Historical Accuracy and License
Within the romance genre, the issue of historical accuracy is a hot one, with some readers claiming accuracy equals a dry history tome, some authors growing defensive over claims that they write wallpaper historicals, and some in the "historical accuracy only" corner criticizing the popularity of the rompish persuasion of historical romance of "ruining" the genre. As someone who loves history, and social history in particular, I tend to err on the side of HISTORICAL Romance over Historical ROMANCE (™ Isobel Carr/Kalen Hughes), but I've become less fanatical about it when I realized how easy it is to dismiss what the history books say when your characters want to do something considered outrageous for the period.
As I stated in the blog post:
I've honestly grown weary of this topic because no one is perfect. For the most part, we have wallpaper historicals because it's all about the hook, Hook, HOOK for publishers (hence, why we now have all of these modern pop culture influences in Regency historicals: When Harry met Molly; Sex and the Single Earl; I Kissed an Earl, Ten Rules to Break..., etc etc), and everyone is satisfied (and published) with the bare minimum of historical description.
Do I strive for HISTORICAL romance? I certainly do, but the market speaks. If rich, incredibly complex historicals were what readers wanted, Roberta Gellis would sit atop the lists, and the many historical romance authors who cut their teeth on historically accurate novels wouldn't have seen success once they made their books a little less historical and a little more humorous and fantastic. Personally, I see it as a fun challenge to balance market desires with my personal vision, and once I stopped obsessing over what other authors do and or don't do for their research, the less I felt the need to adhere to the rigid, perfectionist drive to be absolutely, positively historically accurate. Because face it, the history of people can be dour and unromantic, but we as writers of historical romance are here to make the mundane as fantastic and sexy as possible.
Which brings me to the spark of this topic: Downton Abbey.
I watched this incredible drama last fall, when it aired on ITV, and it has finally hit Stateside. Just as many Americans have fallen in love with the period drama as Brits, and there is tant et plus gushing across the web and the Twitterverse. However, just as in Britain, many American viewers are skeptical about many of the twists and turns of the plot and how accurate it was to the Edwardian era. Unfortunately, Julian Fellowes was too prideful to admit his bending of historical accuracy (and lifting of elements from other dramas/books) to serve the plot, instead choosing to lash out at the alleged "left-wing conspiracy" (don't click if you don't want to be spoiled!), but I freely admit that Downton Abbey is not 100% accurate to the period.
For one thing, Carson, Mrs. Hughes, O'Brien and Bates would dine in the housekeeper's sitting room and be served by Gwen or Anna--they obviously ignored this rule of etiquette for the very proud upper servants to serve the plot (though you do see Daisy serving everyone before she has a chance to eat). Other things are very minor details Fellowes & Co no doubt also deliberately overlooked for the sake of time, plot, and set decorating. Right now, the major bone of contention is the incident between Lady Mary Crawley and Kemal Pamuk. I've read that Fellowes was inspired by a real life event (don't know if it occurred in the Edwardian era, or earlier or later), but I'll take that with a grain of salt. I will say that even though Edwardian etiquette was much more restrictive and strict than in the Regency period, one cannot claim the daughter of the house could or would never be seduced by a male guest. From Kemal Pamuk's introduction into the show, he was shown to be brazen, arrogant, and selfish--his barging into Mary's room was proof of those traits. And Mary's dialogue is revealing:
"You have something in common with my parents; they believe I'm much more of a rebel than I am...I'm not what you think I am."
Meaning they don't assume Mary is sleeping with every attractive gentleman she meets, but that she is a hardened flirt. The open juggling of Evelyn Napier and the Duke of Crowborough even though she was unofficially engaged to cousin Patrick, as well as her unmarried status at the age of twenty or so (she's gone through at least two Seasons), have made her parents believe she's a bit "fast" for the period. However, they don't appear to check Mary's behavior, which I chalk up to a combination of Cora's American heritage (since American girls were prized for the number of beaux they collected) and the knowledge that the relative innocence in which Edwardian ladies were reared would give them no cause for concern (aka sex!).
However, as I stated on Twitter, the majority of the action takes place within the walls of Downton Abbey. The home as sanctuary, as secret-keeper, is not different then as it is today. The loyalty of Anna to Lady Mary was incredibly accurate, as most servants did consider the family Upstairs to be "their" family. If Lady Mary met Mr. Pamuk in London, he would have had no opportunity to seduce her since they would have met only in public settings (dinner, ball, reception, ride in Hyde Park, etc) and he would be in the Crawley's London home in that capacity. I would also toss in the interaction between Thomas and Crowborough: if in London, any assignations would have to be on Thomas's day off (usually a half-day on Saturday) and far, far away from any place they'd be recognized or meet with acquaintances.
Which brings me to another point I've made many times: Downton Abbey is untethered to a book and definitely to the baggage associated with setting a period drama in a much-mined setting such as the Regency period. There are no expectations of keeping a built-in audience happy, or of keeping (insert setting here) purists happy. Yes, many fans of period dramas do approach the medium with some measure of knowledge about the do's and don'ts of the past, but while the soap opera-ish elements are tuned to a very high degree, at the same time, Fellowes set out to reveal how Edwardians were on the cusp of modernity (and indeed, many Edwardian historians defending this incredibly overlooked period, note how many "modern" ideas and books and other things we associate with the post-WWI era had strong roots in the early 1900s.), and how the Crawleys and their servants reacted to this dawning knowledge. As a result, he has taken license with social history of the Edwardian period in order to prove his "thesis", which I definitely do not fault.
