Thursday, April 17, 2014

Favorite Author and My Guest Today...Madeline Hunter!

Madeline Hunter is a NY Times and USA Today bestselling author. Her first novel, By Possession, was published in 2000 (and reviewed on my blog just below this post). Since then she has had 24 historical romances published. A two-time RITA winner, her books have been translated into thirteen languages.

Welcome to my blog, Madeline! And for you readers, Madeline is graciously giving to one lucky commenter a book of your choice! So leave your email!

Thanks, Regan. It's great to be here. In keeping with your theme for the month, my post is about how historical romance has changed over the years.

How We Got Here from There by Madeline Hunter

If you have been reading historical romances for a long time, you have watched them change over the years. Go back even to the early 1990s and they looked and read much differently. Go back farther, to the early years of their market dominance in the 70s and 80s, and they were even more different.

The most notable difference is that back then they were longer. How much longer? In some cases, almost twice as long as they are now. A typical historical romance today will have between 85,000 and 100,000 words. I saw an excel spreadsheet once that charted some of the older ones, and a few broke 200,000 words. 150,000 words minimum was typical of books by stars like Kathleen Woodiwiss and Roberta Gellis and other authors selling books by the boatload then.

So why are they shorter now? Publishers like to say that readers want faster reads, and maybe they do. Faster not only in terms of finishing fast, so shorter, but also in terms of moving fast, as in less description and narrative. Gone are the days of leisurely openings, extensive descriptions of settings, and often even action scenes. The battles and banquets are not going to be on the pages, is one way of saying it.

Is this a bad thing? Not if the story works and the writing is good, although some of us may miss the long emersion in a big fat book. On the other hand, I think it is safe to say none of us miss any padding, or artificial lengthening of the story just to satisfy a publisher’s longer word count expectations.

Another reason they changed was purely practical. Rather abruptly in the mid-90s paper became much more expensive. So did shipping. Furthermore, the shelf space in mass-market venues like grocery stores and drug stores began shrinking fast. In that environment, a book that was fat was expensive to print, ship, and stock. A rack in the local drug store might only hold 3 of those fat books but could hold 5 thinner ones.

Other developments aided the shortening of these books. As the “little Regencies” began disappearing in the 90s, those readers moved over to single title historicals. This influenced the length, I think, because those readers were accustomed to short books. It also influenced the settings of historicals, and began the domination of the market by books set in 19th-century England.

This change was in full swing when I was trying to sell my first medievals in the late 90s, the “By” novels set in 14th-century London. Even as I wrote them, books were getting shorter so my first ones were too long. I often received rejections that referred to them as “too historical.” At the time I took umbrage with that, and assumed it was a criticism of my using real history in my plots. I now realize it had more to do with the tone of the manuscripts, and the length, and the unfolding of the story. Eventually I went back and cut the stories down significantly and they sold. Same story, same characters, same events, same plot, same historical figures as secondary characters.

So what did I change? Episodes that did not absolutely have to be there got slashed. Three lines of description became one good line of description. World building came to rely on what I call “the telling detail.” Some secondary plot events happened off stage.
Even so, some readers felt my medievals harkened back to earlier historicals. Others thought they represented the future, probably because they were more sensual than the norm at the time.

Other things have changed too. When historical romances exploded on the bookselling scene in the 70s and 80s, the heroines might have more than one lover. These historicals described the heroine’s journey over time. She would travel to exotic locales, or endure some disaster, and she would have a lover for a while who was other than the one she chose for her HEA.

There are also changes that are very much for the good. We are all glad to be done with the rapes, aren’t we? Not seductions, mind you, but rape.

I do not know how they became so common for a time in early historical romances, but I have a theory. I think a book or two had them, and when they became blockbusters publishers dissected those books and decided readers wanted what was in them--- including rape. I have this theory because as I read widely once I discovered romances, and read lots of older ones, I found some where I swear that rape was added later, after the book was written, because it had no point whatsoever in the story. Whenever I see elements stuck in like that I tend to suspect editorial intrusion.

There are readers who either remember those long, detailed historical romances fondly from reading them back in their day, or who stumble upon one now and like the differences. There are readers and writers who think more variety in settings and options in story lines and length would be nice to have again. Some writers take the shot on writing extra long historicals now, hoping the readers will support the effort.

But there are other voices that claim that those reading preferences are now served by the historical fiction novels that have romantic elements. I personally do not agree with that.

There is a difference between romantic historical fiction and an historical romance that has nothing to do with setting or length, or even the type of development that caused editors to call my early manuscripts “too historical.” Think of the story as a photograph. In a photograph, a good one, there will be a focal point. Other things and people will be in the photo, but the whole composition leads to that focal point.

In historical romances that focal point is the romance. Duels may be fought, villains may be vanquished, kingdoms may fall, but the romance is still the focal point. In historical fiction, however, the romance is part of what moves around the focal point, helping to complete the composition and essential to it, to be sure, but not at its center.

If you want to read a romance, you want that focus on the romance. This does not mean that readers who prefer those very long historical romances cannot find them now. Due to re-releases in ebook form, the classics from that period are actually plentiful. But unless the marketplace demands stories like that again, it is unlikely that many writers will create new ones. Because readers and authors are not there anymore. They are here now.



Thanks for being on the blog, Madeline.

And for all you readers, Madeline’s next release, The Accidental Duchess, will be published on June 3, 2014.

Visit her at www.MadelineHunter.com

30 comments:

  1. I find the history of the historical romance to be a fascinating subject, and I do remember stealing some of those early books from my mother's nightstand when I was far too young. I loved the sprawl of history, and the more epic stories made the HEA all the more triumphant for me.

