History Ho: Is You Is Or Is You Ain't? Part One

I've seen a lot of debate over the research used, or not used, in historical romances. Many readers feel that meticulous research pays off; others really couldn't care as long as the story's good.

I can see both viewpoints. I am a history ho of long standing, and when certain details are wrong it drives me insane. Case in point- one scene I read had the requisite beefy Scottish hero (don't you know ALL highlanders were built like seven foot tall linebackers?) running up a stairwell in a tiny English inn. These stairs, if described like every other I've ever read about, would be a nice fit for the Munchkins. This hero's just heard his lady scream, so he draws his sword as he runs up stairs. Okay, fine. But the author doesn't call it a sword. Not a blade, not singing steel, but identifies it as a claymore.

I'm aware that the average reader may not know what a claymore is. But the author obviously didn't, either. I'm guessing she saw the word in some other research and liked it, thinking it was interchangable with any other kind of sword. For the uninitiated, a claymore is a six foot blade. A weapon with reach to it, and heft. It's called a two-handed sword for a reason. It did not rest lightly in a scabbard attached to a man's belt; it quite obviously had to be slung across the back. When this hero ran up a close, cozy staircase while drawing one of the biggest swords ever made I got sucked right out of the story. I kept waiting for him to get stuck, or at least brain himself.

I shook it off and kept reading. It was a decent story. Later, the poor hero has been tortured, one hand crushed and basically useless. He still uses the called-by-its-name claymore. If he had arms strong enough to use that sword one handed then he moved out of the realm of muscled hunkiness and onto the "we're so bulked we have no necks" cover of Ripped magazine. That was it- I was out of the zone completely and it left a bad aftertaste in an otherwise good book.

Suspension of disbelief is a weird, subjective thing. If you are building a world based loosely on history but plainly your romanticized view of it, I can go there. Julie Garwood is the prime example of this. I absolutely love her 13th century highland romances, but they might as well take place on Venus. In her world, highlanders are all honorable, honest, noble men who would never raise his hand to a woman or be mean to a child. They are all huge supreme warriors (see linebacker comment above) who wear their clan plaid proudly. Being a good history ho, I know that plaids didn't come along until much later- they didn't wear those in the 1200's. And having a certain pattern for a certain clan is a fairly recent construct, too- how much sense would it make for these expert soldiers, who were at war with just about everybody, to ride about in a tartan that proclaims "Hey! I'm a MacLeod! Come get me!" Think of it this way: Braveheart got it wrong. Rob Roy got it right.

But I'm okay with it, because the books scream My World And Welcome To It. It's when all the history is taken seriously that I get kind of nitpicky. And in case any of you think I'm going to talk about Diana Gabaldon's Outlander series, I'll simply say this. I liked the first one until the pervert Randall got his hands on the hero. Sorry, I just don't want to read about that sort of thing. I can look at objectively and say it was a fine piece of writing, but I only have so much time to indulge myself in a good book and I don't want to waste it. Ms. Gabaldon took a lot of grief when she had her highland hero Jamie actually beat his wife for disobedience. I say it was one halfway truthful episode in a whole book where Jamie was more sensitive and loving than any modern man I know. Medieval anywhere was a brutal place, and men, even good men, were more parental to their wives than partners. Her inclusion of that one scene didn't totally impress this history ho.

Next: The Old South and the Old West: Hit weren't nuthin like ya think!