In 2015, I interviewed Maya Rodale about her fabulous book, Dangerous Books for Girls. (You can read the interview here.) Maya has updated the book and we sat down (via email) to discuss the changes. Here’s our discussion.
Dabney: You’ve updated this wonderful book. Why?
Maya: So much has happened in the world and in Romancelandia since I published this book in 2015. It feels like a completely different world and I wanted to acknowledge some of those changes and conversations—like #metoo for example. But I didn’t want to update the whole book 🙂 . I felt like it was important to keep it as is, as a record of that moment in time.
Dabney: What have you added?
Maya: I added two new essays. The first is a foreword Are Romance Novels still Dangerous Books? Because in a world of Bridgerton on Netflix and romance novels reviewed in The New York Times and elsewhere, it’s a question worth asking. The Gen Z folks are unapologetic about their romance reading. Which is FANTASTIC. But I wanted to talk about how these books are still powerful even if they’re no longer considered so “dangerous.”
The second essay is The Truth About Historical Accuracy: the Subversive Power of Historical Fiction. This one has been in the works in my brain for a while, and it’s inspired by many heated conversations online over the years about what exactly is “historically accurate.” It’s more nuanced than just facts, and it’s so important to have this conversation because I think a lot of people learn about history from historical fiction and romance.
Dabney: Do you think the issues you raised are different now? If so how?
Maya: I think some of the issues I covered in the original version—like care, and dynamics between men and women in relationships, feminism in romance and how we portray female characters—has been discussed a lot and not just within the romance community. I think there’s less angst and more acceptance around the genre, which is wonderful. But I think there is also still so much to discuss; it’s endless fascinating to me! I’m keeping the conversation going on my Substack, XO Romance: https://mayarodale.substack.com/
Dabney: Thank you for chatting. I love the original version of this book and look forward to reading the updates!
Oh, this is delightful! Love me some Maya Rodale!
“It’s more nuanced than just facts”
Ruh roh. What? If it’s historical, it’s factually based.
Somewhere on the site, a reader recently came up with a great phrase for what we might call historical romance that is ahistorical.
Anyone recall what it was?
Was it “anti-historical” about Queen Bee? (Which I believe was in the book blurb?) I didn’t comment there because I was so livid. That’s got to be the best/worst excuse I’ve ever seen for “I don’t care about getting it wrong, but I’m telling you in advance so you can’t complain that I got it wrong.”
I can’t even with all these ridiculous excuses any more.
See, if you label what you’re doing as not history, you are welcome to write whatever you choose in my book.
They can write what they want sure. But don’t call it something its not, and try to sell it as something it’s not. As MR points out, many people learn about history from historical romance. And current HR seems committed to mostly ignoring history or doesn’t care about getting it wrong. If it had been a medical romance and the author had called it “anti-medical” you might feel the same as I do about this.
See, I’ve read so much paranormal history, urban fantasy history, alternate reality history without supernatural elements (What If stories) that it doesn’t bother me that someone writes something that doesn’t match history. What bothers me is – well, I mean, if they’re in denial about it, first off. But also, when they do it sloppily.
In Bridgerton, for example, the diverse casting would work better if they just said “Yeah, different reality, roll with it” instead of awkward half-developed “race is a thing, but it’s also not” plot elements like Queen Charlotte’s marriage setting off a new era. A Regency that’s open to queer couples can be a book I’d read just like I’d read a Regency where Napoleon is landing in Cornwall, but I expect the author of either to build the world in detail and make it internally consistent. What would be queer inheritance policies for the titled? What would a young man’s marriage mart look like? Etc. You can’t just keep everything the same BUT that.
I want things to evolve but the labels should too IMO.
I have no problem with AUs, if they’re labelled as such. I just read a book set in an “alternate classical world” (Ancient Greece); the author labels it as such and it’s fine. There are books around set in historical AUs where queer couples can be open, and I have no issue with the whole idea of “what it?” Laura Andersen’s Boleyn Trilogy and its sequel are fantastic examples of that genre (the premise that Henry VIII’s son by Anne Boleyn didn’t die and went on to become king). But they’re all labelled correctly and don’t pretend to be what they’re not. My beef is with – and I’m sorry, but it’s mostly American authors – having no regard for the actual history of my country when they’d fall over themselves to get every little thing right if they wrote a historical set anywhere else in the world. Alt-Historical is a good label if they want to use it – “Anti-Historical” is not. “Anti” literally means “opposed to” or “against” – so that author is saying they’re opposed to history. I suspect that isn’t what they meant, but that’s what it acrually means.
An author should be more careful with their word choices.
I like alt historical a lot.
“the Great” is marketed in a similar way.
I like “The Great” tho.
I suppose it’s not a surprise, but the Historical one is very US biased.
And I’m really concerned about the number of authors who seem to be equating a desire for historical accuracy in HR with bigotry. I’m sure there are some readers who don’t believe there were queer people around in the 19th century who were able to find love, or that there were Black people in England ‘in the past’ etc. But a lot of us – especially us Brits – DO know what there were Black people in Tudor England, that Tiffany is a name originally from the 12th century and that queer people had happy endings, too – and I resent being lumped with the historically ignorant.
Agreed. I also noticed that US authors are leading this trend of fantasy UK historicals that reflect very modern values. Maybe it’s easier to do in another country when it’s not directly your history and you don’t have to live in its wake. There is something of ethnocentrism and appropriation here.
Another thing that never fails to make me squirm is how they go out of their way to give people of colour social status that they unfortunately would not have enjoyed in those days, and anyone who expresses this is shouted down as a bigot, but there is zero awareness of the crushing class system, the horrific inequalities, the drudgery necessary to facilitate the idle, opulent lifestyles of all these dukes. In fact modern authors revel in this financial excess and never for one second do they show the destitution that follows one small group of people appropriating all the resources. People seem totally unaware of just how badly servants were treated. If a servant so much as accidentally touched their employer, they were considered so far beneath them that the consequences were dire. At some times they were not allowed to make eye contact with their employer. Seeing all these servants who are just like family members except who cheerfully do all the work… It makes me very uncomfortable because it sanitises their exploitation. Authors who claim a veneer of virtue through an american form of inclusion, are quite happy to perpetuate the same old class system that persists today under a different guise.
Sometimes I can overlook these things and I can read the occasional well-written and researched historical, and sometimes I can’t. But glaring historical inaccuracies and shoe-horning of modern values only makes the contrast more difficult to bear and makes suspension of disbelief impossible for me.
(In case the mob wants to come for me : I am very happy to see more historicals with people of all ethnicities. In fact, I wish there were many more, and in many more settings than just regency England. I would just like to see less dukes and aristocrats, and if an author does choose to write about them, for the actual reality of social inequalities to be shown.)
Yes, to all of this. Also, I’ve been saying for a while now that it seems that British history and culture are currently the only ones it is acceptable to ignore and/or get wrong. Can you imagine the outrage if an author wrote a book set in India and got all the history and customs wrong? They’d be crucified on Twitter! This attiude of, eh, it’s England, so it doesn’t matter pisses me off mightily.
The sad thing is, that as so many HR authors took much from Heyer, the newer authors are taking much from the current crop who are getting it so very wrong. There are a few authors out there still writing good historicals, but not many.
It’s interesting–American novels (sane ones) NEVER feature happy slaves or happy indentured servants. You make a strong point.