Dangerous Hero Addict Support Group discussion

Opinions vary and that's okay.

Do you like your HR with a modern slant, or do you like it as historically accurate as possible, or somewhere in between?

I like historical,accuracy. I like to think that the story and characters may be fictional but I like glimpsing the authentic tidbits to feel like i am there, picturing it. Also, I learn a lot about history this way!

I have to be honest and admit I prefer my HRs to feel historical. My biggest issue is when the characters have 100% modern mores and behaviors. I feel like I'd be better off just reading a modern romance. I especially don't like when the writer manipulates the story to allow the character to do something a modern character would do.

I like when the main characters are married when they do the deed, but as long as they show some historical thought processes/mores if they anticipate their marriage vows, I'm okay with it. I can't stand it when the heroine acts like she can sleep around and it won't affect her reputation and it's a Regency or Victorian romance. Completely unauthentic for the times.


I am not necessarily looking for a history lesson when I read HR, but I like picking up some facts on that time period, and I like the story to be grounded in the current events at that time.

Of course, there have always been iconoclasts, so as long as the character feels like a historical one, even if they don't always follow the rules, I'm okay with it.

I've noticed that a lot of people really want historical accuracy in their HR, Me, not so much, as long as there are no glaring errors such as historical facts or modern day vernacular I'm good with it. The characters and the story are much more important, I'm primarily reading it as a romance novel.

If I want more factual and accurate writing I would read historical fiction or an author who I know researches the facts and this is an important part of their work. eg Elizabeth Chadwick, Philippa Gregory or Cynthia Harrod-Eagles.

I can't get into historical fiction, to be honest. I think it's because my boredom threshold is kind of low. Also, I don't want the leads to have to have done something just because that's what history said they did. I don't mind if the secondary characters are true life figures. That's kind of fun. I sometimes will look them up after I read the book.

That's why I read both, Danielle. I love history but those historical fiction do require more concentrated reading, that's why sometimes I just like to chill with a historical romance where you get the historical feel but much more relaxed.

In saying that, some historical romance writers are too light for my taste. I guess everyone will have their favourites, it's quite a personal thing.

Tt wrote: "I like historical,accuracy. I like to think that the story and characters may be fictional but I like glimpsing the authentic tidbits to feel like i am there, picturing it. Also, I learn a lot abou..."

Same here!

I'm not a big fan of fluffy HR, to be honest. I like it to have some substance and maybe a little dark. It can depend on the mood. If the fluffier romance has a compelling storyline or character, and good dialogue or is really funny, I'm fine with it.

I don't like when they basically are the same storyline told over and over again.

I like accuracy, even if it means the main characters might do something social unacceptable now a days. I'm fine with a sexist Victorian lord.

The whole appeal of historical romance is that the characters lived in a different way, with different social rules. If I read about a heroine who gallivants about having casual sex, marching around unchaperoned and nobody cares, going on and on about how she’s a career woman and doesn’t want to marry, and speaking like an American teenager… well, why doesn’t the author just write contemporary romance?

What I LOVE about HR is that the social rules of the day create their own dramas and difficulties for the characters. You don’t need yet another series about a legion of Disney-style caricature Regency spies when there’re already so many obstacles for the characters.

I don’t see the point in historical romance unless the author bothers with historical accuracy. The same way when Lora Leigh had her navy SEALs in the army and stationed inland in a part of the US where there is no military base she was (rightfully) blasted for her poor (non-existent, actually) research.

If an author is making a profit from their writing, I expect a certain degree of effort on their part.

Yesterday in another group we mentioned recent HRs that referenced scientific theories that didn’t come until a hundred years later, and one where members of Queen Victoria’s family uttered phrases like, I don’t know where she’s at.

For the first point, well, the author might has well have had cars rushing around central 1812 London!

