I guess I just have a problem with historical fiction in general, which is probably closely related to the fact that most of the books I read were written pre-1930. I don't think of myself as a historian, but I did major in history in college, and my focus ended up being popular fiction from the mid-19th century to the early 20th century, which has left me with a really clear idea of how people wrote about life in those eras, if not what life was actually like. So when I read historical fiction, I'm not comparing it to other historical fiction, or even what I know of the period, but to books I've read that were written during that period. But I still want to believe that historical fiction is doable. There's always going to be stuff that's going to interfere with my suspension of disbelief, but sometimes it's not really a problem, and I'd like to figure out exactly where that line is.
Ironically--since most historical AUs and vast numbers of historical novels are romances--I think the romance is often where--for me, anyway--the historical context breaks down. By prioritizing a romance that would be unlikely to happen in one's setting, or wouldn't have been written about if it did, one sort of demotes the historical setting. And that's another thing that really bugged me about Restraint, the Supernatural regency AU--the Jensen Ackles character was sort of aware that he was interested in men, but had no intention of ever doing anything about, and I felt like that was a perfectly valid choice for someone in that position at that time, but the author clearly doesn't feel that way, and so the story is largely about breaking down that barrier and--I felt--denying that character the right to make his own choices. Which, to be fair, is an issue in a lot of romances, historical or otherwise.
Possibly the reason your historical AUs--and I have only read a few of them--haven't sent me straight to the back button is that you do think about the story you want to tell, and at what point a romance is going to derail it. And that Doctor Who story I linked to, which mostly worked for me, is gen.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2010-07-09 03:10 pm (UTC)Ironically--since most historical AUs and vast numbers of historical novels are romances--I think the romance is often where--for me, anyway--the historical context breaks down. By prioritizing a romance that would be unlikely to happen in one's setting, or wouldn't have been written about if it did, one sort of demotes the historical setting. And that's another thing that really bugged me about Restraint, the Supernatural regency AU--the Jensen Ackles character was sort of aware that he was interested in men, but had no intention of ever doing anything about, and I felt like that was a perfectly valid choice for someone in that position at that time, but the author clearly doesn't feel that way, and so the story is largely about breaking down that barrier and--I felt--denying that character the right to make his own choices. Which, to be fair, is an issue in a lot of romances, historical or otherwise.
Possibly the reason your historical AUs--and I have only read a few of them--haven't sent me straight to the back button is that you do think about the story you want to tell, and at what point a romance is going to derail it. And that Doctor Who story I linked to, which mostly worked for me, is gen.