Historical Mystery Lovers discussion

Originally posted by Lance:

I don't know if this is the place for this kind of question, but it's the closest I can find in this forum.

I'd like to get reader opinions about a particular plot point in my WIP historical espionage novel set in 1937. It involves a specific part of the heroine's backstory that figures during the action. I've been getting mixed responses from alpha readers and would like to get a larger sample size.

Is this section the proper place for this? If not, do you have any suggestions?

Originally posted by Helen:

If this incident in your character's past is driving her reaction to what is happening at this point in your story, then it definitely needs to be explained to readers. But maybe that isn't what you're asking? Might need more information from you.

Ah, thanks, Lauren for posting this in the proper place!

Thanks, Lauren.

Background as it stands now: Kate, the heroine of my WIP, was well-born and married a titled man in the early 1920s. They had a son together. After hubby's unresolved shell shock (now called PTSD) from the Great War turned him into a violent alcoholic and philanderer, Kate left him and started what turned into an ugly, public divorce to get custody of their son. She got the divorce but not the boy (the titled ex-husband got to keep his heir). She tried to re-insert herself in her son's life, but the ex got the 1920s version of a restraining order against her.

Fast-forward eight years. Kate still wants to get her boy back. She tried to sue for custody a few years back and failed; she didn't have enough money to fight the ex's solicitors and the inherent bias in the system. She's still trying to raise more money for another fight, leading her to do some extreme things.

The problem: I've been getting two opposed reactions from early alpha readers. On the one hand, some say, "She's been trying for eight years and hasn't succeeded yet? She's either incompetent or a bad mother." On the other hand, some say, "She's still fighting! She loves her son! She's a bulldog and a great mother!"

They can't both be right.

None of this happens in real time; it's backstory that dribbles out over time to help explain her motivation for taking some significant risks. There isn't a right answer yet. Some options: Kate had a son but lost him to the measles; or, Kate never conceived and her husband blamed her for it, though it turns out to have been his fault.

For a short overview of the story, go here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

What's your reaction to this scenario? I thought I'd ask some fans of historical mysteries what they think. So, thoughts? If you don't like the current setup, do either of the other two work better for you?

Thanks in advance.

Hmmm... by the 20s attitudes had changed somewhat; the war saw to that. However, where titles and heirs were concerned, having that heir inherit the title was still a big deal. I can see the ex-husband (and perhaps even more so, his parents) wanting him to keep the boy child in the family. They would do whatever was necessary. For the mother to continue to fight against that -- well, it is difficult, especially if society is against her, as it would be. Some sections of society, that is; the "younger set" was definitely breaking away, as we know. And if money is involved, which I'm assuming it is, that makes it even more difficult. I do not think she is incompetent, or a bad mother. If Lord So and So wants his heir, he gets to keep him. That's the way it was. Modern attitudes mustn't figure into it.

It depends on how much of this impedes your story from going forward. As you say, it's backstory. Is she growing in your story, or is the story stagnating because of all this backstory.

An excellent series that uses this scenario as a plot point is the Right Sort Marriage Bureau series by Allison Montclair. One of her characters is also trying to get her son back. (She had a mental breakdown and her son was taken away from her.) It's set in the 50s, so a different mindset, but boy, the frustration of Gwen Bainbridge is much the same, I'm sure.

I suppose that I should say that your other two scenarios completely change your story... so, that would make it up to you which you decide to keep, or don't keep, and then to work with.

I am not the right person to lend an expert opinion, but as a mother I am firmly in the camp that "She's still fighting! She loves her son! She's a bulldog and a great mother!". I think that a mother who loses a child in such circumstances would not be authentic if they just walked away, especially if they 1. cared about their child and 2. knew that the father has some mental health issues and may not be the best model for the child. Perhaps that is too modern a view but I don't think it is.

Thanks for your reactions, Helen and Rachel!

Helen wrote: "It depends on how much of this impedes your story from going forward..."

It doesn't. (I'm 6-7 chapters from the end; she's done fine so far.) No matter which of the three scenarios I use, Kate will still be a sucker for children and women in trouble with their men (just for different reasons). She'll still start out dead broke, which can be an understandable if not exactly noble reason to take foolish risks to get money (now she's doing it for her get-my-son-back fund).

If I had to choose an alternate scenario, I'd probably go for the one in which she had a son who died young and the ex blamed her for it.

To begin with, I would not be concerned about mixed reactions from early readers. Every reader has their own take and you will never please everyone (it is the nature of human beings and books). As such, you should write the book that you want to write.

Moreover, the "bad mother" vs "good mother" reactions appear to be representative of late 20th and early 21st century values in which it is uncommon for a mother to lose custody unless she is unfit. This was not the case in the 1920s.

The 1920s was a turbulent time for women. Yes, they were fighting for and obtaining more rights, but politicians, authorities, the courts, and many in society were definitely against them. As the husband in your book is a peer, it is very unlikely under any circumstances that the heroine would receive custody of the child, and any solicitor or barrister who advised otherwise would be either unethical or negligent.

Finally, I agree with others who have stated that the alternatives definitely change the characterization. A woman who has lost a child does not have the same psychological makeup as one who failed to conceive due to her husband's infertility. Moreover, neither of these scenarios really explain her willingness to take excessive risks to protect a child who is not her own.

Good points, Lauren. This kind of discussion is why I posted the question in the first place. Thanks!

Since custody is probably an settled issue, it may be better if what she's fighting for is to get the writ against her voided so she can have some sort of contact with her son as he grows older.

Lance wrote: "Good points, Lauren. This kind of discussion is why I posted the question in the first place. Thanks!

Since custody is probably an settled issue, it may be better if what she's fighting for is to ..."

No problem!
Glad the group can help.