Within the context of historical romance, I firmly believe that "we as writers [...] are here to make the mundane as fantastic and sexy as possible." Yes the fantastic and sexy elements can come at the expense of using history to its fullest (hence the obsession with dukes, dukes, and more dukes, rather than other elements of British high society) or using a chosen period as merely incidental to the plot, but I choose to believe that an author--and reader--of historical romance approaches the sub-genre due to a genuine love of history, whether it's a frothy costume romp or a dense and detailed adventure. But the most important thing to remember is not to bore readers or viewers.
As I stated in the blog post:
I've honestly grown weary of this topic because no one is perfect. For the most part, we have wallpaper historicals because it's all about the hook, Hook, HOOK for publishers (hence, why we now have all of these modern pop culture influences in Regency historicals: When Harry met Molly; Sex and the Single Earl; I Kissed an Earl, Ten Rules to Break..., etc etc), and everyone is satisfied (and published) with the bare minimum of historical description.
Do I strive for HISTORICAL romance? I certainly do, but the market speaks. If rich, incredibly complex historicals were what readers wanted, Roberta Gellis would sit atop the lists, and the many historical romance authors who cut their teeth on historically accurate novels wouldn't have seen success once they made their books a little less historical and a little more humorous and fantastic. Personally, I see it as a fun challenge to balance market desires with my personal vision, and once I stopped obsessing over what other authors do and or don't do for their research, the less I felt the need to adhere to the rigid, perfectionist drive to be absolutely, positively historically accurate. Because face it, the history of people can be dour and unromantic, but we as writers of historical romance are here to make the mundane as fantastic and sexy as possible.
Which brings me to the spark of this topic: Downton Abbey.
I watched this incredible drama last fall, when it aired on ITV, and it has finally hit Stateside. Just as many Americans have fallen in love with the period drama as Brits, and there is tant et plus gushing across the web and the Twitterverse. However, just as in Britain, many American viewers are skeptical about many of the twists and turns of the plot and how accurate it was to the Edwardian era. Unfortunately, Julian Fellowes was too prideful to admit his bending of historical accuracy (and lifting of elements from other dramas/books) to serve the plot, instead choosing to lash out at the alleged "left-wing conspiracy" (don't click if you don't want to be spoiled!), but I freely admit that Downton Abbey is not 100% accurate to the period.
For one thing, Carson, Mrs. Hughes, O'Brien and Bates would dine in the housekeeper's sitting room and be served by Gwen or Anna--they obviously ignored this rule of etiquette for the very proud upper servants to serve the plot (though you do see Daisy serving everyone before she has a chance to eat). Other things are very minor details Fellowes & Co no doubt also deliberately overlooked for the sake of time, plot, and set decorating. Right now, the major bone of contention is the incident between Lady Mary Crawley and Kemal Pamuk. I've read that Fellowes was inspired by a real life event (don't know if it occurred in the Edwardian era, or earlier or later), but I'll take that with a grain of salt. I will say that even though Edwardian etiquette was much more restrictive and strict than in the Regency period, one cannot claim the daughter of the house could or would never be seduced by a male guest. From Kemal Pamuk's introduction into the show, he was shown to be brazen, arrogant, and selfish--his barging into Mary's room was proof of those traits. And Mary's dialogue is revealing:
"You have something in common with my parents; they believe I'm much more of a rebel than I am...I'm not what you think I am."
Meaning they don't assume Mary is sleeping with every attractive gentleman she meets, but that she is a hardened flirt. The open juggling of Evelyn Napier and the Duke of Crowborough even though she was unofficially engaged to cousin Patrick, as well as her unmarried status at the age of twenty or so (she's gone through at least two Seasons), have made her parents believe she's a bit "fast" for the period. However, they don't appear to check Mary's behavior, which I chalk up to a combination of Cora's American heritage (since American girls were prized for the number of beaux they collected) and the knowledge that the relative innocence in which Edwardian ladies were reared would give them no cause for concern (aka sex!).
However, as I stated on Twitter, the majority of the action takes place within the walls of Downton Abbey. The home as sanctuary, as secret-keeper, is not different then as it is today. The loyalty of Anna to Lady Mary was incredibly accurate, as most servants did consider the family Upstairs to be "their" family. If Lady Mary met Mr. Pamuk in London, he would have had no opportunity to seduce her since they would have met only in public settings (dinner, ball, reception, ride in Hyde Park, etc) and he would be in the Crawley's London home in that capacity. I would also toss in the interaction between Thomas and Crowborough: if in London, any assignations would have to be on Thomas's day off (usually a half-day on Saturday) and far, far away from any place they'd be recognized or meet with acquaintances.
Which brings me to another point I've made many times: Downton Abbey is untethered to a book and definitely to the baggage associated with setting a period drama in a much-mined setting such as the Regency period. There are no expectations of keeping a built-in audience happy, or of keeping (insert setting here) purists happy. Yes, many fans of period dramas do approach the medium with some measure of knowledge about the do's and don'ts of the past, but while the soap opera-ish elements are tuned to a very high degree, at the same time, Fellowes set out to reveal how Edwardians were on the cusp of modernity (and indeed, many Edwardian historians defending this incredibly overlooked period, note how many "modern" ideas and books and other things we associate with the post-WWI era had strong roots in the early 1900s.), and how the Crawleys and their servants reacted to this dawning knowledge. As a result, he has taken license with social history of the Edwardian period in order to prove his "thesis", which I definitely do not fault.
Within the context of historical romance, I firmly believe that "we as writers [...] are here to make the mundane as fantastic and sexy as possible." Yes the fantastic and sexy elements can come at the expense of using history to its fullest (hence the obsession with dukes, dukes, and more dukes, rather than other elements of British high society) or using a chosen period as merely incidental to the plot, but I choose to believe that an author--and reader--of historical romance approaches the sub-genre due to a genuine love of history, whether it's a frothy costume romp or a dense and detailed adventure. But the most important thing to remember is not to bore readers or viewers.