For the second, I have a huge aversion to Regency romances that use modern American English, with terminology people in Britain don’t even use in 2014. If the author can’t even bother to learn the difference between an arse and an ass or the ground floor and the first floor, then that’s just plain sloppy writing…

I think I'm a in betweener. I like accuracy for the most part but I didn't live back then so what would I know. Still I want to understand what I'm reading so having a more modern feel as far as the dialogue goes can sometimes be nice. But too much modern in historical romances can be annoying.

For HR, I like it to be more accurate, not just for the sake of being more interesting and dimensional but also because it's less distracting. Of course some things clearly I wouldn't know of so I can't be a great judge. lol But things that are really obvious like dialogue, social interactions and language that seem out of place and inconsistent are a pet peeve of mine. If it draws me out of the story then it's a problem for me.

I read a HR book that was erotic romance and the characters kept using the word ass and fuck all over the place. I know fuck was used, but in mixed company? Not so much. The loose modern language was really heavily emphasized and just made it hard for me to get into the story.

On the other hand I've read Regency romance novels that used terminology that I had no idea what the heck they were talking about, I would just make my best guesstimate. If it really bugs me or piques my curiosity I will actually google it. Haha. For the longest time I thought french letter was an actual handwritten letter. Bahaahaa! Whoops! The things you learn.

I just love writers who really go out of their way to insert bits and pieces of the political/social atmosphere of the time. Just gives the story so much more life and makes it more authentic and rich. :P

Sonya Heaney wrote: "The whole appeal of historical romance is that the characters lived in a different way, with different social rules. If I read about a heroine who gallivants about having casual sex, marching around unchaperoned and nobody cares, going on and on about how she’s a career woman and doesn’t want to marry, and speaking like an American teenager… well, why doesn’t the author just write contemporary romance?"

I completely agree with that statement. I'm not a stickler for smaller details, like if coffee or chocolate was already discovered in 1700s, but I do hate books where the only historical details are the clothes they wear and the use of carriages instead of cars.

And yes, I too prefer an HR where the hero is sexist, as was more often than not the case back then, than politically correct.

I require an assumption of modern hygiene.

Clean teeth and frequent bathing aside, I do like a degree of old-school sexism in my historical romances. I think that's why I read them: for a contemporary heroine to put up with all that machismo, the condescension, the sexual coercion, the lack of choices - the tropes that not only create tension between hero and heroine but force her to stick around and see how it plays out - she would have to be a doormat. Who wants to read about a doormat?

A Victorian governess or a medieval chatelaine can strong, intelligent, educated and an independent spirit, and still be a pawn to circumstance, for plot purposes. She can be maneuvered into her employers's bed or an arranged marriage and we don't think less of her dr it: instead we hope for her to win him over, change him into a more "modern" man who respects as well as loves her.

An exception is romantic suspense, where we can have a strong contemporary heroine whose circumstances force her into the damsel-in-distress role. Nobody can fault Summer for not standing up more to Taka, right? He's so murdery and kidnappy, modern women become as helpless as Victorian governesses in his sphere. :-)

Susan wrote: "I require an assumption of modern hygiene."

Amen. I know hygiene requirements were different in the past but if you want me to read the book please throw in a bath or two. Please.

Lord yes, especially in medieval stories. To be historically accurate, there would have to be fleas, head lice, and a castle moat full of sewage. I'll take the lavender-scented fantasy, thank you!

I expect any historical author I read to do their homework and know what they're talking about.

I am with you on the hygiene. I think you can get a free pass from me for having characters who are cleaner than they might have truly been at that time.

Debbie wrote: "I expect any historical author I read to do their homework and know what they're talking about."

Agreed!

@Melody, I like when I get the opportunity to look up some terms and concepts from a book I am reading.

People seem to assume that romance is brainless and that's not the case. There are some very clever, intelligent writers in this genre.

@Susan, I love when a HR writes a woman of her times who is also very admirable in her personal integrity, strength of character.

Jessica Trent from Lord of Scoundrels from Loretta Chase is a woman of her times, and she's also a strong woman who can stand up for herself and deal with a hero like Dain. It made for some fantastic reading.