    The photograph analogy is very accurate, and while I can enjoy a historical novel with romantic elements (though not so much fictionalized biographies) I still miss the focal point of the romance, which makes everything grander. Should the market ever turn back in that direction again, I would be beyond thrilled. For me, there is no such thing as a historical romance that is too historical.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anna, you and I are sisters in this one. I, too, relish a deeper story and that is why you will see them on my blog--I'm still discovering them! Gems from the past still worthy of our reading today. But Madeline is right as to the publisher's influences. I still recall that Kathleen Woodiwiss was told to trim several hundred pages from The Flame and the Flower. Aren't we glad she refused?

      Delete
    2. Some of those authors' careers sort of ended when the biggest changes came through, unfortunately. Not Woodiwiss, but others. I think it is great that we can get hold of the oldies at least still.

      Delete
  2. I loved Ms. Hunter's medieval novels; they are on my Keeper shelf. I also love historical romances. I adored Marsha Canham's The Pride of Lions and The Blood of Roses. The reader becomes immersed in the plot breathlessly waiting for the next turn of the page/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I loved those, too, Anne. Thanks so much for stopping by and commenting. I hope you find my blog a source for info on the keepers.

      Delete
  3. Madeline is one of my favorite historical romance authors. I love her character development and plots that go beyond the standard for her genre. In other words, she writes intelligent books. I also like the "epic" feel of the larger more historical novels, but find I have less and less time to devote to books over 150k words. I look forward to her latest. Great post. Thanks for sharing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Kaki. While I sometimes get upset when I hear publishers say we don't want long books, I must confess that like you, I do tend to pick them very carefully now.

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Kaki. It's so good of you to drop by. I love those "epics" as you know and the deep historicals. It's why I enjoy Madeline's medievals!

      Delete
  4. Regan, thank you for hosting me today on your blog. This is a treat. I'll be stopping by to read the comments and respond throughout the day.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Way to go! I adored those older romances and still have many of them. The good news is, with the ascendance of the e-book, length is not so much an issue. The bad news is, today's readers have been conditioned to the shorter read.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So true, Gwyn. It's why mine tend to be about 85K words. But I try and make them "dense" with action and adventure and love so the reader gets full measure!

      Delete
    2. They have been conditioned. Not all of them, though. Thank goodness.

      Delete
  6. I also love the longer historicals as there is more depth to them. But there is another reason for the shortening of historicals today, I think. It is our societal changes toward the instant: fast food, digital photos, digital reading, smart phones, both parents working and wanting quick fixes for problems and relaxation, etc. During the holidays, for instance, I find myself gravitating toward novellas because of my lack of time for in-depth reading. I'm just too busy for doing the kind of reading I really like best. The younger generations like most things shorter and faster and perhaps think they are better! Church attendance is way down...perhaps because the younger generations don't like to listen to sermons (they think they are lectures) or want to spend time thinking or doing for others besides themselves. At least, this is my opinion. :-) jdh2690@gmail.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Janice, thanks for your thoughtful (and I daresay correct) observations about the changes in society. I wrote both a novella and a short story for Christmas with the busy Christmas shopper in mind.

      Delete
    2. There is much in what you say. Everything is shorter, faster.

      Delete
  7. I have loved all of the authors you have listed. I am excited to get to read your books.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Virginia! Thanks for stopping by. It's so good to have you on the site!

      Delete
    2. Most are on my keeper shelf. Especially Gellis. The first long historical I read was by here, some years after she published it. Hooked me good!

      Delete
  8. I love Madeline Hunter's books. Her Rothwell and Seducer series are two of my favorites. The Lord of Sin is one I would love to have. :) It was a delight to see Madeline here on the blog.
    Carol L
    Lucky4750 (at) aol (dot) com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Carol, I'm so glad you stopped by. I know Madeline will love to hear your kind appreciation of her books.

      Delete
    2. Carol: you are the lucky winner! I will be posting it and sending your email to Madeline. Congratulations!

      Delete
    3. Thank you so much Regan. A great surprise. :)
      Carol L

      Delete
  9. Always a fans of hisrom because so many great author and story, cant' wait to read this book by Madeline :)

    eli_y83@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eli, thanks for stopping by! Hope you join my blog to get all the news on historical romances of both the past and the present.

      Delete
  10. Regan / Madeline,

    Thanks for this enlightening post.

    Having been an avid reader of romance books for many years (since the 70s), it has become necessary to continue to pick up the older Historical Romance books because of a love for Medievals and Westerns (and it seems the market is currently being swamped with Regency-type romances). {Not that there is anything wrong with that genre, but why can't publishers give us more of a smorgasbord.} As a matter of fact, I am currently reading a 1986 medieval book right now -- and am shocked to find that the descriptions of castles, the landscape, the clothing, and the history that used to feel so appealing, now feel a bit too verbose. It seems that my reading tastes have evolved after all.

    Even though many of the youngsters that are driving the world of publishing right now seem to prefer the shorter, quicker reads, I hope we never lose the deeper, more intense longer books that you wonderful authors breathe life into. Novellas and short stories just don't seem to have enough depth in their stories to make them a worthwhile endeavor -- they always make me wish for more.

    Thank you, ladies, for sharing your gift of story-telling with readers. You are my life-line. If I did not have one of your books always at hand, I do not think I would be able to get out of bed day after day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for your comment, Wolf Bear. I agree with you and, as a matter of fact, I'm writing a medieval right now (The Red Wolf's Prize) that should be released this year. I agree with you about novellas and short stories but my publisher asked me to write them as they are, apparently, in great demand. But I like the longer, deeper stories.

      Delete
  11. I really appreciated your comments on one line of GOOD description surpasses many lines of ordinary description.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for stopping by, Jackie! I know Madeline will appreciate your comment.

      Delete