harrowing trials. But it is not a formula novel. In historical romance according to this editor the book must be in the female character's voice, her point of view. The romance must begin at the first chapter. She suggested I throw out the first four chapters which are about the hero, his patriotism in the Revolution, his capture and escape from the British, his inheritance, and his journey to England. Instead she told me to write it in the female character's point of view. If I do that it will be an entirely different novel. So, I am sticking to historical fiction from this point on.

I never wanted to write formula fiction or historical romances. I never had the thought to join Romance Writers of America. Interesting though, Nora Roberts writes a lot of her stories from the male point of view, such as the Chesapeake stories with the Quinn brothers. If I were to ask her about all this, she'd tell me, 'Rita, write a darn good story. That's what publishers want, and don't worry about all the rules.'

I agree with that, but it's really important to shave down the genre to a fine point.
So, if your book is a romantic historical, call it such. When I think of that phrase, I think of a novel that is historical fiction with elements of passion, adventure, that is idealistic like the Raphael Sabatini novels.
_________________________________

Sorry for dronning on and on. Please post your advice, ideas, comments here on the writing of historicals. Are there publishers out there who will published historicals that are NOT formula romances?

Rita Gerlach

[Judy Ridgley]

I pray there are. As well as agents interested in plain ole historicals. I see the difference between these two as Historical Romance is about the h/h relationship set in an historical setting and the focus is completely on the development of this relationship. The historical setting is only details and decoration. I see a romantic historical as a situational story set in an historical time that is unveiled by many means and POV which can include romance. It's the sugar to the story.
However, I think agents and publishers would see the term 'romantic historical' as a misconstrued, misinformed romance writer who doesn't know the market. So. Maybe it would be best to just refer to it as a historical in queries as Rita suggests.
I don't know and also would like to hear more thoughts on this.

[Kimberly Killion]

Wow! I can't be certain, Rita, but you eiter got a nazi editor or you have too much backstory up front in your novel. Without reading it, I couldn't say for certain, but I haven't read a romance in ages that was strictly in the heroine's POV. That is soooo old school it make me wonder who this editor was. Most romances nowadays are in both the hero and heroine's POV.
I'm sure you will find a home for your book and I wish I had advice on where to tell you to submit. I wouldn't be too quick to follow the advice of one editor.
Good luck in making your descision.
~Kimberly

[Michele Ann Young]

I think you know you have a Romance, historical or otherwise, if the central theme of the book is about the two characters and their developing relationship. Unless it is told in first person, it would rarely be in one pov or the other, but a mix of both, but could be all the female. These days they tend to be both. I would also guess that unless you have a character solving crimes, there are a couple of series like that out there, you will probably just want to call it a historical.

Many stories contain a romance, in fact most of them do, but they would not be considered in the romance genre because the book focuses on a wider scope than the couple. I wouldn't suggest pinning it down into one sub-genre or another, like suspense, or intrigue unless you see it as a way of making the sale.

Elizabeth Chadwick has a lot of romantic elements in her books, but they are shelved as historical fiction, which makes perfect sense to me.

[Cindy Thomson]

Hi Rita,
I always considered my novels (only one is published) as being "just historical". But after Brigid of Ireland was published, I was surprised that it was called historical fantasy. I didn't consider it fantasy at all. The setting was not an imagined world. As for romance, it sounds like the same old discussion about whether a novel is romance or women's fiction. It's women's fiction if there is a romantic element, but that is not what drives the story. It sounds like that is what your novel is--not driven by the romantic plot. So I'd stick with calling it historical fiction. The editors can call it what they like. Either it's what they are looking for or it is not.

That's not much help, is it?
Sorry!!

[Susan Sloate]

Rita -- I just finished a non-historical book where a great deal of the story is from the male point of view. (This wasn't intentional; it just sort of evolved that way. ) Interestingly, though the male character was very vivid, he was not that sympathetic, at least initially. The female character was very sympathetic, and the best suggestion I got was to revise the book putting her more in front, so the reader could make more of an emotional connection. That's what I'm currently doing.

I would imagine how you present the book in your query matters a great deal as to how agents see it. If they're conditioned to `historical romance' and it doesn't seem that way to them, they'll reject it. But if you call it historical suspense -- the romantic elements won't be that important to them and they won't worry much about that angle. I'm convinced it's all in the setup -- ie, the way they first understand it.

Of course, I have no idea if I'm right ... it's just been my (current) experience.