Here's my two recent favorites...Flowers from the Storm and The Madness of Ian MacKenzie....unusual plots but a great view of how misunderstood medical issues in history were treated by society. FFTS was very difficult to read in places because the abuse in the name of rehabilitation was so heart wrenching. But I loved seeing the ideas and methods employed back in that day and age and of course with the women portrayed with strength and determination.

Somewhere in between and if there are inaccuracies, as long as they're not glaring, I'll be fine with them. Besides, being a dentist, I always try not to think about the state of their oral health every time they smile or kiss. Haha! I wouldn't want to continue reading if more pages were spent describing the era than with the characters' development individually and as a couple. I'm the type of reader who's more concerned with what the characters are thinking and saying, although a few surprising concepts or words, (I'm not from an English speaking country) are much appreciated. Otherwise, I'll get bored.

Jais, one of my favorite historical romances begins in a dentist's office: Judith Ivory's "Sleeping Beauty." It's wonderful, and so original!

Susan wrote: "Jais, one of my favorite historical romances begins in a dentist's office: Judith Ivory's "Sleeping Beauty." It's wonderful, and so original!"

Wow, really? I'll look it up. Thanks!

In fact, Jais, there's more than one essential scene in that Victorian dentist's waiting room. I have a phobia, so bravo Judith Ivory for making me read that!

Susan wrote: "In fact, Jais, there's more than one essential scene in that Victorian dentist's waiting room. I have a phobia, so bravo Judith Ivory for making me read that!"
I hope you're ok with dentists now. I'll move it up my reading list, Susan. :)

I am quite a stickler for Historical accuracy in a book. I like to feel like I am 'in' the time period, to immerse myself in another time and place. Aswell as enjoy a good story I like to know that what I've learned about the time period is correct. Thus, if there are historical mistakes, glaring inaccuracies or characters just not acting true to the times then I struggle with the book.

I understand some readers just want a light historical romance read but, on the part of the author, if you're writing a historical - heavy or light - I just don't see the point in sloppiness as regards accuracy. Surely authors love history as much as us reading their books and I do think they have a responsibility to get information right!

That being said, I have read a couple of historicals where there were historical inaccuracies contained in the plot but the gripping story and good writing kind of balanced it out so I found I could forgive the inaccuracies more! Still, it was a blot for me on what were otherwise enjoyable novels.

Well said, Natalie.

Thanks Danielle :-) This is such an interesting discussion.

I agree with everything posted so far. I am not sure if there is much to add....although, I do hate reading in a historical romance when a heroine is spunky, head strong,independent and doesn't want to get married to a Duke - which would immediately bring her status in life up a notch or two. This marriage would also guarantee she and her family would never starve, or have to work so hard that she would die young. Even a marriage to a prosperous farmer was a guarantee for a decent life. It was through marriage that women got security.

Here is the thing....for women before the 20th century, not many avenues were open to them if they wished to improve their status in life. Marriage was an economic necessary. They understood this and did not waste time pondering the inequality their sex experienced.

Most women (depending on when and where they lived) until recently did not have the right to vote, be educated, inherit property, own property, start a business (without a husband, father or brother). Living an independent life was not important to them anymore than living on Mars would be important to us today.

Don't forget what sex or having a baby out of wedlock meant in the time prior to the 20th century. Women simply did not (with a few exceptions) hold the same opinions about marriage that most modern women do. That did not mean that they didn't experience the frustration or sadness of an unhappy marriage, feel trapped, wish for more financial security. But most would not feel the disparity we would if offered the same opportunities in life.

Were there independent seeking women in days past...sure there were, authors need to be careful when writing novels set in pre-20th century to set the character in the time with thoughts, dreams and aspirations of that time. Prosperity and protection where much more important than independence and individual life style choices.

oooh, thought of something....

Contemporary Romance...don't care as much if book ends with marriage....but Historical Romance, hands down, either they are married, engaged or on there way there or I am done with the author....

