I've read some of the stories in The Elephant Vanishes (I discovered him via the reprinting of "The Second Bakery Attack" in The Year's Best Fantasy and Horror, which is a story that just fills me with giddy joy whenever I reread it), but none of his novels.

For Susan, especially, interesting article on historical novels in the Globe and Mail.

From the article:

Nonetheless, historical novels are often dismissed as low-grade formula writing, the guy's equivalent of a romance novel. It doesn't help that the Romance Writers' Association includes historical novels in its self-definition -- as long as they have a love interest and a happy ending.

t sputters with fury

Well, the author's not wrong that serial war-historicals probably fill the same gap in men that serial romance-historicals tend to fill in women *; and he's not wrong that a number of these historicals of both types are crap. As for the assumption joining these two ideas, well, it's the same foolishness that calls all fanfic slash, isn't it?

* Actually it's interesting -- I think women "cross over" and read war-historicals, but I do think their primary intended audience is usually male. (Based not least on marketing, prose style, etc.) I know very few men cross over and read romance-historicals.

I was sent the article because Marlene was curious as to whether I saw myself as being even remotely a historical writer. By those definitions, no: while my stuff is permeated with history, very little of it actually has a historical setting. Even in the new series, where the historical events that led to the songs and hauntings is vital, the only actual historically set bits are the epilogues, at the end of each book.

Eyes in the Fire jumped back and forth between two eras, modern and pre-Roman occupation of Southwestern England. I researched trhe history, but the book is not a love story, has no romantic angle at all, and very definitely does not have a happy ending.

So she was curious as to where I thought my own stuff fits into the definitions posited in the article. And I'm thinking, no, by those definitions I write neither historicals nor romances.

Magic realism. That's the ticket. Ghosts and Magritte. Or something.

Well, I still think they're more than implying that all romances are crap, and possibly that any novel that follows a formula is crap. And even though I know I can do nothing about that particular brand of snobbery, it still pisses me off. I mean, who the hell gets to dictate you can't have excellent, intelligent storytelling within the bounds of a genre?

who the hell gets to dictate you can't have excellent, intelligent storytelling within the bounds of a genre?

The poopyheads, obviously.

The poopyheads, obviously.

t grins

Well, I still think they're more than implying that all romances are crap, and possibly that any novel that follows a formula is crap.

They are. We are in general agreement that the tone of article is, er, patronising, to say the least.

This may or may not sound odd, but I was unaware that the prime audience for historical novels was male.

As a reader, I get furious when it is assumed by editors, reviewers, etc that I read romance because I don't have a brain in my head and can't handle anything thicker than a Harlequin novel and no words over 4 syllables. No, I read what intrigues and what I care about. I *could* read Tolkein, if I wanted. I can understand it and comprehend it and *get* it, I just choose not to. Tolkein did not write in a way that appeals to me. I would never say he is a shit writer or a hack or a no talent shite, he just has a style of writing that doesn't appeal to me. And he's not the only author I don't care for. There are plenty, and a lot of them are the "GOOD" authors.