Susan

[Judy Ridgley]

I bet you're right, Susan. It's all in presentation and sending to agents/pubs who are interested in what you present, meaning romance or historical. I think romance is heavy in wanting both characters presented in a balanced view but I also think the field is more open in historicals. Benared Cornwall, Alexander Kent both have fantastic stories that are alllll male. McBooks Press is a man's publsher. All their books are male oriented. So, as they say....knowing your market. ugh
J

[Anne Whitfield]

It can be hard to define different genres.
Some people call my book historical romance, yet they are actually historical family dramas with romantic elements. LOL It's a mouthful, so I say either historical sagas or historical family dramas because although the books are focused on the heroine, I do also include pov from the hero and family members and it's not always about the heroine finding love, but her journey.
Then, just to confuse matters, I wrote Broken Hero which is a historical WWII romance.
I like to be fickle!!

[Judy Ridgley]

All this is encouraging to hear. Now this 'historical family drama' is curious. I personally don't think I want to read a third person story only in HER pov personally. If it's third person, I subconsiously would want HIS pov and maybe even the villia's pov. as well. That is the power of third person. If the story was only HER pov why not first person? Now that's my take. adn two cents worth.
J

[Judy Ridgley]

Well, I'm like you Rita...I can't follow a recipe much less a formula. To add to that, I have to pick a period that is 'different'. Frustrating. I also quit using romance in relation to my stories because they have as much to do with the setting as the relationship. So, I straddle the fence again...damn, those posts are hard to jump over. anyway...this is where my heart is and I can't leave it for one side or the other. I don't know what to say about romantic historical, which makes perfectly good sense to me, for historical romance...totally different focus. oh well

[Stephanie Patterson]

Rita,

Even though my draft is nowhere near completion and I have yet to start worrying about publishers & editors, I'm in the same boat as you.

I consider my novel to be historical, with elements of suspense and romance. And written in both POVs - the hero 's and the heroine's. It evolved somehow that more is told through him (I find him more interesting *g*) but that vital parts of the story happen to her. The talk about romance being only in the female POV is completely out of date and would IMHO refer to authors like Victoria Holt. I have recently read various romances (Nora Roberts, Teresa Medeiros...) and there were always (at least) two POVs.

I would call it historical, probably without mentioning mystery or romance, as otherwise your novel is quickly confined to one type of direction only.

Stephanie

[J. M. Hochstetler]

Rita,

Oh, boy, do I relate! I personally prefer to have both the hero and heroine's POV in a story, which is just one reason why I can't read many historical romances. They're just too limited and formulaic to hold my attention. My first 2 historicals, published by Zondervan, have a great deal of the hero's POV, and they've gotten excellent reviews. But I lost my editor and Z didn't promote the books, so we finally parted company. My agent has submitted my historicals all over the place without getting any bites.

I constantly hear that historicals aren't doing well right now and the market is down, blah, blah blah. But strangely enough, there are still a lot of them in the bookstores, and some sell quite well, though they're mainly secular. However, there's at least one publisher who's looking for real, serious historicals with a Christian worldview that aren't written according to a formula. That happens to be Sheaf House, the small press I founded in 2006 when I was over the top with the same kind of frustration you're experiencing.

If you're interested in finding out more, go to www.sheafhouse.com or check in on publishingdream.blogspot.com to learn more about how I'm developing Sheaf House. I'm working to build it up to the point where I can take on more authors, which means I need the sales to keep it going. But my distributor is working on that along with me, and if the Lord continues to bless as he has so far, I'm definitely going to be looking for more excellent historical fiction in the next year or two.

[Judy Ridgley]

I just read two great articles on this very subject from the Historical Novel Society... www.historicalnovelsociety.org Great support group. They ask...what is historical...isn't the last minute historical, the fact that I just did dishes? Thank God that is history...and done. Our contemporary novels will be history in five years or maybe less...think of The Great Gatsby...it was contemporary for its day but you could call it historical because it gives the flavor of....whenever it was printed...model ACars and all.
I know Highland Press www.highlandpress.com is a small press who is growing leaps and bounds publishing treat historicals. I love Rita's phrase "romantic historical instead of historical romance" that is so true but I can see an agent seeing that and thinking we have it backward, poor writer when it is she who is reversed. So I too think of my stories as Historical fiction with a strong romantic element. It certainly isn't a romance. I've spent my time with romancers, five years, only to realize I don't fit that mold. I do appreciate their dedication and art and they have helped me improve my writing. But I'm just not a romancer. I love the ancient world.
RWA says that Historical romance is the second best selling genre that sells. AS for selling...I don't know...I'm not sold yet. But I know there are historical readers out there and they want more to read. We just have to find their nitch, I guess