Kayla, interesting comment. It makes sense from a purely ethical standpoint, because historically a man could "ruin" a woman just by kissing her and then not offering marriage. He'd have to be a true cad...

In any time period, I want an HEA if it's labeled as romance. I'll read literary erotica with no HEA on rare occasions, but only if I love the author.

I agree, Katya, so many regency books have heroines who shun marriage and have all these lofty social reform goals, yet they never face the true ostracization of living an unconventional life. I always think of Mary Wollstonecraft who wrote A Vindication of Rights of Woman. Wollstonecraft was just speaking out about the need for women to be educated. She also had two affairs outside of wedlock and had an illegitimate daughter, before she married William Godwin and gave birth to Mary Shelley. When her husband published her memoir after her death, her reputation was destroyed and she was treated as a pariah. Societal shaming is a horrible and powerful force even today. The heroines in these books do not seem to have the stamina and fortitude to face that kind of blow. Wollstonecraft actually tried to commit suicide twice over her disastrous second affair. William Godwin lost friends when he married her. You know that had to sting. But your average Regency romance acts like it’s no big deal.

True dat, Willow. What you said.

Great point Willow....

Don't get me going on time travel books. That is a separate thread unto itself.

Time-travel romances are a fine excuse to deliver an independent woman into the hands of a man who's used to unquestioning submission and then KABOOM! :-D I haven't read many that worked for me, but I love Karen Marie Moning's Highlander series.

Yes Susan, that is a great series. Another is

Katya wrote: "I agree with everything posted so far. I am not sure if there is much to add....although, I do hate reading in a historical romance when a heroine is spunky, head strong,independent and doesn't wa..."

Well said!

Willow wrote: "I agree, Katya, so many regency books have heroines who shun marriage and have all these lofty social reform goals, yet they never face the true ostentation of living an unconventional life. I al..."

That is a very good point. I think that it does bother me a lot when authors are eager to ignore this reality.

I gave a book a low rating because the heroine was happily getting it on with a duke in her schoolhouse as an unmarried woman with a reputation to maintain. If she got caught she'd be out of a job and a pariah. I couldn't suspend any disbelief. No duke is hot enough for those consequences.

Katya, I don't think I've read Lynn Kurland. Thanks for the headsup, I'll check her out.

Willow wrote: "I agree, Katya, so many regency books have heroines who shun marriage and have all these lofty social reform goals, yet they never face the true ostentation of living an unconventional life. I al..."

Thank you Willow, you've said everything I wanted to say.

Eeek I just saw that spell check changed my ostracization to ostentation. :(
I had to go back and fix it of course. lol

Thank you ladies!

I knew what you meant. Autocorrect is Satan.

Susan wrote: "Katya, I don't think I've read Lynn Kurland. Thanks for the headsup, I'll check her out."

What I like about a Dance through time is the little things...like when they come forward in time and they are traveling through the woods and he encounters a modern asphalt paved road for the first time...or the fact that guys from any time period fall in love with fast cars. (no brainer it is in their genes.) She adds alot of nice touches and details that make sense without it being ridicules.

One of my favorite time travel books if you want realistic reactions and touches is:


Wow did this blow my mind. When he comes forward his English is so different (700 years) he has trouble communicating or understanding and when he goes to sit down to eat at dinner he does not know what the modern utensils are for or how to eat with a napkin at a table setting.

FYI this book is not your typical romance. It is more about a person's character and true love. A selfish, self centered star in the classical music world changes places with a noble, honorable, moral knight from 700 years ago. When Shawn goes back his attitude almost gets him killed and he goes through a series of personality changes. He opens his eyes for the first time as to the value of human beings when he has to step up and protect the weak. The one coming forward teaches Shawn's girlfriend about self respect and what true love is. WHAT a book...I could not put it down and it's historical attention to detail was really good. I recommend it.

Yes! I don't know about Regency, but there's a fascinating, fun and fact- packed website called Victorian Web with a whole range of topics about Victorian life.